[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 27 (Monday, July 7, 1997)]
[Pages 1012-1018]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With European Television Journalists

July 3, 1997

NATO Expansion

    Q. Mr. President, thank you for having us and granting this 
interview with this group of European television stations. The Summit of 
Madrid marks the first expansion of the NATO to the Eastern European 
countries. Mr. President, it is perceived by the public opinion in 
Europe that the United States limits this expansion. It is perhaps a 
misperception from Europe?
    The President. First of all, let me say that the expansion itself is 
historic, and we should not minimize it. Of course, Spain was the last 
new member of NATO, and that was an historic thing as well. But to 
expand NATO in a way that enables us to move closer to our goal of a 
united, democratic Europe for the first time in history is very 
important.
    I don't want to limit NATO expansion; I want to leave the door open 
to all democracies that would like to be a part of it. But keep in mind, 
NATO is not simply a political alliance. It is primarily a military 
alliance, and we've done a lot of work to try to adapt NATO to the 
security challenges of the 21st century, to the Bosnias, if you will, 
rather than to the cold war.
    So it seems to us, after having consulted with all of our allies and 
after having looked at the capacity of those that would like to become 
members, that the three members from Central Europe, Poland and Hungary 
and the Czech Republic, are clearly ready to assume the responsibilities 
of NATO membership and ready to integrate militarily with NATO. That 
does not mean that the door should not remain wide open to others and 
that we shouldn't make every effort over the next couple of years to do 
what it takes to help others qualify for NATO membership.
    I don't want to exclude anyone, but I think it quite important on 
principle that we not admit anyone until we're absolutely sure that 
their democracy is stable and that they are militarily capable. And this 
is just a difference of opinion. Some of the NATO members agree with us; 
some would prefer four; some would prefer five.
    Q. But, Mr. President, does that mean that when you go to Madrid, in 
effect your mind is made up, and those who disagree in the alliance will 
have to join your view?
    The President. NATO has always made decisions by consensus. For 
example, suppose we were for five and the British were for three--alone. 
In order to achieve a consensus, since that's the only way we can 
proceed, three would still prevail. In other words, it's not because 
it's America; it's because we have to reach a consensus.
    But we have spent a lot of time with this. I've personally visited 
with President Chirac about it. I've personally talked with Chancellor 
Kohl about it. I've personally talked with President Aznar and with Tony 
Blair about it and many other European leaders. I had a long talk with 
Prime Minister Prodi about it. Then Madeleine Albright went to Sintra in 
Portugal and talked to all of the people about it before we announced a 
public position, and I have spent a long time with our military leaders 
talking about it. And others had announced their position before ours, 
so I don't foresee any circumstances under which I would change my 
position that today we ought to have three.
    But keep in mind, my position also is--and some of the members don't 
agree with this--that we should leave the door open, that we should have 
a review, we should take another look at it in 1999, and even at 1999 we 
should keep the door open. That is, I see NATO as a way of continuing 
the process of European integration, which I have supported. I have 
supported the European Union; I have supported the independent se

[[Page 1013]]

curity unit, the ESDI within NATO, which is something that's been 
important to France and others. I want to see Europe integrated and 
strong and secure. So I'm looking forward to other meetings like Madrid. 
I don't think this will be the last one by a long shot.

France

    Q. Mr. President, NATO is a bone of contention between you, 
President Chirac, and his Socialist Prime Minister Jospin. Concretely, 
why do you refuse the French, but any other European countries to have 
the command of the South NATO flank, and I would like to add, is the 
communist presence inside the French Government a problem in the NATO 
context?
    The President. Oh, no. First of all, I hope that France will become 
integrated into the military structure of NATO, and I hope that Spain 
will be as well, and I think we're quite close with Spain. And I hope 
that both will be.
    Secondly, I believe that more command positions should be open to 
Europeans, and I have supported that. That is--so, in the adaptation of 
NATO internally, the United States has favored the integration of France 
and Spain into the military command structure,

has favored an independent European security defense initiative within 
NATO, and has favored more command positions going to French and to 
European officers.

    The particular command, the AFSOUTH Command, is--the real problem 
there for us right now is that right now, the AFSOUTH Command is 
essentially command of the 6th Fleet of the United States Navy. And 
except for, and maybe even including--I'd have to check the numbers--our 
presence in South Korea, it's the biggest single deployment of United 
States military assets anywhere.
    So if we were to divide the AFSOUTH Command, it wouldn't, from our 
point of view, be a sensible thing to do militarily because that's 
essentially the central asset of AFSOUTH. We have offered to revisit 
this--even that position with the French in a few years, because it may 
be that we decide to change the composition of what makes up AFSOUTH. 
But in terms of the command structure, we believe the Europeans should 
have more command positions. We believe the French should if they come 
in. And we hope that we can resume these discussions and work this out.
    Q. And the communists, no problem?
    The President. No. Look, France is a democracy, and they elected a 
new leadership for the Parliament, and that's up to the government. As 
long as the Government of France is a great democracy, standing for 
freedom and participating, I don't have a problem. The French people 
should make their own decisions over that; the United States shouldn't 
make a judgment about that.

Germany

    Q. Mr. President, one could say that the main beneficiary of the new 
security structure in Europe is Germany. Our country is not a Front Line 
state anymore, the Bundeswehr, which has been trained and equipped to 
fight a war on its own territory, defining the Eastern flank of NATO, 
won't have to do that anymore. So when the new, the next Gulf crisis, 
Somalia crisis, Bosnia crisis come about, what would America expect from 
Germany to take over in terms of burden from the Americans?
    The President. I don't know that I would expect them to take over 
anything from the Americans, but I would make two points. One and most 
importantly is that the Germans are in a position to be partners with us 
now because of decisions which have been made by your supreme judicial 
body, and because of the vision of Chancellor Kohl--we are in a position 
to be partners in Bosnia, for example--that the Germans can participate 
and are not only trusted but relied upon to participate in cooperative 
security challenges beyond the German borders. That's the first thing.
    The second thing I would say is that the Germans have supported the 
French and others in being for a European security defense capacity 
where Europe can act alone without the United States and Canada in 
appropriate circumstances within NATO as part of our adaptation.
    So that's what I would expect, if you will. I think that there will 
be continuing partnership, and now we'll be able to worry not about the 
eastern border of Germany but

[[Page 1014]]

about the stability of all of Europe, and we'll be able to do that 
together now.
    Q. But it will also mean an increased military role, probably.
    The President. It could, but it may not require an increased 
military budget. That is, all of our militaries are doing different 
things. On the budget, let me say--this is one other point I should 
make--there are costs for Europeans and costs for Americans in expanding 
NATO, and it's important, therefore, to make a good military decision 
because you have to justify the costs to the public. That's why it can't 
simply be about politics, because we have to--we're all obliged to do 
certain things to keep the military able to work with one another, the 
term of art is interoperability. So that's another thing we have to 
consider.

Russia

    Q. Mr. President, I think it would be interesting to know how you 
did convince President Yeltsin three instead of five. Is it the price 
that you paid to get yes from Mr. Yeltsin?
    The President. I wouldn't say that, but I think that it's important 
to note that we made an agreement with President Yeltsin to have an 
agreement between NATO and Russia that would make it crystal clear that 
NATO is no longer an organization designed to contain Russia; NATO is an 
organization designed to work with all free countries to respect the 
territorial integrity of its members, to protect the security of its 
members, and to work with its members and their allies, Russia, soon to 
be Ukraine, and those in the Partnership For Peace, on common security 
problems like the problem in Bosnia.
    I think the great contribution Boris Yeltsin has made to the 
integration of Europe is his willingness to say, Russia is not going to 
define its greatness in terms of territorial domination, Russia will 
define its greatness in terms of the achievements of its people and its 
partnerships with other countries. That was the contribution, that's 
what he did, and he deserves a lot of credit for that.
    Now, should we expand NATO in a way that is at least aware of the 
nationalist elements in Russia, the people that don't feel the same way? 
Of course we should. Should we sensitive to that? Of course we should. 
But I think as NATO and Russia continue to work in partnership as we 
have in Bosnia, the continued expansion of NATO will not be seen as a 
threat to the Russian people but will be seen as something that 
reinforces our partnership and therefore makes the Russian people more 
secure.
    Q. You decided for a slow start?
    The President. No. The main reason I decided this is I really 
believe that these three countries are the only three

countries right now that can start tomorrow and within a reasonable time 
meet the same standard of membership militarily that the other NATO 
countries met.

    We have to remember, this alliance is the most successful alliance 
in history because it's had military as well as political integrity. But 
these other nations, I believe that are either developing their 
economies and their military capacity, are stabilizing their 
democracies, should all be considered for future NATO membership. And 
the irony of this is, right now a lot of the European countries say 
five, and I say three, but over the long run we may find the United 
States in favor of considering more countries than a majority of 
Europeans would be. If that happens, the Europeans will prevail.

Spain

    Q. Mr. President, the government of Madrid wants to remain in the 
chain of command of NATO. Is Spain's petition to maintain under its 
control of the Canary Island territory acceptable for the United States?
    The President. I think the Spanish position is certainly 
understandable, and it's my understanding that Spain is at least close 
to being satisfied with the discussions that have been held. The 
position the United States has taken on this is that the military 
experts should resolve this, that only Spain can decide whether its 
concerns about sovereignty and leadership have been satisfied. But for 
all of the rest of the countries, what we should do is to make this a 
military decision and see if we can resolve the issue with Spain in a 
way that is consistent with the way NATO should operate. And they're 
working very hard on it, and I hope and believe they will resolve it 
soon.

[[Page 1015]]

Northern Ireland Peace Process

    Q. On another security matter, Mr. President, you've nurtured the 
peace process in Northern Ireland personally, but things are looking 
very ominous, coming up to this weekend with the scheduled Loyalist 
march in Drumcree. Are you pessimistic that a collision cannot be 
avoided?
    The President. No, I'm not pessimistic, but frankly, the ball is in 
the IRA's court right now in terms of declaring a cease-fire, and then 
there is also a ball in the court of the Protestant Loyalists and 
whether they will continue to exercise restraint.
    But let me say, to me the most hopeful thing is that we've got this 
meeting, I believe, today between Prime Minister Blair and Mr. Ahern, 
the new Irish Prime Minister. There has been sort of a reaffirmation of 
the position of the British and Irish Governments about how 
decommissioning should operate in a fashion parallel with the peace 
talks, and so I think that the British and Irish Governments are right 
on track and doing what should be done, and the Irish people should be 
heartened by the new leadership in both countries, reaffirming the peace 
process and trying to invigorate it.
    But the truth is that in order to get all the parties involved and 
do it without bloodshed, the IRA will have to renounce

violence and reinstitute the cease-fire. The United States had been very 
forward-leaning. We've tried to involve Sinn Fein. We've tried to reach 
out, as you know, but two young men were brutally murdered in what is 
clearly an assassination recently in Ireland. That is unacceptable. You 
know, we can't do that. The Irish people want the peace process. The 
British and the Irish Governments want the peace process, and the IRA ought 
to give it a chance to work.

    Q. But would you favor the Loyalists call off their march----
    The President. I think that is a matter best left to the people of 
Northern Ireland and to the British and Irish Governments. I have tried 
to be very disciplined in the role the United States has played in this, 
and I just don't think that's a matter on which I should express a view 
at this moment. Let's see what Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister 
Ahern say after their meeting today.
    What I would favor is that they do nothing to try to provoke 
violence. I think these marches are a regular thing. If it happens, 
there are marches and there are marches; we all know that. So I hope 
that we can--whatever happens, it won't be an occasion for further 
violence.

France

    Q. Mr. President, going back to the French, President Chirac and the 
Socialist government are often quoted, and it's true--as criticizing 
the--what I call, a quote, ``the arrogance of the U.S. superpower which 
wants to rule the world politically and economically,'' and they 
criticize the United States for wanting to oust France of Africa. What 
do you answer to this double accusation from the French authorities when 
they talk to the French press or they got quoted in the American media, 
too.
    The President. The one on Africa is a new one on me, but the other 
two--I've heard people say things like that. I've read it in the press 
with regard to economic issues and with regard to NATO. First of all, 
let me restate what I said. I don't know whether we would be where we 
are in Bosnia today if it hadn't been for the leadership of President 
Chirac and the French. The United States and the French--there have been 
words in the press for decades now, but the truth is that when the chips 
are down, we're almost always allies.
    Jacques Chirac supported NATO expansion when some European leaders 
didn't. He was instrumental in getting the agreement with Russia. He was 
instrumental in forging our common position in Bosnia. All I can say is, 
I don't want America to dictate to Europe; I want--I have supported 
European integration. When other Americans were afraid of it, I said--
because Europe would be bigger than the United States then--I said, 
``No, we want a democratic, free, strong, united Europe, and the next 
100 years will be different than the last 100. Let it go. We have to 
work together.'' So that's the first thing.
    On economics, we have been very fortunate in the United

States in being able to discipline our spending, invest in our people, and 
create a lot of jobs. But we have problems here, too. We have--a lot higher 
per

[[Page 1016]]

centage of our children are poor than in France or Germany and other 
countries. We don't have the kind of health care and child care supports 
that you provide to your working families.

    So the challenge that we all face, I think, is more a common 
challenge: How are we going to create jobs, raise incomes, and hold the 
social compact together in a global economy? We just happen to be in 
different places in meeting the challenges.
    In Africa, let me say I'm very grateful for what the French and we 
have done together to help each other's citizens get out of harm's way 
in African countries in trouble. We have offered an initiative on Africa 
because we've been repeatedly challenged to do more, and we think there 
should be aid, and I don't think we've given enough aid to Africa. The 
French have said that we haven't, and they're right. But we think we can 
do more to expand trade as well. So I hope we'll be working with France 
on that.
    I do not want to push France out of Africa. I want to lift Africa 
up. And if we would lift Africa up, the fact that the French were there, 
caring about Africa all along, will only redound to France's benefit.

European-American Relations

    Q. Mr. President, in line with what the French colleague just said, 
there is--especially I feel it after Denver--a growing feeling in Europe 
that America leans toward something like grandstanding or patronizing 
toward Europe. And then when it comes time to make sacrifices, like in 
firm commitments to reduce greenhouse gases or to make compromises like 
in extending NATO and not risking a rift within NATO over the question 
of these two countries who will join in addition to the three who are 
not, America says, this is what our interest is and pushes through. Do 
you feel that there is a little imbalance in the transatlantic 
relationship?
    The President. First of all--let's deal with the two things 
separately. I do not think that's a fair characterization of what 
happened when we had the Summit of the Eight in Denver. Before the other 
leaders arrived, I gave one speech in Colorado in which I said, 7 years 
ago when the other countries met in the United States, Europe criticized 
America, 7 years ago, for dragging down economic growth in the world 
because our budget deficit was so high, for taking money away from 
worthy investments in Europe and in other places in the world by having 
high interest rates in America to finance our deficit. And we have 
changed that; so now we can't be criticized by our friends in the Summit 
of the Eight because we have changed that, and we're better off than we 
were then.
    But I said in the same speech we still have a lot of problems at 
home, and we have no cause for arrogance, and I outlined what those 
problems were. When I met with the other leaders, I said clearly we've 
been fortunate; we've created a lot of new jobs. The

British also have now created a lot of new jobs, but what happens in this 
global economy is, as you create more new jobs, the more open the economies 
are, you have more difficulty in avoiding greater inequality among your 
people.

    So the trick is how to preserve the social compact and create jobs. 
This is a problem we share together; that's what I said. And anybody who 
was there in those private meetings will say that. So I simply don't 
think that's fair.
    Now, in NATO, let me say again--I want to say two things. Number 
one, a lot of the members of NATO have told me they do not favor five, 
that they understand that politically it's good to say----
    Q. Though quietly----
    The President. That there are five, but quietly they say we know 
that you're right, that this is the right thing to do. Not all of them--
I don't want to be--the Italians and the French and others clearly want 
five; some would favor four. I think Chancellor Kohl is genuinely open 
to that. But there is more difference of opinion within Europe than you 
might think.
    But the most important thing is not that. The most important thing 
is, if we were for five and France was for three, if that were the case, 
then the French position would prevail because three is a smaller number 
than five, and we have to do that. This is not an American win, this has 
nothing to do with me. I am trying to keep NATO's integrity intact from 
the military point of view, and that's what I want to do.

[[Page 1017]]

    Do I believe that we should consider expanding to the south when 
next we meet in '99? I certainly do. I certainly do. Do I think that 
Romania and Slovenia could be strong candidates? Yes. Do I think that we 
should exclude the Baltics? No. Would it be a good thing if Austria were 
interested in coming in? Might Bulgaria be ready in the future? Yes.
    So I think that--this is not--this doesn't have to be done in a day. 
Keep in mind, 3\1/2\ years ago when I proposed this, it was a 
revolutionary idea. Now, we're talking about how many and when. So I'm 
not trying to impose this. I'm just trying to do what I think is best 
for the military alliance, and it just happened that we strongly believe 
that if you look at the conditions of membership, that these three 
clearly meet those conditions, and no one else does now.
    But I am for--I am very sympathetic with the French and the Italian 
position that we have to consider moving to the south, and I'm 
sympathetic and interested in the new interest in Bulgaria and in 
Austria, and the Baltics are moving very--forward. We shouldn't tell 
anyone they can't be part of it. But if you look at it, everyone agrees 
that at least three should be in, and that's what we ought to do. We 
always go to what everybody agrees on.

Baltic States

    Q. May I ask about the Baltic States because you mentioned them 
three times? Nobody is as desperate to get in psychologically as the 
Baltics, and nowhere are the Russians as adamant as in the Baltics not 
to let them in. Will they come away from Madrid with something more than 
a vague promise we will consider you in the future?
    The President. Well, that's not just a vague promise. Keep in mind, 
the Baltics are in the Partnership For Peace. Let's not overlook that. 
That has been--I think one reason we have so many people wanting to be 
in NATO now is that the Partnership For Peace has been so successful. It 
is not an insignificant thing. The Euro-Atlantic alliance that we have 
with these Partnership For Peace countries will continue to be 
strengthened.
    And I think what we plan to do is to offer to work with the other 
European countries to try to--to set the stage for what we will do 2 
years from now, and also to keep going into the future, to keep 
integrating these Partnership For Peace countries more and more into the 
military and other operations of NATO. So I think the Baltics should 
feel reassured by that.
    I worked very hard, you know, to work with President Yeltsin to get 
the Russian troops out of the Baltics, to keep them on the path of 
reform and democracy, and they've done very well. So I think they should 
be considered in the future like everyone else, and we should make that 
clear.
    Q. Mr. President, you said that the Italians definitely want five. 
Don't you think----
    The President. Well, they certainly want Slovenia. I think they 
would favor five; they would take four.

The Balkans

    Q. Romania--isn't the reason of this, isn't that the real threats 
are there coming from the south, no more from the east?
    The President. Absolutely. Well, we certainly hope that, yes.
    Q. And, sir, don't you think that Romania and Slovenia will 
guarantee more stability in the crucial area of the Balkans?
    The President. Yes, I do think that. My problem with Romania and 
Slovenia is I believe, compared to the other three countries, we can't 
say that they are clearly ready now to assume NATO membership. Let's 
take Romania. There's a terrific case you can make for Romania--it's the 
second biggest country in Central Europe. I mean it has--it's very 
large, and it has a lot of people, strategically located, and the people 
want to be in NATO. But they've been on this path now for a little less 
than a year. The countries that are getting in have already been through 
ups and downs in their economy, in their political systems. They've had 
elections.

They've really been through all the tensions that happen when you move from 
communism to freedom.

    The Romanians have done an amazing job in a few months. They have 
resolved their differences with Hungary on the border. They've got two 
Hungarians in the Cabinet. It is an amazing thing. But it has still been 
less than a year. So my position is, give them

[[Page 1018]]

a couple of years to stabilize their democracy, to develop their 
economy, and then let's take a look at it.
    Would it be better if, going into the 21st century, we had a NATO 
that had more membership in the southern flank to deal with those 
problem areas that are just beyond our borders? Of course, it would. Do 
we have a good chance to get there? Yes, we do. That doesn't mean that 
we should do it now because people might feel bad if they don't get in, 
because I think what we have to do is have a mature relationship with 
all these countries and keep working with them to get them ready--to get 
them ready.
    I hope that eventually we will have many more countries in NATO and 
a much closer relationship with the countries beyond our borders that 
choose not to seek membership, like Russia.

Palma de Mallorca

    Q. Mr. President, you will have a brief stay in Palma de Mallorca, 
together with----
    The President. Yes. I'm very excited.
    Q. ----the royal family of Spain. What do you expect to discover in 
the Mediterranean Sea?
    The President. Beauty, mystery. [Laughter] Rest. [Laughter] I'm very 
much looking forward to it. The King and the Queen have been very kind 
and gracious to Hillary and to me and to Chelsea for as long as we've 
been here, and they were kind enough to come down and be there when 
we're there. And we're looking forward to it. I've never been there, and 
I'm very excited.
    Q. Mr. President, thank you very much. Enjoy Spain.
    The President. Thank you.

Note: The interview began at 11:23 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the 
White House. In his remarks, the President referred to President Jacques 
Chirac of France; Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany; President Jose 
Maria Aznar of Spain; and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United 
Kingdom. A portion of this interview could not be vertified because the 
tape was incomplete.