[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 48 (Monday, December 1, 1997)]
[Pages 1905-1910]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Jean Chretien of 
Canada in Vancouver, British Columbia

November 23, 1997

    President Clinton. I want to thank the Prime Minister for hosting 
this and for giving us the chance to come back to Vancouver. My family 
and I had a wonderful vacation here back in 1990, before I was 
President--back when I had a family life that was normal--and we loved 
it. This is a great place for the APEC summit.
    I also want to thank Canada again for what I think is very probably 
the most cooperative relationship in the world in trade and investment 
and in the work we do in the environment and law enforcement. And I hope 
that as we look ahead to the new century, that the partnership that 
we've had, the cooperation we've had will be a genuine model that other 
countries will try to follow.
    I think it's worth mentioning, Mr. Prime Minister, that we committed 
ourselves again to work to find a meaningful solution to the problem of 
climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We talked 
about our continuing commitment to secure democracy--democracy's roots 
and sustainability in Haiti. We discussed a number of other issues, and 
I wanted to say to you that I very much welcome these initiatives that 
were launched last April in Washington on how we can meet the 
environmental challenges of the future and how we can work to fight 
criminals who use cross-border telemarketing schemes to prey upon both 
Canadians and Americans.
    And I wanted to reiterate, also, here in Canada that we discussed 
this issue of Pacific salmon, and our special representatives have been 
working hard to get these stakeholders talks restarted. I am committed 
to them. I think this issue has gone on too long; it's caused too much 
friction between our people. And I want to reaffirm to you publicly that 
I believe this process can produce an agreement in good faith and that I 
will do my part to implement it in good faith.
    And finally, let me just thank you for your leadership in APEC. I am 
very, very pleased with the agreement which has been reached

[[Page 1906]]

by our ministers to try to tear down tariffs and open trade in nine 
different areas that covers $1.5 trillion worth of trade. This is a very 
important achievement for this, and I think it will go quite nicely with 
our efforts to discuss what we can do about the current financial issues 
in Asia.
    Our ministers in Manila have offered a proposal for the IMF to take 
a lead, for us to back them up, and for the countries themselves to take 
appropriate steps. I think that's the right approach.
    But I would say to all of you, I think this is a time for confidence 
in the future of Asia and confidence in the future of our relationship 
with them. We have a few little glitches in the road here; we're working 
through them. And I think in no small measure because of your 
leadership, Mr. Prime Minister, and the position Canada has enjoyed of 
trust and respect among all nations, this is likely to be one of the 
best meetings that we've ever had, and it's coming at exactly the right 
time because of all the developments in Asia. And I thank you for that.
    Prime Minister Chretien. Thank you very much.

Situation in Iraq

    Q. Mr. President, do you see anything confrontational or ominous in 
the latest statements by Iraq's Ambassador to the United Nations 
suggesting that this crisis may not be over, and Iraq is standing firm, 
et cetera, et cetera?
    President Clinton. I can't blame him for saying that because I've 
said that. I've also told you that the crisis may not be over. All I can 
tell you is that the international community, through the United 
Nations, has resolutions that relate to Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction program. We have an inspection team that I think has done a 
very good job, often under very trying circumstances. The leader of that 
team, Mr. Butler, made a very forthright and clear report yesterday to 
the Security Council, and they have taken what I believe so far is 
appropriate action.
    It is clear that there is a massive amount of work that has to be 
done there, especially in the chemical and biological inspection areas, 
in order for UNSCOM to fulfill the mandate it has been given by the 
United Nations. And I am determined that it should do so, and I believe 
all of us are.

Asia-Pacific Economic Conference

    Q. Prime Minister, your Foreign Minister this morning seemed to 
suggest that people, in his words, will question the value of APEC if it 
doesn't help some of these countries move toward democratic rights. I 
didn't think that's what APEC was all about. Do you agree with what Mr. 
Axworthy said? And I wonder if Mr. Clinton sees that also as one of the 
aims that APEC should have.
    Prime Minister Chretien. The aim of APEC is an economic discussion 
for liberalization of trade among the countries. Of course, when--but 
the reality is this: APEC is a good meeting to discuss these things, but 
we have a lot of bilateral meetings at the same time. So we promote the 
changes that we believe should happen in some of the countries on a 
bilateral basis. These subjects are not discussed officially at APEC 
because APEC has not been structured for that.
    But it's great for us that it gave us the occasion to have bilateral 
meetings with these leaders. And for example, I would have bilateral 
meetings with all of them, and in fact, the President of China is coming 
to Ottawa, the occasion of APEC, for meetings in Ottawa and Toronto. So 
APEC is the cause of a dialog of that nature that is very useful for all 
of us. But APEC is not a meeting that is organized for that type of 
discussion.

Fast-Track Trading Authority

    Q. Prime Minister, did you discuss fast track, especially in 
relationship to liberalization of trade in the Americas? And also, 
President Clinton, on this, too?
    Prime Minister Chretien. Well, there was not a direct discussion on 
that. We will have a meeting in Chile later on. And I understand that 
the vote was not taken in the United States, but it was a postponement. 
But it's up to the President to assess what is happening there.
    We are very much interested that we carry on on the goal that we 
have set to us, to all of the countries of the Americas, when the 
President, at his meeting in December '94, I guess, where we decided 
that by year 2010 we should have an agreement with all

[[Page 1907]]

the Central and Latin American and Caribbean countries to be part of a 
kind of an expanded NAFTA.
    President Clinton. Let me say, if I were you, I would not read too 
much significance into the fact that the vote was not held at the end of 
the last session of Congress. I think Congress will act on fast-track 
legislation early next year. And we're going to do our best to prevail.
    I think it's important to note that in the difficulties in the House 
of Representatives there were a number of issues not directly related to 
trade, which played a role in our inability to take the vote at that 
time.
    I also would say, though, specifically that a lot of the legitimate 
concerns over the nature of our trading relations with the rest of the 
world were brought to bear in the debate on the procedural vote, and 
they reflected the limit that is going on in every advanced society in 
the world, in Canada, in all of Europe, everywhere, which is, how do you 
achieve the benefits of the global economy--how do you achieve the 
benefits of the global economy and still preserve the social contracts? 
How do you make sure that when you expand trade--you mentioned human 
rights--how do you make sure, when you expand trade, you're actually 
elevating the human condition of your trading partners? How do you make 
sure that we have a strategy for expanding trade and growing economies 
which allow--not only allow but encourage all of us to be more 
environmentally responsible?
    So a lot of these things just need to be worked through in governing 
bodies throughout the world. And I think that in that sense it's a 
healthy thing. But I expect we'll take some positive action on fast 
track early in the next year, and I would urge that all kind of wait and 
see what we do, but I'm hopeful.

Landmines

    Q. Mr. President, did the Prime Minister convince you to sign on to 
the landmine treaty?
    President Clinton. No, we haven't discussed that. But let me just 
tell you we haven't discussed that yet here; we had a conversation about 
it on the telephone the other day. The Prime Minister has worked very 
hard to create the biggest possible tent for everyone to be in to this 
treaty. I want to first say that I think Canada has done a remarkable 
and an important thing in trying to get the countries of the world to 
agree not to produce, deploy, or sell landmines. And I applaud that.
    The United States, I believe, has destroyed more landmines since 
I've been President than any other country in the world, 1.5 million in 
our own stocks; we're about to destroy another 1.5 million. We also have 
spent about half the money spent in the world on demining activities. We 
lost a plane off the coast of Africa just a few weeks ago and all of its 
crew having deposited a demining team in Africa. And we're increasing by 
25 percent our demining budget.
    Now, because of the unique circumstances of our program, we may not 
be able to sign on. We don't think we can sign on to the agreement as 
it's presently written because of our responsibilities in Korea and 
because our antitank defenses are not covered by the words, the plain 
words of the treaty as other countries' antitank defenses are. Everybody 
recognizes they're legitimate. And I hope we can work that out, but if 
we can't, it should not diminish the fact that Canada has done an 
enormously important thing.
    Simultaneously with that, what I am trying to do is to encourage all 
the major producers and sellers of landmines in the world who are not 
yet part of--out of the Ottawa regime, or any other commitment, to make 
appropriate commitments not to produce, deploy or sell these mines. And 
I will continue to do that.
    So I'm going to work together with the Prime Minister on this as 
best I can. And if we are not able to sign it because of those two 
issues, that should not diminish the achievement that Canada has made to 
get other countries in this. And meanwhile, we will continue to be the 
world's number one destroyer of landmines, and we will continue to spend 
more money and exert more efforts to bring these mines out of the ground 
that are killing people around the world.
    Prime Minister Chretien. And yesterday we add Thailand to agree to 
sign the treaty,

[[Page 1908]]

and we had a discussion with the Prime Minister of Singapore this 
morning--was looking at that. We are frustrated--some of the countries 
who are not signing the treaty we are frustrated to make a statement 
that they will not engage into selling landmines and so on.
    So we made a lot of progress, and we'll keep the pressure, gentle 
pressure, on the President--[laughter]--every time that we have an 
occasion to get them to move. I do think that there is a way to take 
care of the problem of Korea and so on, but it's complicated--I 
understand that--for the President of the United States, more than for 
me.
    President Clinton. Let me just say, though, there's not that much 
difference in our position. This is a question of how that treaty was 
worded and the unwillingness of some people to entertain any change in 
the wording of it.
    I believe I was the first world leader at the United Nations to call 
for a total ban on landmine production and deployment. And I strongly 
support what the Prime Minister is doing. And when they were meeting in 
Oslo, we implored the people there to give us the exceptions we needed, 
recognizing that in the Korean Peninsula we've never had indiscriminate 
use of landmines that have had--put civilians, children at risk, and 
that we have the unusual situation of having a huge North Korean army 
there just a few miles from Seoul and no way to stop the movement there 
without leaving the minefields there, and that we have a situation with 
our antitank weapons which we have tested over and over again to prove 
that they don't amount to antipersonnel weapons that can be left in the 
field and cause danger to innocent civilians.
    But the people who were at Oslo decided they would not try to 
accommodate us for whatever reason. That was their legitimate reason. A 
number of world leaders said they thought I was right, but that they 
couldn't get it done. Now, I'm not going to fight over that. I think 
that's silly. We should look at the evidence. What is your record on 
landmines? Which nation has destroyed the most landmines? Which nation 
is doing the most to promoted demining? The answer to that is the United 
States.
    And I support what Canada has done. And I think it is a great 
mistake to make this whole story about whether we will sign on to this, 
or not. That was a decision made by people who decided that our antitank 
weapons were not entitled to be protected. My first responsibility, 
since I may have to send our troops into conflict situations on behalf 
of a lot of the nations that have signed on to this treaty, is to make 
sure that if I do that I can protect them. Now, that is my position.
    So I regret the fact that our antitank systems are the only ones in 
the world that weren't covered by this. They have their position on 
that. They have their reasons that because of where they were in the 
Oslo process they couldn't change. That's fine. It's a great mistake to 
make that the story.
    Canada has done a magnificent thing getting all these countries 
involved in this, continuing to raise the issue. We have done a great 
thing by destroying the weapons and by leading the world's demining 
effort. And we should work together as closely as we can and not let the 
differences over the wording of this treaty and whether we sign on the 
bottom line at some time or another obscure the fact that we are moving 
to rid the world of these antipersonnel weapons. It is a big deal, and 
it should be seen as a positive deal that should not be obscured by how 
this whole business about our participation in the treaty developed.

International Agreement on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Q. With Kyoto a week away, have you come to any agreement on 
reducing emissions, any target dates? Did you decide anything today?
    Prime Minister Chretien. We have not decided what will be the result 
of Kyoto, but we have agreed that it is very important to have an 
agreement in Kyoto. And there are some discussions at this time between 
the different participants to find a compromise. We have been engaged in 
that. I discussed that with the President this morning. We want to 
involve the developing nations, too, because this is not a problem only 
with the industrialized nations; this is a global issue. And even if we 
do what is right among the

[[Page 1909]]

industrialized nations, the problem can be increasing over years because 
of the developing nations. It's not affecting only the countries where 
the pollution is caused; it's going into the atmosphere; it's moving 
around.
    So we want to have some statement made by the developing nations, 
and we will use this meeting at APEC to talk to some of the big 
countries, like China, to engage them. I talked yesterday with Mexico, 
who are part of what we call the B categories, to get engaged and to 
make some commitments that will be useful to solve the problems in the 
long run.
    It's not only a problem of industrialized nations, it's a global 
problem. And the President and I, I guess, would agree on that, that it 
has to be done in a global fashion. So we will be negotiating in Kyoto 
to involve them and try to get some credit for when we're helping them 
to develop their economy in such a way that they will pollute less. And 
it is a great occasion for these countries to do the development of 
their energy production and to do it the right way because they're 
starting, and it's better to do it right at the beginning than to wait 
for 10 or 15 years and have to start again.
    So these are the types of discussions that I had with the President 
this morning, where we want to work together with both the 
industrialized nations and the developing nations, too.

Asian Economies

    Q. [Inaudible]--you said the U.S. should back up the IMF in its 
efforts to find some sort of stability in Asian economies. What is the 
U.S. prepared to do by way of backing up the IMF? How would you explain 
to the American public what their stake is in this issue?
    President Clinton. First of all, let me describe what we agreed to 
do in Manila, our ministers, and what Secretary Rubin and Deputy 
Secretary Summers have worked very hard to develop.
    We basically, in response to the Asian financial markets crisis, 
said there ought to be a three-step plan here. Number one, the 
International Monetary Fund ought to take the lead. Number two, they 
can't take the lead unless countries themselves have responsible 
policies that inspire investor confidence, and we listed those. Number 
three, the other developed countries ought to be in a position to 
together have a sort of a backup stabilizing reassurance support. And it 
doesn't involve an enormous amount of money on the part of any country--
nowhere near, for example, the commitment we made in Mexico.
    And we had a bill in the last session of the Congress that was in 
with our U.N. arrears that, as you will remember, was held up because of 
another domestic political dispute, but again, I expect that will be 
worked out early in the next year. So that's kind of where we are.
    We're just banding together with the other countries to give a 
little backup to the IMF because we know how much these huge flows of 
capital--they're very massive around the world, and they move based on a 
perception of what is going to happen in the future, where confidence is 
of the essence. So confidence requires good practices within the 
countries, strong IMF, and the backup for the other countries. Our 
commitment is limited but significant enough to send that signal when in 
tandem with all of our other allies.
    Prime Minister Chretien. And we're working on this problem since a 
long time. You will remember the summit in Halifax----
    President Clinton. Yes, Halifax.
    Prime Minister Chretien.----where that was the team of the summit. 
We had a feeling that it was to be a problem. So we have strengthened 
the mechanism used by IMF and trying to prevent the crisis and so on. 
But as the President said, there is a lot of speculative interpretation 
of what is going on--that we have to say. And we believe that in the 
Asia-Pacific, the countries are not facing a massive recession; it's not 
true at all. These countries will still be growing. And a lot of the 
mistakes that were made were not necessarily made by action of 
government. It was a lot of people borrowing short-term money to build 
hotels and office buildings and so on. And suddenly, with the 
speculation, they're trapped. And the government has come to the rescue 
of who?--of the private sector. And we have to keep that in mind.

[[Page 1910]]

    So we need to try to--and I guess there is a lot of consensus here 
that we have to back up the IMF, ask the countries to have the proper 
programs to meet the requirements of IMF. And what is important--in the 
communique it looks like we have made more agreements than predicted 
because we believe that we have to carry on on the course of freer trade 
and more movement of capital around the world. That's the way that 
growth will come, and it is through growth that you can attend to the 
social problems that exist in all these countries.
    President Clinton. I'd like to say one other thing. Just a minute. 
If you look at--I just want to hammer home this--maybe the best thing 
we're doing to help the situation is the agreement we've made to push 
for lower tariffs and open trade in nine new areas, including 
environmental technology, which will help what we're trying to do on 
climate change, because that will show that we understand that we're 
leading the way to growth through increasing trade and investment in the 
areas that are critical to the 21st century economy.
    The Prime Minister has made this point over and over again, but I 
predict to you that our making that common commitment and going forward 
and building on what we've done with the information technology 
agreement will have a significant positive impact in the confidence 
people have about whether they should be investing in all the countries 
participating here, including our two.

[The following question was asked in French. Prime Minister Chretien 
answered in French, and his remarks were translated by an interpreter.]

    Q. Mr. Prime Minister, concerning the IMF, given the fact that Korea 
and Thailand are already involved, do you think the agreement is 
sufficiently solid?
    Prime Minister Chretien. I think the answer is positive, and we will 
be helping, if necessary. The IMF is a first line of defense; then 
perhaps we might need a second line of defense. And I think that the IMF 
has managed very well the Mexican crisis 3 years ago. This is a very 
important example. And it will also be able to manage the Pacific 
crisis. And if there are additional resources that are needed, we will 
be communicating with members of the IMF, if necessary. And I trust that 
it will work.
    Thank you very much.
    Q. Are you prepared for the United States to participate in a backup 
to any IMF package to aid South Korea?
    President Clinton. First of all, I think that the South Korean 
situation is covered by the statement we put out in Manila. And I think 
the important thing that we should do now is to focus on how South Korea 
fits within that framework. South Korea--we should look at that, we 
should--the IMF is going to look at it; the IMF is going to make a 
judgment. There are certain things the South Koreans may have to do. And 
then, under certain circumstances, any country involved--if you look at 
what we agreed to do in Manila, whether the backup comes into pay or 
not, depends on what happens in the first two instances--what the 
country does, what the IMF does, what the judgment is now.
    So it's completely premature to make a decision about that. The 
South Koreans have a very powerful economy with a great amount of 
potential. And a lot of this is going to be--involves making adjustments 
now in it and then restoring the natural productive capacity and growth 
to the economy. I'm--certainly I don't see how anyone could be less than 
hopeful about the long-term prospects for the South Korean economy given 
their remarkable achievements over the last few decades.
    Prime Minister Chretien. Thank you very much.

Note: The President's 153d news conference began at 10 a.m. in the East 
Room at the Pan Pacific Hotel.