    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 46 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
    [Pages 1801-1804]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    Remarks Prior to Discussions With President Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico
    and an Exchange With Reporters

    November 14, 1997

    Iraq

        Q. Mr. President, are you willing to extend the no-fly zone across
    the remainder of Iraq?

    [[Page 1802]]

        President Clinton. Let me first of all say that I believe that the
    Secretary-General and our team, the United Nations team, made the right
    decision in withdrawing the team of inspectors there and not just
    leaving them there. But the real issue here is, how can we stop Saddam
    Hussein from reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction program, and
    what will achieve that goal. Any specific tactic will be designed to
    achieve that goal.
        The world has got to understand that he had a weapons of mass
    destruction program, that he is one of the few people who has ever used
    chemical weapons against both his enemies and his own citizens, and that
    there will be a big market for such weapons out there among terrorists
    and other groups.
        This is not just a replay of the Gulf war; this is not throw a man
    who invaded a country, Kuwait, out of the country and reestablish
    territorial integrity. This is about the security of the 21st century
    and the problems everybody is going to have to face dealing with
    chemical weapons.
        So as you know, I don't think it's appropriate for me to speculate
    about what we might or might not do with specific options, but I think
    that we have to steel ourselves and be determined that the will of the
    international community, expressed in the United Nations Security
    Council resolutions, will have to prevail.
        This is simply--it's too dangerous an issue that would set too
    powerful a precedent about the impotence of the United Nations if we
    didn't proceed on this in the face of what I have considered to be one
    of the three or four most significant security threats that all of our
    people will face for the next whole generation--this weapons of mass
    destruction proliferation. We've got to stop it.
        Q. Given that, sir, are you willing to let the situation last where
    he's able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction with no one on the
    ground watching? And if I may ask a second question, sir, why are you
    ordering a second aircraft carrier into the Gulf region?
        President Clinton. Well, I'm ordering the carrier in there because I
    think it's appropriate under the circumstances. And let me say on the
    first question that one of the reasons the United States has supported
    the U.N. decision to continue the flights is that if we're not on the
    ground, it's been more important that we observe what we can in the air.
    And we are working this very hard.
        We also--I want to say this is a United Nations endeavor, a United
    Nations resolution we want to implement. We want very much to work with
    our allies. We want to make sure that we've done all we can to see that
    they agree with us about the gravity of the situation, and I expect--the
    Secretary of State is meeting with a lot of the foreign ministers over
    the next several days, and I will be talking to a number of heads of
    state, and we'll keep working this. I don't want to put a timetable on
    myself, because it's not just me, but we're working it hard.
        Q. With the inspectors out, Mr. President, does he have some reason
    to believe that he's gotten his way?
        President Clinton.  Well, if he does, that would be a mistake. And
    of course, what he says his objective is, is to relieve the people of
    Iraq, and presumably the government, of the burden of the sanctions.
    What he has just done is to ensure that the sanctions will be there
    until the end of time or as long as he lasts. So I think that if his
    objective is to try to get back into the business of manufacturing vast
    stores of weapons of mass destruction and then try to either use them or
    sell them, then at some point the United States, and more than the
    United States, would be more than happy to try to stop that.
        But if his objective is to lift the sanctions and to divide the
    coalition and get people more sympathetic with him, I think that he has
    undermined his objective because we could never, ever agree to any
    modifications of the larger economic sanctions on Iraq as long as he's
    out of compliance. And by definition, that's the way the U.N. resolution
    works. When I say ``we'' there, I mean the whole world community. So I
    would think he would not be furthering his objectives, if his stated
    objectives are his objectives.

    [At this point, one group of reporters left the room, and another group
    entered.]

        President Clinton. Buenos dias.
        Q. Hi, Mr. Clinton. How are you?
        President Clinton. I'm fine, thank you.

    [[Page 1803]]

    Mexico-United States Cooperative Drug Efforts

        Q. President Clinton, how are you going to convince people in
    Congress that the United States--[inaudible]--it is a fact, the
    consumption on drugs, and also narco-traffickers inside of the United
    States, and convince people that only see Mexico as the bad guys?
        President Clinton. Well, first of all, I don't think that's quite
    fair. I think that Congress has targeted a number of other countries in
    a more focused way where the problem is not primarily the transit of
    drugs, but is the production of drugs, so I wouldn't agree with that.
        I do believe that, as least for our administration, we have been
    very clear that the reduction of demand and dealing with the
    infrastructure of drugs in the United States has to be a key part of our
    strategy, and we intend to implement that. I think the real issue--what
    we should be focusing on is how we can work together in our mutual
    interest, because drugs present a threat both to the United States and
    to Mexico.
        My objective in working with Congress is to try to get a united
    American position without regard to party, where we should have
    partnerships with all of the countries that are also beset by this
    problem in one way or the other, and we should work together on all
    aspects of it. That's what I believe we should do.

    Fast-Track Trade Authority

        Q. President Clinton, are you going to be pushing for the fast track
    approval?
        President Clinton. I think that this is not the last chapter in this
    story. I believe that you will see some more movement early next year,
    and I wouldn't be too discouraged. Keep in mind, we had--our preliminary
    vote in the United States Senate had almost 70 percent of the Senators
    and majorities of both parties in the U.S. Senate in favor of extending
    fast track. And I believe there is a working majority in the House of
    Representatives for a good proposal. We're going to work it hard over
    the holidays and see what happens.
        But I would urge our friends throughout Latin America not to
    overreact to the House vote, that this story is not over yet.
        Q. Do you see your failure to get fast track as a referendum of
    NAFTA?
        President Clinton. I think that--no, first of all, I don't, because
    fast track doesn't have anything to do with NAFTA. That's the first
    thing. We have our agreement, and we're implementing it and we're
    working at it. So in a strict sense, it has nothing to do with NAFTA.
    And there are no two countries anywhere in our hemisphere--indeed, there
    are no two countries anywhere else in our world--that have the same
    relationship with either one of us that we have with each other, with so
    much promise and so many challenges. So NAFTA is not fast track.
        But I personally believe that our relationships and our individual
    economies are stronger because we passed NAFTA than they would have been
    if we hadn't passed NAFTA. And I think there is enough recent history--
    you just go back over the last 25 years and look at what's happened in
    times of economic difficulty either in Mexico or the United States, and
    you look at all kinds of other issues--we are cooperating across a wider
    range of issues than ever before; we have a more integrated economic
    partnership than ever before; we are working on more labor and
    environmental issues than ever before. So my view is that we did the
    right thing to pass NAFTA and that both the United States and Mexico are
    in better shape today than they would be if we hadn't done it. That's
    what I believe.
        But I also have made it clear to Congress that I think there are two
    separate issues.

    [At this point, two questions were asked and answered in Spanish, and a
    translation was not provided.]

    Mexican Economy and Democracy

        President Clinton. I'd just like to make one comment about the
    question--you just asked him about the financial crisis, right? I think
    it is an indication of the strength and the direction that President
    Zedillo and his administration have taken that Mexico has done quite
    well in these last difficult weeks. It also, I think, is clear support
    for the decision that I made a couple of years ago to enter a
    partnership with Mexico when it was in difficulty, because I felt very
    strongly that the potential of the Mexican economy and

    [[Page 1804]]

    the Mexican people was very great, and that President Zedillo was
    pursuing the proper course.
        And I would hope that--it's not for me to say, but if I were a
    Mexican citizen, I would be very pleased with the performance of Mexico
    and its economy and its markets over the last several weeks in what has
    been a very challenging time for the world. And I think we need to
    focus--instead of focusing on the changes in these markets on a daily
    basis, our goal should be to work with all of the developing countries
    and all the sort of booming economies to make sure their underlying
    fundamentals are right.
        If the underlying fundamental economic policies are correct, then
    over time the markets will follow that, and that should be the key. I
    think Secretary Rubin and his colleagues did a good thing to try to
    stabilize the situation in Asia, for example, but the long-term goal is,
    if the fundamentals are right, eventually you will have good markets and
    a good economy. That's the most important thing, is to have a good
    economy for ordinary people.
        Q. [Inaudible]--economy? In Mexico?
        President Clinton. Where?
        Q. In Mexico or the developing economies?
        President Clinton. I just have to say, to me, just as an observer
    and a passionate supporter of democratic government over my lifetime,
    that of course Mexico has a lot of challenges. But if you look at this
    transformation you've made to a multiparty democracy, it's quite amazing
    that it's happened in a way that we've seen stability maintained,
    government's freedom to pursue a responsible economic course maintained.
    It's been very impressive to all of us who are on the outside looking in
    that Mexico has made a dramatic change in its political system, which I
    think will stand you in very good stead over the long run.
        We find our competitive system--although none of us who are in
    office like competition--but our system has stabilized America over the
    long run. I think Mexico will be stabilized by the political
    transformation, but it's amazing that it's happened so quickly and so
    well. And so for me, the political developments there have been
    interesting and very impressive, very hopeful.
        Q. You don't see any obstacles----
        President Clinton. There are always obstacles. There will always be
    obstacles.

    Note: The President spoke at 10:20 a.m. in the Oval Office at the White
    House. In his remarks, he referred to United Nations Secretary-General
    Kofi Annan. A tape was not available for verification of the content of
    these remarks.