[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 34, Number 26 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Pages 1166-1173]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With CBS News, Cox Newspapers, and McClatchy Newspapers

June 19, 1998

President's Trip to China

    Q. We've been talking among ourselves, so we'll just jump right into 
it. Just real quickly--one poll question. In a CBS/New York Times poll, 
some data that we put together shows that 59 percent of the American 
public believes you should go on this trip. But 35 percent say they--
only 35 say they approve of your policy toward China. What do you hope 
to accomplish on this trip to pull that 35 closer to the 59 or higher?
    The President. Well, I think one of the things I hope to accomplish 
is I hope that as a result of the trip, the American people will learn 
more about China, and the Chinese people will learn more about America.

[[Page 1167]]

    And I hope that what my policy actually is will be more broadly 
known among the American people. You know, I'm not surprised by the 35 
percent because normally when there's anything written about China, it's 
one--something bad happens or some question's raised here. So if you 
never get any kind of constructive information, it's hard to know. But 
in specific terms, what I'll hope we'll do is to find a way to expand 
the areas of cooperation, to continue to discuss in an open way the 
areas of our differences. And I hope that by going there, I can 
strengthen the forces of positive change in the country.
    So those are my objectives in going, and I think it's a very good 
thing. I think it's a tribute to the common sense of the American people 
and the good judgment that they understand, I think, that we have to be 
involved in China, that we have to try to have a constructive 
partnership with them.
    Q. Mr. President, you've explained why you're going to the Great 
Hall, and you've said that the Chinese Government needs eventually to 
apologize to the people for what happened at Tiananmen Square 9 years 
ago. I'm wondering what will be on your heart and on your mind as you 
motorcade up to the Great Hall and gaze out across that square and 
ponder the pageantry and trauma that's taken place there over the past 
century?
    The President. Well, obviously, I want to see Tiananmen Square, and 
I will think about what happened there 9 years ago. But I also will be 
thinking about the last turbulent century in Chinese history and the 
fact that that whole setting there has been the center of Chinese public 
life for probably 600 years now. There will be a lot to think about. I'm 
going to do my best to learn and absorb as much as I can and to increase 
my capacity to advance our interests and our values while I'm there. And 
I'm really looking forward to it.
    Q. Mr. President, is it realistic that you could have a meeting 
along the lines of President Reagan--I believe 1988--a meeting in Moscow 
with refuseniks in admittedly a period of glasnost. But is it realistic 
in China? Is that a parallel situation, and are you satisfied that 
you'll be able to have a kind of contact with dissident and religious 
groups that you will like?
    The President. Well, I'm going to meet with as many diverse people 
as I possibly can while I'm there. I'm going to try to meet with as many 
grassroots citizens who are active in all kinds of life as I can. And 
I'm going to make judgments about that based on what I think is most 
likely to promote our objectives, which include the advance of human 
rights and political civil rights, religious rights and, generally, that 
will promote more openness in China.
    You know, I said to President Jiang when he was here--both in the 
press conference and in our private conversations--that I believe China 
can never obtain it's own destiny full of greatness without becoming a 
more open society. Because whether you believe that human rights are 
universal, as the covenant says and as the U.N. embraces, or whether you 
believe it's just a cultural preference of some kinds of people, the 
reality of the world is that we now have an economy which is 
increasingly dominated by ideas. We basically moved from a farming 
economy to a manufacturing economy to an idea economy. That's what 
information technology is.
    And it is, therefore, I think almost axiomatic that you can't have 
an idea-based economy that reaches its fullest success until people are 
free to think and feel and say and do what they please. And I have tried 
to argue it to President Jiang that you can have a stable society. In 
fact, you can have a more stable society when there're outlets for 
dissent, and where people have avenues within which they can express 
their ideas, and when you prove that you can incorporate diversity 
within a society.
    I think, for example--I do not see the dialog with the Dalai Lama, 
for example, as a potential weakening of the coherence of Chinese 
society. I think it's the biggest opportunity to strengthen China. It's 
out there because the Dalai Lama's made clear he doesn't want to have an 
independent Tibet. He wants an autonomous Tibet--if the Chinese say they 
recognize--but that he recognizes that Tibet is part of China. I think 
that's an incredible opportunity.
    Here we are on the edge of the 21st century, when we see some 
countries torn apart

[[Page 1168]]

by religious and racial and ethnic differences. We've now got this great 
opportunity to harmonize, to reconcile something that has enormous 
symbolism not simply within Tibet and its sympathizers within China but 
all over the world.
    So those are the arguments I'm going to make, and I'll keep making 
them. And I'm hoping that they'll be institutionalized to some extent in 
an ongoing human rights dialog and in NGO human rights dialog and in the 
areas--in the sort of cooperative law ventures that Chinese have been 
very interested in joining with us and legal issues relating not simply 
to the rule of law and commerce, but rule of law dealing with the speech 
issues and human rights issues and labor rights issues and other things.
    So I'm looking forward to having the chance to make that case.

Religious Freedom in China

    Q. Mr. President, I noticed just glancing at the schedule that 
you're not only going to church on Sunday, but you're scheduled to make 
brief remarks. What will you be saying from the heart in that church 
about religious freedom in China?
    The President. Well, I haven't prepared my remarks yet. And I 
suspect that of all the speeches I give while I'm there, that's the one 
that's most likely to be one that I will do virtually by myself and 
close to the time, although obviously I welcome the help of all the 
people who work with me on these things.
    I hope to be able to say something about the importance of faith and 
religious liberty and the importance of religion to the character of a 
country, to acknowledge the role of Confucianism and Buddhism and other 
Eastern faiths and the history of world religions and the importance of 
giving everyone the chance to search out the truth for himself or 
herself; and the importance of recognizing that no matter how much the 
modern world comes to be dominated by technology, and no matter what 
advances occur in science, especially in the biological sciences, and no 
matter what we learn about other galaxies from physics, that each 
person's attempt to discern the truth and then to live according to it 
will remain life's most important journey.
    That's why, in the end, I think all this explosion of technology and 
communication will only intensify the pressure for openness in 
societies.

President's Trip to China

    Q. Mr. President, you've developed a knack for, in this country, 
speaking directly to the American people--getting beyond opinion makers 
and beyond the likes of us, quite frankly. I'm wondering how important 
it is to you to be able to speak directly to the Chinese people on this 
trip, and how, specifically, you'll be able to do that, given the state 
control of the media there?
    The President. You know, I just did a roundtable with Chinese 
journalists. And one of the--the television person who was there gave me 
a chance to at least give an opening message to the millions of Chinese 
that watch that station. I think it's quite important. I think making an 
impression on the Chinese people is very, very important.
    One of the things that we have learned--I don't mean the royal 
``we,'' I mean all of us working in this White House have learned--is 
that even in nondemocratic societies, in the end, the people have a big 
say in what happens. Popular opinion counts for something, and popular 
feeling and sentiment counts for something. So I hope that in many ways 
I'll be able to reach the Chinese people while I'm on this trip.
    I also hope I'll be able to have quite a bit of contact with the 
citizens of China on this trip in ways that are planned, as we did in 
the roundtables in Africa, for example, and in ways that are unplanned. 
I just think that's important. It's important for me and for our whole 
team to get a feel of life there. I've never had the opportunity to go, 
so I'm really looking forward to it.
    Q. This is your first trip there. You've gotten a lot of advice, 
solicited and otherwise, on the trip. I'm thinking now about people 
outside the administration. Who are you listening to, and how are you 
preparing personally, whether it's something you're reading or 
otherwise, for the trip?

[[Page 1169]]

    The President. The truth is, I haven't done as much reading on this 
trip as I normally do in advance because of all the incredible time-
consuming nature of this work in Congress for the tobacco bill and all 
the financial issues in Asia and all those things we've been doing on 
it. But I have solicited a significant library. I don't know if I can 
read all the books, but I've got--Jim Mann was just in here and gave me 
a copy of his book. Have you seen it? ``Beijing Jeep: A Study of Western 
Business in China.''
    But I'll get Barry to give you a list of the books; I've asked for 
six or seven books to read. I'm going to try to begin in earnest over 
this weekend and then on the trip to do as much as I can, because the 
reading always helps me. It helps me a lot with what I see and how I do.
    And we solicited, also, opinions and advice from a number of China 
scholars from outside the administration. But I've been with Jiang Zemin 
enough now that I really have quite a clear idea of what I hope we can 
achieve and how I want to go about doing it. I've done my best to sort 
of counter what I think are misconceptions about America--you know, that 
we had some grand design to contain China, that we didn't really want it 
to emerge into its rightful position of leadership and prosperity in the 
21st century, that we were unmindful of the different historical 
experiences, that we were unmindful of our own continuing challenges in 
America. I've tried to knock down all those barriers to honest dialog.
    And I've tried to establish enough credibility in being candid and 
honest over time in the things we've done together--working on the peace 
in the Korean Peninsula, working to contain proliferation, to working on 
this latest nuclear testing incident on the Indian subcontinent--to get 
to the point where I could be frank and open with the President and 
others with whom I deal. And so I'm going to do my--I'm really looking 
forward to this, and I'm hoping it will be effective.

Economic Sanctions

    Q. Mr. President, I have a sanctions question. Do you agree with 
Senator Lugar that the United States has essentially become sanction-
happy to its own detriment?
    The President. Absolutely.
    Q. And do you favor his legislation, or something like it, that 
would roll back in a variety of ways the sunsets--the economic analysis?
    The President. Yes. Let me just say, I think sanctions can be 
helpful from time to time. They're most helpful, clearly, when the world 
community agrees. I think that the sanctions on South Africa were 
helpful in bringing an end to apartheid. I think the sanctions on Serbia 
were helpful in bringing about an agreement in Bosnia. I think the 
sanctions on Iraq have been helpful in preventing Saddam Hussein from 
rebuilding the military that could dominate its neighbors and getting 
back into weapons of mass destruction. So when you've got uniformed 
sanctions they can be helpful. Sometimes they can be effective even if 
the United States is doing them, if it covers a situation we can 
dominate economically. Sometimes they're helpful just as a gesture of 
disapproval.
    But the way these sanctions laws are written with--they really 
deprive the President, any President, of the necessary flexibility in 
the country's foreign policy. And even if you put them on, it's hard to 
take them off; and the conditions for not putting them on are such that 
the President is put under an enormous burden of doing things that he 
may believe that are not in the best interest of the country.
    So I just think--and it's particularly ironic that we seem to have 
gotten sanction-happy at a time when we are reducing our foreign 
assistance to the countries that agree with us, that want to build a 
future with us.
    Now, when we refuse to contribute to the IMF and won't pay our U.N. 
dues, we may lose our vote in the U.N. because 20 Members of the 
Republican caucus in the House want us to change our policy on family 
planning. Now, for me, I think that's a very dangerous thing for our 
country. It's not in our interest because, you know, we're in danger of 
looking like we want to sanction everybody who disagrees with us and not 
help anybody who agrees with us.
    Q. Should food always be off the table?
    The President. Should what?

[[Page 1170]]

    Q. Should food--foreign products always be excluded from sanctions?
    The President. Well, I believe they should--I think our policy--they 
should be--they should always be excluded from sanctions. And then if 
something comes up in the future where a country seems, or a government 
seems so bad and they've done something so horrible that the Congress 
believes at that time, the President believes at that time it ought to 
be done, then they can do it. But I think it ought--the rule ought to be 
that we don't do it. And then if there's some compelling reason for an 
exception, it can be entertained when that exception arises. But that's 
why I'm supporting Senator Murray and others in their attempts to exempt 
food from the sanctions I imposed on India and Pakistan. I just think 
that on balance we're better off not doing that.

President's Trip to China

    Q. Mr. President, clearly, China wants our backing to get into the 
WTO. Is there any chance that that could occur out of this summit?
    The President. I don't know. I wouldn't raise hopes on that issue. I 
think they should be in the WTO. They're not only the most populous 
country in the world, but they have a large and they have a growing 
economy, and they've got a, you know, an economic future that makes 
their membership virtually essential for the WTO to do what it's suppose 
to do. You know, at some point, they'll be big enough and strong enough 
that if they're not in the WTO, it'll be almost--even though it would be 
hard to call it a world--a trade organization. They're not there yet, 
but they will be. So I would like to see them in as early as possible.
    However, I think it's also important that they be in on commercially 
viable terms. We have obviously supported China's economic emergence. I 
mean, we buy far more of their products than any other country does. And 
we do it not only because we think it's in our interest, but because, I 
think, at least, it's good that the United States helps in that way, 
economically, China to emerge, to be able to feed all its people, to 
give more of its people a good life. I think that makes them more likely 
to be more open and more free and more constructive partners.
    But I also believe that the Chinese, for all the work they've done 
in privatizing the economy and opening themselves to markets, still have 
too much access control and, from the point of view of American products 
and services, too much access denial.
    So I'm not troubled by the fact that we buy a lot of Chinese 
products, and inevitably we're going to have a big increase this year 
because of the strength of our economy coupled with the weakness of 
Asian economies, but that would widen the trade deficit. But that 
widening trade deficit will sharpen the debate and will increase the 
focus on our market access.
    Now, I would prefer and I want more market access and will argue for 
it on my trip. I don't want any special deals for the United States. I 
would prefer to see China work out an accession agreement to the WTO on 
commercial terms that would treat us just like everybody else and have 
more openness for everybody and then let the Americans compete with 
everyone else in the Chinese market and do as well as we can. But 
failing that, I will do my best to get more access for our products and 
services.

Nuclear Detargeting Agreement

    Q.  What would be the symbolism of a nuclear detargeting agreement 
between China and the United States? And is that something you think you 
might realistically be looking for?
    The President.  Well, I think it would be a good thing if we could 
get it. I can't say that we have it yet, but if we could get it, I think 
it would be a good thing. I think there are two things about it that 
would be good.
    First of all, it plainly would be a confidence-building measure, as 
you pointed out. Secondly, it would actually reduce--it would, in fact, 
have the benefit of reducing the chances of an accidental launch. If you 
detarget, yes, you can always go retarget a missile. We all know that. 
But it takes some more time, and 20 minutes in a world of instantaneous 
communications is an eternity. So the possibility of avoiding a mistake, 
or

[[Page 1171]]

even backing down from a conflict, is dramatically increased with 
detargeting. It really makes a difference.
    To go back to the confidence-building thing, the one reason I'd like 
to see it done is that, you know, we're going--we have to try to work 
our way out of the dilemma that India and Pakistan find themselves in. 
And it's obvious that China is a part of that. Think how much worse this 
would have been if China hadn't signed the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty. What kind of pressure would the Chinese have been under to test 
if the Indians said, ``Well, we really didn't do this because of 
Pakistan; we did it because of China''? But China had a principled 
reason not to test. They had signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
    All these confidence-building measures are important because they 
increase the ability of China to play a constructive role in all the 
security issues in Asia, in particular, where we have a common interest.

Influence of Money in China-U.S. Relations

    Q. Mr. President, Congresswomen Pelosi, in talking about human 
rights, keeps saying that there's one common denominator that explains 
U.S. policy toward China, and that's money, and that the Boeings and the 
Motorolas and the Westinghouses, through campaign contributions and 
other resources, have a disproportionate influence in being advocates 
for a warmer relationship with China. Given your concerns about campaign 
finance in general, is there some truth to the role that money is 
playing in the China policy?
    The President. Well, in view of the votes of some of the Republican 
Congressmen in the last couple of weeks, she may have a weaker argument 
there. [Laughter] I don't know.
    I think that the Members of the--that a lot of these companies tend 
to support Members of Congress who support more open trade with China 
and other places. But I don't think it's--you know, I think that in 
order for her argument to be right, the flipside would have to be true. 
That is, it would have to be true that if none of these companies 
contributed any money to any Republicans or Democrats, that every 
President would choose to isolate China and have no dealings with them, 
not give them most- favored-nation status, force them to make their way 
in the world without any kind of constructive commercial relations with 
the United States until they did exactly what we wanted on matters that 
we are concerned about in human rights and religious rights. And I just 
don't think that's true.
    And I guess we're the best example. I'm sure that if you add it all 
up that these companies have given far more money to the Republicans 
than they have to the Democrats. And I'm doing this because I think it's 
the right thing for America. I don't think those companies should be 
disabled from making contributions just because they happen to do 
business in China, nor do I believe that most--I think contributions 
normally tend to flow to people who are doing things that these 
companies agree with, but that most of them do it on conviction and then 
different people on different sides support different groups. I don't 
think that they bought this policy, and I know they haven't bought the 
policy of this Government. I'm doing what I think is best for the 
American people and what I think is going to give our kids a safer, more 
prosperous world to live in in the 21st century, and one I think is most 
likely to lead to a freer, more open China.

Asian Economies

    Q. Mr. President, considering the economic developments in Asia this 
week, specifically Japan, what will you say to the Chinese to convince 
them to stick to their pledge and not to devalue their currency?
    The President. Well, first of all, that obviously has got to be 
their decision to make. But I think they deserve a lot of credit for 
resisting the temptation to devalue. Now, there will be a price for them 
in devaluation--you know it's not a free decision. But I think they 
deserve a lot of credit for trying to be a force for stability in Asia 
in this financial crisis.
    I will urge them to adhere to their policy as long as they can and 
to work with me in trying to create conditions in Asia that restore 
growth, starting with Japan embracing others. Because that ultimately, 
the ultimate

[[Page 1172]]

guarantee against their devaluing their currency is the easing of the 
conditions which make them want to devalue, or at least force them to 
consider that option.
    So I think the main thing--what I'm going to tell them is, ``Look, 
I'm working hard with the Japanese; we've seen some progress this week; 
we've seen a clear, unambiguous commitment from the Japanese Government 
to undertake serious financial reform, and we're doing this--we're doing 
everything we know to do on this. And so, if you all hang in there with 
us, we think that there will come a time in the relatively near future 
when the conditions will begin to change, and you won't feel any 
pressure to devalue.'' I think that's the most important thing I could 
say to them, and I'm going to try to help create a different reality if 
I can.

President's Trip to China

    Q. President Bush was in China in February of '89, he gave Li Peng a 
pair of cowboy boots. It turned out to be a somewhat unfortunate choice 
of gifts. Are you taking any presents to President Jiang Zemin on this 
trip?
    The President. I am. As a matter of fact, I'm still--I sent out a 
note yesterday to explore two or three different options for gifts. But 
I don't want to give it away and destroy the secret. They're not cowboy 
boots. But if he gives me some, I won't be offended. I've got several 
pair and like them very much. [Laughter]
    Q. We know President Jiang has a tendency to quote the Gettysburg 
Address. I think when he was with President Ramos of the Philippines 
they broke into ``Love Me Tender.'' Do you expect something like that 
this time, as well?
    The President. No, but I know all the verses to ``Love Me Tender.'' 
[Laughter] I can hold my own if that's what the drill is. I can do that. 
He likes music, you know. He likes American music.
    And he's a very interesting man, President Jiang. I remember when I 
first met him. You know, there were lots of articles at the time saying 
that he had been a mayor of Shanghai, and he was a very nice man but 
most people thought he was going to be a transitional figure, you know. 
And so I met him. We spent a couple of hours together, and it was not 
the warmest of meetings, you know, because we had all these differences 
between us and no personal chemistry to overcome it.
    But after the meeting, I told all the people that were with me, I 
said, I believe he's in this for the long haul; I expect him to emerge. 
And he has. I mean, I could see he had been a man that had been 
underestimated by outsiders, that his sort of friendly and open 
demeanor, and his affinity for singing Western songs, and quoting from 
Lincoln and all that--that it had led people to preach false judgments 
about his capacity and his toughness.

Working With Congress

    Q. Sir, if I might switch gears and ask a non-China question along 
the lines of what you said today in your comments about tobacco. The 
last two congressional sessions have been marked at the end by a fairly 
remarkable coming together of the two parties on issues like welfare 
reform a couple of years ago, and then the balanced budget this year, 
but judging by the strength of your criticism today of Congress, it 
sounds like your instinct is that this year could be a very good year. 
Is that true?
    The President. It could be, but I wouldn't give up on the other. I 
mean, I think we still might--we might still see a lot of progress at 
the end. We've got, you know, we've got this Patients' Bill of Rights 
still out there; we've got a big child care initiative still out there; 
a lot of the education agenda is still out there; a lot of the 
environmental agenda's still out there.
    And this tobacco settlement is still very much alive as far as I'm 
concerned. This thing--because this thing has been hashed over and 
debated and amended and worked up and down and sideways, people pretty 
much know what the parameters are now. So it's not inconceivable that we 
could still get an agreement on this before this is over.
    So I'm still hoping that progress will triumph over partisanship at 
the end and that we'll see at the close, as the Congress--either now, 
before the August recess, or when they come back in September, and they 
don't want to stay very long, because they want to go home and campaign, 
and they've got all the appropriations bills and all this stuff

[[Page 1173]]

still to do. I'm hoping that a different atmosphere will take over, and 
we'll see just what happened before.
    You're quite right; we had a lot of success in '95. We had a lot of 
success in '96. We had a lot success--not '95, we had success in '96 and 
'97--and whether we will in '98 or not, I don't know. We could repeat 
'95. I mean we really could get to the point where we were almost as bad 
off as we were in '95, or we could wind up with a replay of '96 and '97. 
And it's really going to be up to the Republican majority to decide. 
But, you know, my door is open, and they know what I want. I have been 
very clear, I think, about it. And I'll remain hopeful and upbeat about 
it.
    Q. Will you be able to meet with Senator McCain before you leave for 
China? Do you have plans, are you trying to put----
    The President. I certainly intend to talk to him. He did a good job. 
He did the best he could. And he deserves the thanks of the American 
people for this. I'm grateful to him for what he did. And it's not over. 
It's not over. And it won't be over for me until I get on the helicopter 
and ride off into the distance in 2\1/2\ years. So I'm going to keep 
working on this until the end.

Note: The interview began at 4:47 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White 
House and was made available by the Office of the Press Secretary on 
June 19 but was embargoed for release until 6 a.m., June 20. In his 
remarks, the President referred to President Jiang Zemin and Premier Li 
Peng of China; Jim Mann, journalist, Los Angeles Times; former President 
George Bush; and President Fidel Ramos of the Philippines. The 
journalists who conducted the interview were Tom Mattesky for CBS News, 
Bob Deans for Cox Newspapers, and David Westphal for McClatchy 
Newspapers. This item was not received in time for publication in the 
appropriate issue. A tape was not available for verification of the 
content of this interview.