[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 22 (Monday, June 2, 1997)]
[Pages 796-807]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Tony Blair of the 
United Kingdom in London

May 29, 1997

    Prime Minister Blair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The 
President and I have ranged over many subjects in the hours we have had 
together, and we intend to continue those discussions later today.
    We've discussed Bosnia and our continuing efforts to work together 
in addressing one of the most pressing crises on the international 
agenda. We've discussed, obviously, Northern Ireland and our 
determination to do all that we can to bring about the cease-fire that 
will allow all-party talks to proceed in the best possible climate and 
that a cease-fire is genuine and credible with all the parties there.
    We agreed that NATO is and will remain the cornerstone of Europe's 
defense. And I

[[Page 797]]

was grateful, too, for the President's expression of continuing support 
on Hong Kong. We agreed, too, that Britain does not need to choose 
between being strong in Europe or being close to the United States of 
America but that by being strong in Europe we will further strengthen 
our relationships with the U.S.
    President Clinton will have more to say on these and other issues in 
a moment. But we agreed, too, and have for sometime, that this is a new 
era which calls for a new generation politics and a new generation 
leadership. This is the generation that prefers reason to doctrine, that 
is strong in ideals but indifferent to ideology, whose instinct is to 
judge government not on grand designs but by practical results. This is 
the generation trying to take politics to a new plateau, seeking to rise 
above some of the old divisions of right and left. It is what, on my 
last visit to the United States to meet the President, I described as 
the radical center of politics.
    The soil is the same, the values of progress, justice, of a one 
nation-country in which ambition for oneself

and compassion for others can live easily together. But the horizons are 
new; the focus and agenda are also new.

    We discussed how this is the generation that claims education, 
skills, and technology as the instruments of economic prosperity and 
personal fulfillment, not all battles between state and market. This is 
the generation that believes in international engagement, in our nations 
being stronger by being open to the world, not in isolationism. This is 
the generation that knows that it will fall to us to modernize the New 
Deal and the welfare state, to replace dependency by independence. This 
is the generation, too, searching for a new set of rules to define 
citizenship for the 21st century, intolerant of crime but deeply 
respectful and tolerant towards those of different races, colors, class, 
and creed, prepared to stand up against discrimination in all its 
guises. This is the generation, too, that celebrates the successful 
entrepreneur but knows that we cannot prosper as a country unless we 
prosper together, with no underclass of the excluded shut out from 
society's future. It's a generation that puts merit before privilege, 
which cares more about the environment than about some outdated notion 
of class war. New times, new challenges, the new political generation 
must meet them.
    So yes, we discussed the pressing issues of diplomacy and 
statesmanship and peace in troubled parts of our world. But perhaps just 
as important was our discussion of this new agenda for the new world in 
which we find ourselves. We agreed that our priority as political 
leaders must indeed be education, education, education, flexible labor 
markets, welfare reform, partnership with business.
    In Europe, in particular, we need to reduce long-term and youth 
unemployment, both of which are unacceptably high. The U.S. has been 
more successful in creating jobs, but it too faces new challenges in 
seeking to assure opportunity for all its citizens.
    The United States has the presidency of the G-8 in 1997. In 1998, 
Britain has the presidency both of the European Union and the G-8. We 
have agreed today to a common agenda and a shared determination to 
identify what action needs to be taken to tackle the problems we all 
face, to identify what reforms have worked where, what reforms have 
failed, and how we can learn the lessons both of success and of failure.
    As part of this process, Britain will host a G-8 conference of 
Finance and Social Affairs Ministers in the early months of our G-8 
presidency next year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be 
announcing further details today.
    We have a shared language. We have a shared outlook on many of the 
issues that face us. We are determined, too, to share our ideas, our 
expertise, and our commitment to a new era of cooperation and of 
understanding.
    Thank you.
    President Clinton.
    President Clinton. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. First, let 
me say it's an honor and a pleasure to be here today. I've looked 
forward to this for a long time. I have read countless articles about 
how Prime Minister Blair and I have everything in common, and I'm still 
looking for my 179-seat majority. I have been all ears in trying to get 
the advice about how such a thing might be achieved.
    On a more serious note, let me say that one of the most important 
and meaningful

[[Page 798]]

responsibilities of any American President is to carry forward the 
unique partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom. 
Over the last 50 years, our unbreakable alliance has helped to bring our 
people unparalleled peace and prosperity and security. It's an alliance 
based on shared values and common aspirations.
    In the last 4 years, I was privileged to lead the United States in 
pursuing that partnership. I had a good and productive relationship with 
Prime Minister Major, and I am very much looking forward to working with 
Tony Blair. I have asked him in pursuance of this to come to Washington 
as early as is convenient for both of us, and I expect that there will 
be an official visit pretty soon. And I know that the people of the 
United States are looking forward to having him there.
    I have been impressed by the determination of the Prime Minister and 
his Cabinet to prepare this nation for the next century, to focus on 
economic growth, to make education the number one priority because, 
without it, you can't guarantee every person in any country the chance 
to compete and succeed in the world toward which we're moving. I have 
been impressed by his understanding that in order for the United Kingdom 
to fulfill its historic leadership role in Europe and the rest of the 
world, the needs and concerns of the people here at home have to be 
adequately addressed.
    As you know, this corresponds with my own views. Our first task must 
always be to expand opportunities for our own citizens, to expect them 
to behave in a responsible manner, and to recognize that we have to 
maintain a community in which people's differences are respected but in 
which their shared values are more important.
    We talked about how we could work together to shape a peace for the 
coming generation. We reviewed our efforts to complete the work that 
began 50 years ago with the Marshall plan: building an undivided, 
peaceful Europe for the first time in

history, through NATO's enlargement through its new partnership with 
Russia, its new agreement with Ukraine; a strengthened Partnership For 
Peace; an expanding European Union that reaches out to Europe's newly free 
nations.

    We agreed on the importance, as he has already said, of helping the 
parties in Bosnia fulfill their commitments under the Dayton accord and 
continuing our support for all elements of it.
    We discussed Northern Ireland. As all of you know, when I visited 
Northern Ireland 18 months ago, I was profoundly moved by the palpable 
desire of people in both communities for peace. I applaud the Prime 
Minister's initial efforts in this regard. There is a sense of hope and 
reassurance that has been conveyed here. And I know that he is committed 
in partnership with the Irish Government to bring about a lasting 
resolution to the conflict.
    The goal of this peace process is inclusive talks because they are 
the ones most likely to succeed. But I have said before, and I'd like to 
say again, that can only succeed if there is an unequivocal cease-fire 
in deed and in word. Again, I urge the IRA to lay down their guns for 
good and for all parties to turn their efforts to building the peace 
together.
    The concerns we share extend far beyond our borders. Today's global 
challenges require global responses. Indeed, one of the reasons that we 
are working so hard to organize NATO in the proper way, to unify Europe 
in the proper way, is so that our nations will all be prepared to meet 
the challenges to our security in the new century which cross national 
lines: terrorism, international crime, weapons proliferation, and 
obviously, global environmental degradation. More and more, we are 
focusing our attention on these challenges. Again, we are going to 
deepen our cooperation between our two nations and in the forums in 
which we're members. I am very pleased with the proposal that the Prime 
Minister has made to pursue an economic agenda within the Group of 
Eight, and I intend to support that.
    Let me say, finally, that we discussed Hong Kong, and I commended 
the United Kingdom to work to implement the word and the spirit of the 
1984 agreement. All of us who care about the future of Hong Kong have a 
stake in making sure the agreement is fully met. We will keep faith with 
the people of

[[Page 799]]

Hong Kong by monitoring the transition to make sure that civil liberties 
are retained, that democratic values and free market principles are 
maintained. Those are the things for which the United Kingdom and the 
United States stand, and those are the things that the agreement 
guarantees.
    This is a hopeful time for the people of the United Kingdom and for 
the people of the United States. It is a hopeful time for the world. 
More people live free and have the chance to live out their dreams than 
ever before in human history. But we face daunting new challenges, and 
we have to face them together. I say repeatedly to the American people, 
we may be at the point of our greatest relative influence in the world 
after the cold war, but we can exercise that influence only if we 
acknowledge our interdependence on like-mined people with similar 
dreams. I feel that very strongly here today with Prime Minister Blair, 
and I intend to act upon it.
    Thank you very much.
    Prime Minister Blair. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
    Right, gentlemen, questions? Michael.

New Generation of Political Leaders

    Q. Mr. President, Michael Brunson of ITN [Independent Television 
News] as you probably know, during our recent election here, there was a 
good deal written on both sides of the Atlantic about Mr. Blair being 
the ``Clinton clone,'' or the ``British Clinton.'' I wonder, now you're 
here, how the American original thinks that the British version is 
shaping up. [Laughter]
    President Clinton. Well, I have a couple of reactions to that. First 
of all, a lot of the columns that were written about that were not 
altogether flattering to either one of us, and I had half a mind to call 
Mr. Blair during the election and offer to attack him in the harshest 
possible terms, if he thought it might free him of an unwanted yoke. 
[Laughter] And now, I also told you today that there is one big 
difference, and that's the enormous parliamentary majority that the 
Prime Minister enjoys. So I should be here learning from New Labor 
instead of the other way around.
    Let me just give you a serious answer. I believe that the people--
free peoples in the world are interested in democratic governments that 
work, that have constructive economic policies, that try to reconcile 
the imperative of growth with the imperatives of family and neighborhood 
and community, that do not accept that fact that our social problems 
will always worsen and cannot be made better, that do not promise to do 
things which responsible citizens must do for themselves but which don't 
run away from their own responsibilities. That's what I think people 
want.
    And I think that requires us to move beyond--I don't think that it's 
the end of ideology, but I think it's the end of yesterday's ideology. 
And I think the more people see the issues framed in terms of attacks of 
parties on each other and yesterday's language that seems disconnected 
to their own concerns, their own hopes, and their own problems, the more 
faith is lost in politics. The more people see the political process is 
relevant to their lives and their future, the more energy you have. And 
what I sense in Great Britain today is an enormous amount of energy.
    So if you're asking me to rate the beginning, I'd say that's a great 
thing. It's a great thing when the people of a democracy believe in its 
possibilities and are willing to work for them. That is about all you 
can ask. No one has all the answers, but you want people to believe in 
the possibilities of a nation and be willing to work for them.
    Yes, Ron [Ron Fournier, Associated Press]

Northern Ireland Peace Process and Iran

    Q. Sir, you told us this morning that the Northern Ireland peace 
process is an article of faith in your life. Given that, is there 
anything more the U.S. can do to nudge the process along? And what's 
your take on Iran's new President, a moderate cleric who won in a 
landslide?
    President Clinton. Well, let me say, first of all, we have a new 
British Government that has taken what I think were wise and judicious 
steps and made statements that I think are clear, unequivocal, and 
appropriate. There is about to be an election in Ireland. The United 
States--I have restated what the

[[Page 800]]

polestars of our position are today: an unequivocal cease-fire; 
inclusive talks. But I think before I say or do anything more, as with 
every peace, this is a peace that has to be made by the parties 
themselves, and we need to let this unfold a little. But we'll be there, 
active and involved, along the way.
    Now, as to Iran, obviously it's a very interesting development, and 
for those of us who don't feel privy to all the details of daily life in 
that country, it's at least a reaffirmation of the democratic process 
there. And it's interesting, and it's hopeful. But from the point of 
view of the United States, what we hope for is a reconciliation with a 
country that does not believe that terrorism is a legitimate extension 
of political policies, that would not use violence to wreck a peace 
process in the Middle East, and would not be trying to develop weapons 
of mass destruction.
    I have never been pleased about the estrangements between the people 
of the United States and the people of Iran. And they are a very great 
people, and I hope that the estrangements can be bridged. But those are 
three big hurdles that would have to be cleared, and we'll just have to 
hope for the best.
    Prime Minister Blair. Robin.

Northern Ireland Peace Process

    Q. Robin Oakley, BBC. Mr. President, you've appealed again strongly 
today for the IRA to call a cease-fire. How soon after the calling of an 
IRA cease-fire would you want and expect to see Sinn Fein in inclusive 
talks? How long a verification process would you see as being correct? 
Would this be matter of months or weeks or days?
    President Clinton. I don't believe I should make a public comment on 
that at this moment. Tony Blair's government has just come into office. 
As I said, I think they've taken some very impressive and appropriate 
steps. There's about to be an Irish election. I think, at this moment, 
for the American President to start specifying that level of detail 
would be inappropriate.

Defense Cutbacks and NATO Expansion

    Q. Mr. President, Gene Gibbons of Reuters, this may be a time of new 
politics, but there are some immutable old laws, like the military 
doctrine of not stretching your forces too thin. Both of you are 
involved in downsizing your militaries. How do you do that and at the 
same time credibly make a vast new defense commitment that is involved 
in NATO expansion?
    And the second part of the question for President Clinton, there are 
reports that NATO enlargement will cost American taxpayers as much as a 
$150 billion over the next 5 years. What is your estimate of the cost?
    President Clinton. Well, first--and I think the Prime Minister and I 
both should answer your first question--so let me answer the second 
question very briefly. Our last estimate was--or more than an estimate--
in the last defense report we got, the estimate was more in the range of 
$150 to $200 million a year. They are reviewing our defense commitments 
now.
    I should point this out. The cost will be important because for most 
European countries, the relative costs will be greater than for the 
United States because we've already done some of the structural things 
that European countries have to do, most of them. So I do not expect 
that the larger figure is anywhere close to the ballpark.
    Secondly, the security umbrella we have is really no longer 
dependent upon stationing large armies along the Eastern frontier of 
NATO. What kept any NATO nation from being attacked, in my judgment, was 
the larger nuclear deterrent that was present during the cold war. Now, 
we are also trying to reduce that, but keep in mind--see the NATO 
expansion in the context of the following things: There's an agreement 
between NATO and Russia about what our relationship is going to be. 
President Yeltsin just agreed to detarget the nuclear missiles against 
all the NATO countries; we will have an agreement on conventional forces 
in Europe which will further reduce those forces. And after the Russians 
ratify START II, we will move on to START III which will involve an 80 
percent reduction in nuclear forces from their post-cold-war high.
    So, in that context, I think the expansion of NATO is quite 
affordable and really should be seen not only as a cooperative security 
guarantee but as a cooperative com

[[Page 801]]

mitment

to try to deal with the other security problems of our times, like Bosnia.

    Prime Minister Blair. I agree very much with that, and I think what 
is important is to see NATO enlargement, and indeed, the Joint Council 
between NATO and Russia, as part of building the security and defense of 
our countries and, indeed, making sure that the commitments that we have 
are fully realizable.
    Now, we announced just a couple days ago a strategic review of our 
defense, which is foreign policy led. It's not about downsizing our 
armed forces, but it is about making sense of the commitments that we 
have. But I think that NATO enlargement is a very, very important part 
of bringing in those emerging countries in Eastern Europe and ensuring 
also, through cooperation with Russia, that we're doing it in a way that 
preserves the security of the world. And I can't think of anything more 
important than that. So I don't see these as conflicting objectives. On 
the contrary, I see them properly implemented as entirely complementary.
    Yes, Charles.

The United Kingdom's Economy and the President's Visit

    Q. Charles Wright, the Evening Standard. Mr. President--
[inaudible]--want cooperation--[inaudible]--with Northern Europe there 
is a conflict--[inaudible]--on the way being pushed by the Prime 
Minister for more flexible labor markets and a call from Brussels for 
more social legislation. Is the Prime Minister right to warn against the 
dangers of this? And secondly, while you're in London, you said you 
wanted to go out and about a bit. What is it you're looking forward to 
see most?
    President Clinton. Well, I've already seen part of what I want to 
see most, which is the unique and unspeakably beautiful British spring. 
I was so hoping it would be sunny today.
    Let me say on the other question, there is not a simple answer. The 
great challenge for Europe--and more for other countries even than for 
the United Kingdom because your unemployment rate is already lower than 
some--but the great challenge you face is how to create enough jobs to 
be competitive and to promote not only economic growth but to have a 
good society. A successful society requires that able-bodied adults be 
able to work. Successful families, successful communities, low crime 
rates all require that able-bodied adults be able to spend their 
energies a certain number of hours a day at work, quite apart from the 
economic considerations.
    So the question is, how do you do that? How do you become more 
flexible? How do you have more entrepreneurs, more flexible labor 
markets, and still preserve the social cohesion that has made community 
life strong in Europe, justifiably?
    In the United States, we've had enormous success--and I'm grateful 
for this--in creating jobs--and more in the first 4 years of my term 
than in any previous 4-year term

in history--but we're struggling to come back the other way. We're 
struggling to find a way to give these working families--make sure they can 
all afford health care for their children, make sure they can have some 
time off when there is a baby born or a parent sick. You know, we're trying 
to deal with the arguments from the other way.

    But the imperative of reconciling work and family and providing some 
social safety net so that the conditions of community can be met while 
having growth, that is the balance-striking that every advanced economy 
has to do.
    And I think what the Prime Minister has said that I thoroughly agree 
with is, the one option that is unacceptable is denial. That's the only 
unacceptable--there is no perfect answer. I would be the last person to 
tell you that we've drawn the perfect balance. We're better at creating 
jobs than nearly anybody, but we don't have quite as much family 
security and support as I'd like to see in the area of child care and 
family leave and other things.
    The one thing there is not an option to do is to deny that this is 
an issue anymore. The United States wants a higher growth rate in 
Europe. We don't feel threatened by it. We think it would help us, and 
we hope you can achieve it.
    Prime Minister Blair. If I could just add one thing to that--I mean, 
I think what is absolutely essential is to realize this is part

[[Page 802]]

of the reason for the G-8 initiative that we want to take. We are all 
facing, as modern, developed countries, the same challenges. Work is 
changing. Industry is changing. We live in a new type of world economy. 
There are different pressures putting together work and family life. 
Now, what we're all trying to do is to make sure that we can be fully 
competitive as we need to be in this new economy while preserving the 
essential foundations of a humane and decent society. Now, that is the 
very goal. That's why education and welfare are important. That's why 
the type of different agenda that I think that a different generation of 
politicians is reaching towards is actually what is necessary not just 
here, not just in the United States, but all over the developed world. 
And if we can bring together some of those lessons from the U.S., from 
Britain, and from Europe, then we'll find better ways of going forward 
in Europe as well as the U.S.A.
    President Clinton. John [John Donvan, ABC News]. I'll take both of 
you, but only one at a time.

New Generation of Political Leaders

    Q. Mr. President, Prime Minister, as you've said already, a lot has 
been made of the notion that the two of you are similar. My question 
is--sometimes the press gets a story and keeps going with it--are you 
just a little bit sick of this story line? How far can this thing go? 
[Laughter]
    President Clinton. Yes, I'm sick of it because he's 7 years younger 
than I am and has no gray hair. [Laughter] So I resent it. But there 
doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it.
    Prime Minister Blair. Look, I think it's a perfectly healthy thing 
if we realize that these are common developments the world over. I mean, 
this isn't just something that's to do with the United States or to do 
with Britain. There is a different generation of political leaders. I 
mean, I grew up--was born 10 years after the end of the Second World 
War. I grew up with Eastern Europe on our doorstep. I never thought that 
the politics of my type of political aspiration was the politics I saw 
in Eastern Europe. But what I took from my own political traditions was 
a belief in community, in justice, in a hatred of discrimination. But I 
want to apply those types of values in the different world.
    Now, if you take the welfare state, which we're trying to reform now 
here in Britain and which President Clinton has done so much to reform 
in the United States, we believe in the values of that, but 1997 is not 
1947 or 1937. So that's why the New Deal has to be updated for today's 
world, the welfare state has to be updated for today's world. And in 
Europe, you'll find the same issues being addressed today.
    Q. Mr. Prime Minister, are you the student in this relationship?
    Prime Minister Blair. Well, I think we can both learn from each 
other and develop together. I think this is good. But I would pay 
tribute to the way that Bill Clinton blazed the trail in this area.
    President Clinton. Let me say on that point, as all of you know--all 
of the American journalists here know--before I became President, I was 
not a Member of our Congress. I was a Governor for a dozen years. And 
the Founding Fathers of the United States wrote in the ``Federalist 
Papers'' that they expected the States to be the laboratories of 
democracy, which is an elegant 18th century way of saying that all 
Governors should be students of one another. They should borrow from 
each other shamelessly. They should learn from each other without 
arrogance.
    And what I think is--if you get a generation of leaders--and it's 
not necessarily determined by age; I consider Prime Minister Kok in the 
Netherlands in this category, a little bit older than we are, the young 
Prime Minister of Portugal, a little younger than we are, a number of 
others who are thinking in the same way and trying to move toward the 
same place and have a common understanding of the kind of changes that 
are sweeping through the world--then we should

fairly be expected to--in fact, our people ought to demand that we do the 
best we can to learn from each other and cherish that, celebrate that, and 
say that nobody has got all the answers, but if we can get our countries 
headed in the right direction, free people usually do the right thing if 
they're going in the right direction. Eventually, they figure it out.

[[Page 803]]

Northern Ireland Peace Process

    Q. Ken Reid, Ulster Television in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister, 
what role do you envisage the President playing in furthering the peace 
process? And Mr. President, you were obviously very disappointed when 
the IRA cease-fire collapsed. Do you think the other parties should now 
move forward without Sinn Fein if another cease-fire is not forthcoming?
    Prime Minister Blair. I'll answer the first part of your question, 
Kenneth. The United States has played, and I've no doubt will continue 
to play, a helpful role. And we obviously are carrying forward the 
process. We want to make sure that we can get into all-party talks. 
We've laid down the conditions for that, and I know that the United 
States is fully behind that. And I think that that is always helpful.
    I remember, too, the visit that President Clinton made some 18 
months ago, when the huge optimism and hope that he ignited there in the 
province was tangible. And we want that back again. We want that sense. 
Peace in Northern Ireland and ensuring that we get a lasting political 
settlement that endures is what the vast majority of people in Northern 
Ireland want. This is the great burning frustration of it, that we are 
so keen to make sure that the voice of that majority that wants a 
lasting settlement, that doesn't want to do it by anything other than 
democratic means, is heard.
    Now, I believe it's possible that we can move this process forward, 
but it's got to be done with care. And I'm sure, as they've played a 
helpful role before, the United States will play a helpful role again.
    President Clinton. Obviously, I think that Sinn Fein should 
participate in the talks. And I think the IRA should meet what I think 
has to be the precondition. You can't say, ``We'll talk and shoot; we'll 
talk when we're happy and shoot when we're not.'' And every political 
process in the world is a struggle for principled compromise, which 
means when it's over, no one is ever 100 percent happy.
    So that is the decision that obviously all of them will have to 
make. But the people there do not want to be led in a destructive path 
anymore. I'm convinced the Catholics don't. I'm convinced the 
Protestants don't. And I'm convinced the young are more insistent than 
the old. And to trap people in the prison of those past patterns--we 
talk about changing economic policy--a far greater tragedy is to move 
into the wonders of

the 21st century with the shackles of what can only be characterized as 
almost primitive hatred of people because they are of different religions 
than you are.

    I promised you next; I'm sorry. Then we'll go on. Go ahead. I 
apologize. My memory is not what it used to be.
    Q. You're older now.
    President Clinton. That's right. [Laughter] I've got a cane. 
[Laughter]

Centrist Politics

    Q. John Harris with the Washington Post. As a followup to some of 
the previous questions and answers, Mr. Prime Minister, your party won 
election by promising no new taxes and by endorsing many of the 
privatization policies of your Conservative predecessors. Mr. President, 
you've just signed off on a budget deal that has tax cuts but basically 
precludes any large new spending initiatives over the next several 
years. Both of these compromises have made people within your own 
parties--a lot of them have great misgivings about them. How can you 
convince these people that what you've described as the radical center 
is not really just the dead center and this new pragmatism isn't just 
another name for old-fashioned expediency?
    Prime Minister Blair. Well, I think you can do it very easily, by 
sharing how it derives from conviction and principle. What we decided to 
do when we created New Labor was to be honest with people. There were 
certain things the 1980's got right, an emphasis on enterprise, more 
flexible labor markets. Fine; accepted; they got it right. There should 
be no mileage in trying to undo things that are basically right. But 
there were some very fundamental things that we got wrong, education, 
the creation of a large pool of people of underclass cut off from 
society's mainstream, a negative isolationist view of foreign policy--
these things we change--over-centralized government. These things we 
change.

[[Page 804]]

    And what is different about it, and I think potentially exciting and 
radical about it, is that it does try to get past a lot of the divisions 
of the past. And you got out there, and you talk to people in the street 
about what concerns them--I often think the people are a thousand miles 
ahead of the politicians. They know that what matters to them is to get 
their schools right, their hospitals right, tackle crime in their 
streets. They know that there are certain things that Government can't 
do about jobs and industry but certain things they can do. They want us 
to do those things.
    Now, I don't think that's a dead center, I think that is a radical 
center. And it's--the big changes that we were able to make in the Labor 
Party, we made out of principle. It was electorally necessary, but it 
was also the right thing to

do. If it hadn't been the right thing to do, it would never have taken root 
in the way that it did.

    Now, sure, whenever you make changes, there are people that 
disagree, and there will be those that say we just want to go backwards. 
Well, the job of political leadership is to explain to people why that's 
not sensible, why you should move forward.
    President Clinton. First of all, let me just remind you of what it 
was like when I took office. We had high unemployment, low growth, a 
country with rising crime, rising welfare, and increasing social 
division. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years, the 
biggest decline in income inequality--something the progressive party 
should care about--in over 30 years. We have declining crime rates. For 
every year I've been President, the crime rate's gone down, and our 
crime bill is fully funded and is implementing that. We've got the 
biggest decline in welfare rolls in history. And we have fought against 
the divisive forces of race, religion, and all the other forces that are 
used to divide people in a complex society like ours.
    So I think that what we have done is both progressive and effective. 
And yes, we have a smaller Government; we have the smallest Government 
since the Kennedy administration. But we're spending more money on 
education, more money on medical research, more money on technologies. I 
think we're doing the right thing. That's first.
    Second, on the budget agreement itself, to my fellow Democrats--
before they criticize me, I would ask them to read what the conservative 
Republicans have said about the Republicans for signing off on the 
budget agreement. One conservative periodical accused the moderate 
Republicans of being Clintonites, which is a fate worse than death for 
them, you know, and then said that, ``I guess we're all new Democrats 
now.''
    Look at what this budget does. You say it has no--it leaves no room 
for big spending; it has the biggest increase in education in a 
generation, a big increase in environmental protection. It has enough--
$17 billion to insure half the kids in America who don't have health 
insurance.
    Now, beyond that, does it allow for big spending new programs? No, 
it doesn't. If we want to spend any more money, big money, in the next 
3\1/2\ years, what do we have to do? We either have to grow the economy 
or we've got to raise the money. That's what a balanced budget is for. I 
support that. I support that. I want the American people--if I could--we 
would come closer to solving our social problems if we can maintain 
unemployment at or under 5 percent for the next 4 years than nearly 
anything else I could do.
    And I want us to be in a position--as the progressive party--where 
we can't launch a big new program unless we raise the money for it or 
grow the economy to fund it. That's the way we ought to do it. That is 
the fiscally responsible way to do it. So I am happy with that 
criticism, and I plead guilty, and the results are good.
    Prime Minister Blair. I like that. I like that very much, indeed.

Lessons of the U.S. Economy

    Q. Mr. Blair, you talked early on about lessons that you can learn 
from America, and you said that they've been better at creating jobs. I 
just wondered why you thought they had been better at creating jobs, 
what lessons specifically we could draw from that--their attitudes to 
it?
    Prime Minister Blair. I think there is a very strong commitment to 
entrepreneurship there, which is very important. They've pursued, of 
course, a stable economic management policy. That is very important. And 
Bill

[[Page 805]]

said something there just a moment ago that I think is very, very 
important, that the progressive parties today are the parties of fiscal 
responsibility and prudence. You don't do anything for anybody by making 
a wreckage out of the economy.
    Now, I think these are all things that we take to heart. And what is 
interesting to me is, again, if you look around not just the U.S.A. or 
what we're doing with New Labor here in Britain, but if you look around 
Europe, there are center--center-left parties there, again, as the 
parties of fiscal prudence and responsibility. And what you can do is 
make changes within the budget.
    You see, the questioner a moment ago was saying, ``Well, you know, 
you're not going for big tax increases and all the rest of it''--but 
people have had large tax increases. You know, state expenditure has 
grown to a very large extent. Why has it grown? Well, it's grown here 
because you've got massive welfare bills that you're paying out, often 
with people who would like the chance to get back into the labor market 
if we have the imagination and vision to try and give them the chance to 
do so, so that they're not any longer reliant on state benefits but are 
standing on their own two feet, raising their family in some type of 
decent set of circumstances.
    So I think that these elements of job creation, of economic 
management, of creating the type of enterprises and industries of the 
future, they're interlinked. And we see those links very, very clearly, 
indeed.
    President Clinton. If I could just say one thing. I would like to 
give credit where I think credit is due, which is not primarily to me in 
this. And I think we have been successful in creating jobs for several 
reasons.
    One is, we maintained,

earlier than a lot of other countries, a reasonably open economy, not 
perfectly open but reasonably open, so that we suffered a lot of painful 
restructuring in the 1980's due to competition. But as a result of that, 
both our business managers and our working people have dramatically 
improved their productivity--first.

    Second, America is a relatively easy place to start a small 
business, and we get a lot of our new jobs from starting small 
businesses.
    Third, we have been blessed by having sort of incubators of the 
future in computers, in telecommunications, in electronics, increasingly 
in biotechnology. That is important.
    Fourth, we've had a good, stable monetary system. I think the Prime 
Minister did a good thing by--and he'll be criticized for it the first 
time interest rates are raised, but he did a good thing, I think, by 
trying to take the setting of interest rates out of politics, because it 
will create the feeling of stability and make Britain more attractive 
for investment. That's been a big factor for us.
    And finally, we've had good Government policies, which were: reduce 
the deficit, expand trade, invest in people. So I think all those 
things, together, will give you a job creation policy.
    Prime Minister Blair. We'll take one more each, shall we?
    President Clinton. Yes.
    Q. Thank you. That was shameless. Ann McFeatters with Scripps-
Howard.
    The President. That's good.

Bosnia

    Q. Mr. President, you have promised to withdraw our troops from 
Bosnia a year from now. And yet the British Prime Minister's Foreign 
Secretary says if you do that, the British will withdraw their troops, 
too, and that could lead to renewed fighting. Is there a dispute between 
Secretary of State Albright and Defense Secretary Cohen, and are you 
going to keep your commitment to withdraw?
    President Clinton. Well, when we--first of all, when we adopted the 
second mission, the SFOR mission, after our first full year in Bosnia, 
we cut all the forces in half and stayed; we said we expected that 
mission to last about a year and a half. I still accept that.
    Here is the problem, the basic issue. I think we would all admit 
that a lot of the elements of the Bosnian peace process, the Dayton 
process, are not going as fast as they should. We have just completed a 
comprehensive review of our policy. We've identified a number of things 
we want to do better. The Prime Minister and I talked about, for 
example, the police training and the placement of police there.

[[Page 806]]

    If you look at what our military people do today, since we are not 
presently today actively involved, for example, in escorting and 
protecting refugee returnees, a lot of that could be done by civilian 
police, if we were on schedule. We're not on schedule. We're not on 
schedule in the economic implementation. We're trying to put--very hard, 
all of our allies--we're trying to put together a team that will get us 
back up and going.
    And so I would agree, to this extent, with the Prime Minister, which 
is that I don't think we ought to be talking about how we're going to 
leave. I think we ought to be talking about what we're going to tomorrow 
and next week and next month. And if we work like crazy in the next 13 
months, do I believe we can fulfill our mission and that they can go 
forward? Yes, I do. But I think we're going to have to make some very 
tough decisions. We can't play around with this. We can't just sort of 
hang around and then disappear in a year and expect the Dayton process 
to go forward. We have a lot of work to do in the next year. And so what 
I want to do is stop talking about what date we're leaving on and start 
talking about we're going to do on the only date that matters, which is 
tomorrow.
    Prime Minister Blair. I agree with that very strongly, indeed.
    Last question.

The President's Advice for Prime Minister Blair

    Q. President Clinton, I know you're reluctant to offer advise to our 
Prime Minister, but could I tempt you? You became--I want to be polite--
rather unpopular during your first term after a brief honeymoon. Which 
mistakes do you think you made that our Prime Minister could avoid?
    Prime Minister Blair. Well, he did one thing very right, which was 
to win again, and I hope I repeat that. [Laughter.]
    President Clinton. Well, for one thing, it was a brief honeymoon; it 
lasted about 35 seconds. [Laughter] So, again, I don't know that I have 
any advice to offer. I think that the errors that we made, or at least 
the political decisions we made that caused us problems, are fairly 
well-known.
    Also, keep in mind, we have a different system than you do. I had to 
pass my first economic program with only Democrats, but the Democrats 
basically got credit for being divided in their support of me when the 
facts are that they have supported me more strongly than they supported 
the last three Democratic Presidents before me. But our friends on the 
other side were opposed in even more unified fashion.
    So the things that happened to us were so unique, I hope, to the 
American political system--I wouldn't wish them on anyone else--that I 
don't really think it's very instructive for me to give advice.
    Prime Minister Blair. If I could, I just say one final thing to you. 
I think when you heard President Clinton speak about the record that he 
has achieved in Government earlier, I think that is the reason why he 
was reelected. And the important thing is that that record stands as 
testimony to the leadership that he gave.
    We'll have one last question then, shall we?
    President Clinton. My only advice on that would be to try to keep 
people focused on the policies and the consequences and that we should 
all be willing to work on that basis, because real people out there who 
have to get up every day and wonder how they're going to feed and 
educate their children and whether they're safe in their neighborhoods 
and what the future is going to be like for their kids, they want to 
know that we're at the task. And so my only advice would be to maintain 
the same level of concentration in the administration that was shown by 
all of Labor in the campaign, that relaxing concentration is fatal in 
this business. It's an important thing, and it's complicated. You got to 
concentrate all the time.

Representative Richard A. Gephardt

    Q. Mr. President--I'm sorry, Rita Braver with CBS News--bearing in 
mind your comments on the budget, I was wondering if you had been 
listening to your own minority leader. He is against you on the budget. 
He is against you on MFN. He is against you on expansion of NATO on a 
fast track. And I wondered if you could explain maybe whether you think 
it's you or he who represents the hearts and minds of the Democratic 
Party and whether maybe you think it's time

[[Page 807]]

for a new minority leader, or maybe you don't really want that 
Democratic majority you talked about at the beginning of the news 
conference.

    President Clinton. No, I think--for one thing, I think--you know, I 
disagree with him about the budget and MFN for China, and we've had some 
trade differences since I came here; otherwise, he's supported me on 
just about everything. I would point out, however, that well over 60 
percent of the Democratic caucus in the House voted for the budget 
agreement and that 82 percent of the Democratic caucus in the Senate 
voted for it. We had a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans 
voting for it in the Senate, a higher percentage of Republicans than 
Democrats voting for it in the House, and a two-to-one majority overall.

    So that's something--the American people ought to feel comfortable--
we had an overwhelming bipartisan agreement. Individual people will have 
differences on individual issues. They'll see the world in different 
ways. But I think I did the right thing, and I think we're going to--I 
think the country will be immensely benefited by it. And I think 
everybody that voted for it, in retrospect, will be happy and those who 
didn't vote for it will be pleased that what they thought was wrong with 
it, wasn't. That's what I think will happen.

    Prime Minister Blair. Okay, thank you very much indeed, ladies and 
gentlemen. And thank you, in particular, to President Clinton.

    President Clinton. Thank you.

Note: The President's 147th news conference began at 3:05 p.m., in the 
Winter Garden at 10 Downing Street.