[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 46 (Monday, November 18, 1996)]
[Pages 2393-2397]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks Announcing Participation in Missions in Bosnia and Zaire and an 
Exchange With Reporters

November 15, 1996

    The President. Good morning. One year ago in Dayton, the leaders of 
Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia turned from the horror of war to the promise 
of peace. Their historic decision came after nearly 4 years of horrible 
bloodshed, the bloodiest conflict Europe has seen since World War II, 
after a quarter million deaths, after 2 million people were made 
refugees, after countless atrocities that shocked the conscience of the 
world.
    When the Balkan leaders chose peace, I asked the American people to 
help them by supporting the participation of our troops in a NATO-led 
implementation force to secure the Dayton Agreement. I promised that the 
mission would be carefully defined with clear and realistic goals. I 
said it would be completed in about a year.
    IFOR has succeeded beyond our expectations. As a result, its mission 
will end as planned on December 20th, and every single item on IFOR's 
military checklist has been accomplished. It has maintained the cease-
fire and separated the parties along a new demilitarized zone. It has 
monitored the placement of thousands of heavy weapons in holding areas, 
overseen a massive troop demobilization and the transfer of hundreds of 
square miles of territory from one side to another, and allowed the 
people of Bosnia to vote in free national elections.
    That has been a remarkable achievement. In the process we have seen 
how important and effective the NATO Alliance remains. And we have seen 
the possibilities for cooperation with Russia and the other members of 
the Partnership For Peace. Today, the Bosnian people are far better off 
than they were a year ago; their prospects for a future of peace and 
freedom are much brighter.
    Already, the change in the day-to-day lives of the people there is 
dramatic: marketplaces are full of life, not death; more people have 
roofs over their head, food on their tables, heat and hot water. The 
routines of normal life--going to work, coming home from school--are 
slowly becoming a reality.

[[Page 2394]]

Bosnia's bitter harvest of hatred, however, has not yet disappeared.
    For the last 12 months, the killing has stopped, and with time, the 
habits of peace can take hold. This success we owe to IFOR. But its 
achievements on the military side have not been matched, despite all our 
efforts, by similar progress on the civilian side. Quite frankly, 
rebuilding the fabric of Bosnia's economic and political life is taking 
longer than anticipated.
    Economic activity is only just resuming. Its pace must be quickened 
and its reach extended. The Presidency, the Parliament, the 
constitutional court, created by the elections, are still in their 
infancy. They need time to work. Civilian police forces must be better 
trained. We must complete training and equipping the Bosnian Federation 
military so that a stable balance of power can take hold and renewed 
aggression is less likely. And municipal elections remain to be 
organized and held. Let me emphasize that the Bosnian people, with the 
help of international civilian groups, will be responsible for all this 
work. But for a time, they will need the stability and the confidence 
that only an outside security force can provide.
    NATO has been studying options to give them the help that time will 
provide by providing a new security presence in Bosnia when IFOR 
withdraws. That study is now complete. I have carefully reviewed its 
options, and I have decided to instruct the United States representative 
to NATO to inform our allies that, in principle, the United States will 
take part in a follow-on force in Bosnia.
    For my agreement in principle to become a commitment, however, I 
must be satisfied that the final recommendation NATO adopts and the 
operational plan it develops are clear, limited, and achievable. The new 
mission's focus should be to prevent a resumption of hostilities so that 
economic reconstruction and political reconciliation can accelerate. 
That will require a strong but limited military presence in Bosnia, able 
to respond quickly and decisively to any violations of the cease-fire.
    The new mission will be more limited than IFOR and will require 
fewer troops. It will not face the fundamental military challenge of 
separating two hostile armies, because IFOR has accomplished that task. 
It will be charged with working to maintain the stability that IFOR 
created. It will discourage the parties from taking up arms again, while 
encouraging them to resume full responsibility for their own security as 
quickly as possible.
    IFOR plowed the field in which the seeds of peace have been planted. 
This new mission will provide the climate for them to take root and the 
time to begin growing.
    Our military planners have concluded that this new mission will 
require fewer than half the number of troops we contributed to IFOR, 
about 8,500. There will be an American commander and tough rules of 
engagement. Every 6 months we will review whether the stability can be 
maintained with fewer forces. By the end of 1997, we expect to draw down 
to a much smaller deterrent force, about half the initial size, and we 
will propose to our NATO Allies that by June of 1998 the mission's work 
should be done, and the forces should be able to withdraw.
    The United States cannot and should not try to solve every problem 
in the world, but where our interests are clear and our values are at 
stake, where we can make a difference, we must act, and we must lead. 
Clearly, Bosnia is such an example. Every American should be proud of 
the difference the United States has already made in Bosnia, ending a 
terrible slaughter, saving thousands of lives, securing countless 
futures. We have a responsibility to see that commitment through, to 
give the peace America helped to make in Bosnia a chance to grow strong, 
self-sufficient, and lasting.
    Earlier this week, I also decided that, in principle, the United 
States should take part in an international humanitarian effort to be 
part of a release force that Canada will lead in Zaire. Two years ago, 
following genocide in Rwanda, more than a million Rwandans fled for 
Zaire. Recently their plight has worsened as fighting among militant 
forces has driven them from their camps. Violence has begun to spiral 
out of control, preventing relief agencies from providing food and 
medicine to the refugees who are now vulnerable to starvation and to 
disease. The world's most powerful nation must not turn its back on so 
many desperate people and so many innocent children who are now at risk.

[[Page 2395]]

    The mission Canada proposes to lead, and that I believe America 
should take part in, would provide security for civilian relief agencies 
to deliver the aid these people must have and to help the refugees who 
so desire to return home to Rwanda.
    America's contribution to such a force would match our special 
capabilities, such as providing security at the Goma airfield and 
helping to airlift Allied forces. Neither the new security force in 
Bosnia nor the humanitarian relief effort in Zaire will be free of risk. 
But I will do everything in my power to minimize the risks by making 
sure both missions are clear and achievable before I give the green 
light. American leadership places a special burden on the men and women 
of our Armed Forces and their families. We ask a lot from them, and 
without fail, they deliver for us.
    Now, as we contemplate calling on them again I ask us, first of all, 
to remember the astonishing job that they have done, remarkably free of 
violence in Bosnia. And I ask that every American keep them in their 
thoughts and prayers.

Timing of the Announcement

    Q. Mr. President, what do you say to critics who say that you waited 
till after the election to make the announcement that you're sending 
troops abroad, or keeping troops in Bosnia?
    The President. Well, I would say two things. First of all, it was 
well before the election that the NATO Allies in Europe most closely 
concerned with this came to us and said, we do not believe that the 
civilian and political and economic functions have developed to the 
point where there can be no security presence in Bosnia, even though 
IFOR has done everything it was asked to do. And I said that I would 
consider American participation if there were a clear mission with an 
achievable goal. And that was clear before the election.
    But more importantly, I would say that the NATO ministers met and 
made their recommendation to me just last week. We needed some time to 
study it. I had a meeting last evening, quite an extensive one, with 
General Shalikashvili making the military case and with Secretary 
Christopher and Secretary Perry. And the whole national security team 
met with the Vice President and me. We have done this in a timely 
fashion following the NATO timetable.
    The most important thing the American people need to know is that 
mission succeeded; it did do what it was supposed to do in 12 months. 
But we, frankly--when I say ``we,'' I mean all the people involved in 
NATO--believed that we could make more economic and political progress 
than we were able to make. So, we believe there should be a new but much 
more limited mission simply to maintain the security that has been 
established and to maintain the conditions in which the political and 
economic progress can be made.
    Q. Don't you think you should have laid this idea out, though, while 
you were campaigning so that people had a sense that part of what they 
got when they got your reelection was the extension of this mission?
    The President. Well, I believe that they did believe that. Keep in 
mind, before the election it was said that the Europeans thought we 
ought to stay in a more limited way, and I said I would consider doing 
that. Frankly, I want to pay a compliment to Senator Dole--I think 
because he said, in a very statesmanlike way, that he would support 
doing that, that we had too big an investment in the success of the 
process--there was not a difference of opinion on it. So, that it did 
not--I think that it did not become more hotly debated in the campaign, 
and therefore it maybe wasn't focused on by as many people. But the 
issue was out there.
    I couldn't agree and describe a mission that had not yet been 
developed by the NATO military planners or recommended to us. So, I 
would say that it maybe didn't get the attention that it otherwise would 
have gotten, and it may be because Senator Dole made what I thought was 
a very statesmanlike statement early on that, of course, if it had to be 
done, that he would agree.

Zaire Mission

    Q. Mr. President, there are some reports of refugees in quite large 
numbers moving within Zaire back toward the Rwandan border and across, 
relief agencies in Rwanda saying that they have plenty of food and 
equip- 

[[Page 2396]]

ment and so forth once they're back across the border; is there a 
chance, sir, that this mission may not be needed?

    The President. Well, let me say we have some very good preliminary 
news about the prospects that the refugees will be able to go back to 
Rwanda, and then it may work out better than we had originally thought. 
But I would say first of all it is preliminary, and secondly--obviously, 
the dimensions of what has to be done could change based on the 
realities on the ground; we're watching it every day. I think we have to 
be prepared for the prospect that we will still have to have some 
presence there to facilitate this and to make sure that as quickly as 
possible we get everything that is needed to them.
    I don't think we know enough yet, Brit [Brit Hume, ABC News], to say 
that the mission won't be needed. It's a hopeful sign, but that's all I 
can say right now.

Second Bosnia Mission

    Q. Mr. President, on Bosnia, do you technically consider this to be 
a different mission, and will there be a wholesale change of forces over 
there?
    The President. Yes, we are withdrawing the IFOR forces, and this is 
a different mission.
    Q. American forces--I'm sorry.
    The President. That's correct. This will be a different mission. And 
there will be some overlap there because, if you remember, the planning 
I think called for a phased drawdown that would run into early next year 
anyway. But we believe the size of this will be about 8,500--what will 
be required--and it will be different.

Second Term Transition

    Q. Mr. President, you have your international policy team here 
standing with you, and we were led to believe, at least a little while 
ago, that you would be naming people rather quickly to that. That 
process seems to have slowed down. Can you tell us why?
    The President. Yes. One of the things that all of the people who are 
here with me have said, including Secretary Perry and Secretary 
Christopher, and that a lot of people I have talked to about this, 
including people who might be a part of it and others, they have 
reminded me that the thing that has really made our work as successful 
as it has been in so many ways is that we've had a remarkable amount of 
teamwork, remarkably free of rancor and remarkably free of the kind of 
undercutting that has too often happened in our national politics.
    Several people have said if you have to take a little more time to 
feel good about the composition of the team you put together, by all 
means do it, because it is the team that will rise or fall and that will 
advance America's cause. And so I have been thinking, obviously with a 
lot of gratitude, of the level of teamwork we've had, the level of 
cooperation, how we've worked together. And what I concluded after 
talking about this extensively with the Vice President in particular is 
that we needed to make absolutely sure that we knew what the team was 
going to be.
    Now let me also tell you that all of us on the transition team, the 
Vice President and Mr. Panetta and Mr. Bowles and all the rest of us, 
are working very hard. I have never worked any harder than I have in the 
days since the last election to make sure that we make the most of this 
transition. I need a little bit of vacation, and I hope those of you who 
are going with me will get a little one, too. But we will make timely 
appointments; they will be ready well in advance of the Congress 
beginning. And they will have adequate opportunity for the Senate to 
review them, and I think we will be in very good shape.
    But the specific answer to your question is that I want to make sure 
that the team works.

Zaire

    Q. We're told that one of the conditions for sending U.S. troops 
into Zaire as part of this humanitarian mission is that the U.S. gets 
some kind of assurances from these rival militias that they will cease 
their hostilities so American GI's don't have to shoot their way in. Is 
that really a realistic expectation, or do you suspect that there will 
be so much firepower that that will be sufficient to stop the 
hostilities?
    The President. Well, I might ought to let Secretary Perry answer 
this question, but I'll take a crack at it.

[[Page 2397]]

    We will have, as we always do, very tough rules of engagement if 
somebody takes action against us. It is having that kind of rules, that 
kind of strength--that's one of the reasons that we had the almost 
incredible experience we've had in Bosnia so far in terms of there not 
being conflict.
    But on the other hand, when we send a mission in of peace like that, 
we don't believe that we should have to assume on the front end that 
we'll have to shoot our way in. So what we want to know is at least that 
there is a receptivity to our coming in there, all of us in the 
multinational force. We obviously understand if you've got a lot of 
people around there with guns, somebody might shoot at you, and you have 
to be able to shoot back. But that's different from having an official 
policy that if this international mission goes in, they're going to be 
considered an invading force and be subject to attack from the minute 
that the airplane lands. That's the difference, I think.
    Do you think that--is a fair statement? Would you like to add to 
that?
    Secretary of Defense Perry. That is exactly right. We require 
cooperation from the governments, because we do not want to make forced 
landings at the airport. On the other hand, the guerrilla forces that 
are located in that area, whatever they tell us, we want acquiescence. 
We do not expect to have any formal agreement from them or would not 
have any confidence they can carry out any formal agreement.
    It is important, however, that both the Government of Rwanda and the 
Government of Zaire give us not only acquiescence but cooperation. We 
need that. They also have a lot of influence on those guerrilla forces. 
That's important.
    The President. Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 11:20 a.m. in the Briefing Room at the 
White House.