[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 25 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Pages 1097-1103]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference in Moscow, Russia

April 20, 1996

    The President. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking 
President Yeltsin for his leadership in first initiating and then 
hosting this conference. The work that we all did here in Moscow, for 
me, is a part of my most important duty as President, increasing the 
safety and security of the American people.
    At this nuclear summit, we have done that by reducing the grave 
dangers posed by nuclear weapons and the materials used to build them. 
The steps we have taken here today and the foundation of cooperation 
we've set for the future will make not only the American people but 
people all over the world more secure.
    First, we resolved to complete a true zero yield comprehensive test 
ban treaty this year. Never before have all our nations joined as one 
and embraced this goal which would ban any nuclear explosion, including 
weapons test explosions. American leaders since Presidents Eisenhower 
and Kennedy have sought a comprehensive test ban to help stop the spread 
of nuclear weapons and to strengthen the security of the United States 
and nations throughout the world.
    Today, because of the progress made here in Moscow, we are closer to 
this goal than at any time since the dawn of the nuclear age. Our work 
will speed progress on the treaty which we hope to sign in September at 
the United Nations. With more hard work we can soon see the day when no 
nuclear weapons are detonated anywhere on the face of the Earth.
    In this time of rapid technological change and increasingly open 
borders, one of the greatest dangers we face is the possibility of 
nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands. Today we agreed to work 
together more closely than ever to prevent that from happening. We will 
strengthen safeguards on fissile materials and components that might be 
used to build a bomb. We have created a joint program to fight 
trafficking in these materials by dramatically increasing cooperation 
among our nations' law enforcement, customs, and intelligence 
authorities.
    Preventing the spread of nuclear material is a global problem that 
demands global cooperation. We want to enlist others in this effort as 
well. Already Ukraine has endorsed the program adopted here. We invite 
other nations to do the same and to join us in this crucial work.
    We also took steps to make the civilian use of nuclear energy safer. 
The 10th anniversary of Chernobyl is only a few days off. We're 
determined to do more to increase reactor safety and prevent another 
tragedy from happening. We reaffirmed our agreement with President 
Kuchma to close Chernobyl by the year 2000, and we'll work to end the 
dumping of nuclear materials in oceans.
    All our efforts here have been driven by a single principle: When we 
use nuclear energy, our first and highest priority must be safety.
    From the beginning, it has been a crucial goal, a central goal of my 
Presidency to further reduce the nuclear threat. I'm proud of what we've 
achieved so far. Because of my agreement with President Yeltsin, for the 
first time since the dawn of the nuclear age,

[[Page 1098]]

no Russian missiles are targeted at United States cities. We secured the 
indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, froze North 
Korea's dangerous nuclear program, cut existing nuclear arsenals by 
putting the START I treaty into force, and cleared the way for even 
deeper cuts by ratifying the START II treaty. And we persuaded Ukraine, 
Belarus, and Kazakhstan to give up the nuclear weapons on their soil.
    There is more we must do. In this new era of possibilities we do 
have real opportunities to make all our citizens safer, but we know 
there are real challenges there as well. This important summit has put 
these issues of nuclear safety at the top of the international agenda. 
Today, we took yet another step back from the nuclear precipice. We must 
not rest until these dangers have been reduced, until the cloud of fear 
has been lifted, until we can feel safe that the power of the atom is 
being used to benefit human life and not imperil it.

Support of Russian Denuclearization

    Q. Mr. President, even with the millions previously pledged by the 
United States, Russia is still said to be many years away from being 
able to properly guard nuclear materials and facilities. This summit, 
however, is producing no new financial pledges to such programs and 
instead is producing more paper agreements of the type Russia's already 
been slow to comply with. How confident can you be in Russia's will--in 
its financial goals to carry out the agreements it's signed, 
particularly if it has----
    The President. Well, first of all, we do have some funds set aside 
for this purpose that have not been fully drawn down. And secondly, in 
terms of the United States and Russia, we've been working on this issue 
for better than 2 years now, and I can say that in the last year we have 
seen a substantial number of specific things being done by the Russians 
to increase nuclear safety here. So I think there has plainly been 
movement, I think they're clearly moving in the right direction.
    Let me state furthermore that this is a global problem. Russia is 
not the only country in the world that has this problem by a long shot. 
And if you read this document, it is clear that the document will only 
have meaning if we act on it, but the unusual thing about this document 
compared with past ones is that this is, as far as I know, the first 
time that these eight nations have agreed together to do very specific 
things to try to control the trafficking in nuclear materials, which is 
something we're all very concerned about. And given the rise of 
terrorist networks and the interconnections through computer technology 
in the world, it is all the more important.
    But this situation with regard to Russia is better than it was a 
year ago. There are still funds that can be drawn down. And as specific 
things come up, if we can't fund them, I think that we'll be able to 
find the funds available. I am not worried about the money on this 
aspect of this large issue that we've been talking about.
    Go ahead, Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press], you're next.

Iran

    Q. Mr. President, after the Summit on Nuclear Safety, President 
Yeltsin said that Russia is going to go ahead with its sale of nuclear 
technology to Iran, a state that you consider a terrorist nation. Do you 
still consider this sale a bad idea, and does it undercut this whole 
summit?
    The President. No. Yes, it's a bad idea; no, it does not undercut 
the summit. I think it's a bad idea because we're against any nuclear 
cooperation with Iran for one simple reason: We believe they're trying 
to develop a nuclear program, notwithstanding what they may say to the 
contrary.
    The defense that Russia has made is that they're simply giving them 
the technology that we propose to provide to North Korea. The difference 
is, we are moving North Korea down on the scale of nuclear capacity in a 
cooperative effort that, so far, North Korea has fully kept its word on. 
We are moving down, and we are dismantling a nuclear threat.
    In the case of Iran, they are moving up in their nuclear capacity 
even though what Russia proposes to transfer itself cannot be used to 
develop a nuclear weapon. And we just don't believe that there should be 
any

[[Page 1099]]

nuclear cooperation with a country who's trying to develop a nuclear 
program.

    We don't need any more states with nuclear capacity in this world to 
make weapons. We don't need that. So that's our position.
    Wolf [Wolf Blitzer, CNN].

Judicial Appointments

    Q. Mr. President, while you've been here, Senate majority leader Bob 
Dole delivered a major speech in Washington criticizing your record on 
fighting crime and your record in appointing what he describes as 
``liberal judges.'' I wonder if you'd care to respond to Senator Dole.

    The President. Well, I will respond at greater length after I get 
home. I do not--since I do not believe--I like the old-fashioned 
position that used to prevail that people didn't attack the President 
when he was on a foreign mission for the good of the country. It has 
been abandoned with regularity in the last 3\1/2\ years, but I don't 
think that makes it any worse a rule.
    I will just say this: Senator Dole voted for 98 percent of the 
judges that I appointed, and the rating systems for judges, going back 
to the Eisenhower administration by the American Bar Association, 
indicate that I have appointed the best qualified judges of any 
President since Mr. Eisenhower was in this job.
    And my record on the crime issue is quite clear, and I'll have a 
chance to reaffirm it next week when I get back and we sign the 
antiterrorism bill.
    Brit [Brit Hume, ABC].

Middle East and Irish Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, events from Lebanon to London--there have been 
setbacks for the peace efforts in which you have invested yourself and 
your prestige. I wonder if you may now feel that settlements you might 
have thought were almost within your grasp are now slipping away from 
you?

    The President. Well, if these peace efforts were easy, they would 
have been concluded a long time ago. And I never expected the road to be 
completely straight. I will say this: I had a good talk with Prime 
Minister Major today about the Irish peace process. The United States 
supports all-party talks and supports the elections that the Irish and 
British Governments have proposed as a vehicle to get to them. We 
strongly believe, I personally strongly believe that the cease-fire 
should be reinstituted. I believe that's what the overwhelming majority 
of the people of Northern Ireland of both traditions want. And we'll 
keep working toward that end. I think we've got a chance to see that 
process succeed.

    With regard to Lebanon, I had a long talk with Secretary Christopher 
this afternoon. He is in Syria now; he will see President Asad this 
evening. He will also have contact with the other foreign ministers that 
are there. And we're going to do the best we can to get this back on 
track. We have got to get the cease-fire. And we need to restore 
something like what existed in 1993, before it was broken a few days 
ago.

Middle East Peace Process

    Q. Mr. President, to follow up on that, a few hours ago, I guess it 
was, President Chirac was very optimistic about the prospects for a 
cease-fire, saying he thought that it was possible that could happen 
today or tomorrow. Do you share that optimism, first of all? And 
secondly, do you think that there is any life left at all in the overall 
peace process after what has been happening over the past 10 days?

    The President. Oh, yes. I don't think if--I think what happened in 
the past 10 days happened because there is life in the peace process. I 
think the resumption of the rocket--the Katyusha rockets, was a direct 
attempt to drive a stake through the peace process, through the heart of 
the peace process. I don't think this is very complicated.
    I think Hezbollah did what they did, and I think they have probably 
been very pleased in a tragic way that the Israeli reaction included the 
misfiring of certain shells that killed all those civilians because 
that's what they want to do. They want to kill the peace process. And I 
think the fact that they want to kill it shows that there is still life 
in it. And so I do believe that. This is a difficult period.
    Now, in terms of--President Chirac and I talked about this 
extensively today, and as

[[Page 1100]]

I said, the Secretary of State will have contact with the two European 
foreign ministers and the Russian foreign minister who are in Syria. He 
will then see President Asad, and he will then--I expect that he will 
probably go back to Jerusalem tonight, sometime late tonight.
    But I have found that predictions are not particularly useful, so I 
don't want to voice optimism or pessimism. I do want to say that there 
are two things we have to do here: We have got to get a--we have got to 
stop the violence, but we also have to get some sort of understanding 
that will enable the people of Lebanon and the people who live in the 
northern part of Israel to go back to a normal life.
    And my heart really goes out to them. The people who live in 
southern Lebanon are basically caught in a political web that is far 
beyond their ability to control. And so I hope to goodness we can give 
them back the elements of their life, so they at least have the security 
of peace in the next--for the indeterminate period. But if we can do 
that, I think the peace process can be put back on track.
    Yes, Rita [Rita Braver, CBS]?

Russia and Iran

    Q. I wanted to go back to the question that Terry asked you earlier. 
You said that you didn't think that Russia's cooperation with Iran on 
sharing of nuclear technology undercut what happened here today. And 
then you seemed to lay out all of the problems that that would lead to.
    The President. No, what I mean----
    Q. I wasn't quite finished. I wanted to ask if you didn't think that 
that might also lead to some skepticism about the entire relationship 
between the United States and Boris Yeltsin when he seems to persist in 
doing something that seems so clearly against the interest of not only 
the United States, but the rest of the world as you see it.
    The President. No, because on balance, we've gotten a lot more 
progress out of this nuclear relationship with the Russians than this 
one setback would indicate, number one. And number two, he didn't say 
one thing and do another here. I mean, he publicly said what they were 
going to do, so there's no evidence of dishonesty on the part of the 
Russian position whatever.
    I just think they're wrong. But if you compare that action, which I 
disagree with, with Yeltsin's detargeting the missiles, with putting 
START I into effect, with his support for START II, with his willingness 
to accelerate further our reduction and mutual efforts to reduce the 
nuclear threat, with the support that he's given us for the indefinite 
extension of the NPT, with the work that they have done with us to 
increase the security of nuclear materials in the last year--when you 
add up all the things that have been done and the things that Russia has 
committed to do in this treaty going forward, including supporting the 
zero yield comprehensive test ban, supporting the effort to end ocean 
dumping, supporting the convention on radioactive waste management, the 
answer is, this one thing that I strongly disagree with does not come 
close to outweighing the benefits that we've gotten out of this 
relationship.
    As I said, there are--Russia is not the only country that believes 
that they're just giving Iran the same technology that we've already 
approved for North Korea in terms of generating nuclear power. The 
difference is we're bringing North Korea down; they will bring Iran up 
by some marginal capacity to deal with and understand nuclear technology 
and continue to build toward nuclear capacity. And, we believe, 
notwithstanding what they say to the contrary, that they want to have 
the ability to produce weapons. So we think it's a very serious thing.

Russian Elections

    Q. Mr. President, I know you don't like to comment on the Russian 
Presidential elections other than to say that the U.S. supports those 
who are in favor of democratic reform, but based on that policy, I 
wonder if you could explain your thinking and rationale for meeting 
tomorrow with the leading Communist candidate at a reception.
    The President. Well, yes. First of all, the last time I was here I 
met with a representative group of political leaders across all the 
parties and had a joint discussion--I didn't have any individual 
bilaterals--because Russia is essentially a multiparty state. And so, 
I'm going to do that again tomorrow. But

[[Page 1101]]

that's not inconsistent with our position that in democracies, we 
believe the people have to make their own decisions, and we will honor 
the decisions that they make.
    In the countries that have essentially two-party systems, when I go 
to a country I virtually always meet with the leader of the opposition. 
And that's not just my policy; that's been the policy of the American 
President over a long period of time.
    So anybody who is playing by the rules here, the democratic rules, 
participating in the democratic system, is entitled to do it under the 
Russian Constitution, and I'm going to meet tomorrow with--the 
Ambassador invited a number of people here from the different political 
parties, and I'm still not sure who is coming and who is not. But I will 
meet with those who come and let them say whatever they want to say, and 
I'll ask them a few questions.
    Q. Do you consider that a way of keeping the door open?
    The President. Absolutely not. It's not opening a door or closing a 
door, it should be--there is no significance to that in terms of this 
election process in Russia. This is something I do everywhere. When I go 
to other countries and I meet with the heads of government, when there 
is one clear head of an opposition, I meet with the opposition. In this 
case, Russia is an emerging democracy with a lot of different parties.
    The last time I was here, I had a good talk with eight or 10 
different leaders from around Russia, including leaders of other parties 
in the Duma and a couple of governors, heads of other provinces, or 
oblasts. And so that's what I do, and I'm going to do it again tomorrow.
    George [George Condon, Copley News Service]?
    Q. Mr. President, have the Russian economic and political reforms 
reached a point where they are essentially irreversible, or are they 
sufficiently fragile that the election of the wrong person here would 
bring us back to an adversarial state, or even a resumption of some 
modified form of the cold war?
    The President. I believe that when you--what did Nelson Mandela 
say--the most important--one that Nelson Mandela says--the most 
important election is the next election, or--no, Aristide said that the 
most important election, when a country becomes a democracy, is the 
second election.
    What I believe is that the Russians have established a pretty 
vigorous democratic system already. And if they have another 
Presidential election that's a free and fair election with a significant 
amount of participation by the voters, I think every time you do that, 
it makes the path of democracy stronger and a reversal less likely.
    There is clearly more room for differences of policy on economic and 
on foreign affairs matters, but I believe that the growth of free 
enterprise in Russia and the beginnings of people, ordinary people 
feeling the economic benefits of it, plus the need that any great 
country has today for attracting capital from around the world through 
the international financial institutions and through private 
investments, are going to be at least strong incentives to maintain at 
some pace a direction toward economic as well as political reform.
    You know, no one knows--no one can predict the future, but I think 
on balance, the Russian people have been about the business of defining 
their greatness as they look to the future and not to the past. And if 
their greatness lies in freedom of expression of their people and of 
their accomplishments rather than their ability to either dominate 
others or have themselves dominated by a strong central, autocratic 
state, that whatever election results come out, the future will probably 
be all right.
    But this country just kind of got started on this a few years ago, 
so I don't know that any of us know the future. I can just say that the 
United States supports the democratic movement in Russia and we support 
economic reform, and we believe the country has enormous talent and 
enormous resources, and if it can get through this difficult period of 
transition with forward-looking leadership, that it will be a 
prosperous, strong, invaluable member of the world community in the 
future. And it all depends upon how the Russian people, ultimately, 
through their democracy, decide to define their greatness.
    Q. Mr. President, that answer could let some people believe that you 
don't think there's really that much difference between

[[Page 1102]]

the reelection of Boris Yeltsin and the election of Gennady Zyuganov. 
That isn't what you believe, is it?
    The President. I believe that that's the story you want to write, 
one way or the other. [Laughter.] And the right, the correct position 
for the United States is not to become involved in any direct way.
    I have had a good relationship with President Yeltsin. He has done a 
lot of good things in terms of removing the nuclear threat from the 
world and in terms of increasing the security of the Russian people, the 
American people, and others who are affected by it. And we have worked 
together to get international financial institutions to support Russia's 
economic transition because it's been a very difficult thing. And 
everyone knows of that relationship.
    But it is not right for the United States or for any other country 
to tell people how they should vote. That's what democracy is about. How 
would you like it and how would you be affected by it if leaders of all 
the other countries in the world showed up in the United States between 
now and November and said vote for President Clinton or vote for Senator 
Dole? Most Americans would say, ``Well, I hope we'll be friends when 
this is over, but I don't much care who you think I should vote for. I 
believe I'm smart enough to make that decision for myself.''
    That's the only point I'm making. You should read nothing into this 
one way or the other except the fact that the United States and Russia, 
in my view, have a big obligation to their people to continue to be 
allies, to have a constructive relationship, to resolve as many of their 
differences as possible and to move forward together into the future.
    Our soldiers are side by side with IFOR in Bosnia today. We have 
done a lot of things together. And my specific belief is that neither 
the President of the United States nor anyone else has any business 
telling the citizens of Russia in any kind of explicit way how they 
should vote. Yes, there will be consequences to the votes they cast, and 
they will be able to sort out those consequences. And sometimes voters 
are right about what the consequences are of their votes, and sometimes 
they're not. And that's not only true in Russia; that's true in the 
United States and lots of other places.
    But our business is to support a certain direction, to reaffirm our 
own values, our own interests and the terms on which we want to engage 
Russia in partnership. That's our business here. The business of the 
Russian people is to be good citizens in a new democracy and become 
well-informed and make up their own mind and go and vote and chart their 
own destiny. And that's what they're going to do.

Criticism From Home

    Q. Mr. President, at any of the tables that you've been sitting at 
in your three stops this week, have you felt undercut as a leader 
because of the criticism from home, the political criticism from home?
    The President. No. Not at all.

Assistance to Russia

    Q. Mr. President, I represent one of the newspapers, and we see all 
around us, in Moscow even, children starving, some of them dying. What 
are we going to do? How can you help us? We hear that there is 
assistance coming from the United States to help our children. Where is 
this assistance going? We don't see it. It's disappearing. Can you tell 
us anything about what we can do? Help us work our way through this 
thing. But we see the money just disappearing. Please.
    The President. First of all, most of the direct aid that the United 
States has given to Russia has been in the area of dealing with the 
aftermath of the cold war. And we put a lot of resources into helping 
bring down the nuclear threat so that Russia would be able to find other 
resources to deal with the human problems of the people.
    Secondly, we have recently worked very hard to qualify Russia for 
very large sums of funds through the international financial 
institutions, which should be beginning to flow now.
    Thirdly, we are working on what specific things we can do in 
addition to that to, both on our own and through international 
cooperation with other countries, to deal with some of the most urgent 
humanitarian problems. Just yesterday, for example, when I was in St. 
Petersburg, I had a conversation about

[[Page 1103]]

what we could do to help to get more humanitarian aid to benefit the 
Russian children in some specific areas of problems that have been 
outlined.
    So I know this is frustrating to you because the economy collapsed 
so much and it's not totally recovered. But I believe that the economy 
is getting better and that, because of that, more aid will be able to 
flow now. And I think that if you can stay on the course of reform, I 
believe that there will be marked improvements in the next couple of 
years. That's what I believe.
    But I also think, as a practical matter, that I and other world 
leaders who want to support Russia need to examine much more 
specifically some of the humanitarian problems that we could alleviate 
at what is a relatively small cost to ourselves with a huge benefit to 
the people of Russia.
    Peter, do you want to translate that? Did you understand? Can you 
hear me? Peter, are you going to say that in Russian, or not? Do we need 
to do that? Oh, it's simultaneous.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 125th news conference began at 7:07 p.m. in the 
Radisson Slavjanskaya Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to President 
Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine; Prime Minister John Major of the United 
Kingdom; President Jacques Chirac of France; President Hafiz al-Asad of 
Syria, and President Nelson Mandela of South Africa.