[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 35, Number 15 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Pages 631-638]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at the Seventh Millennium Evening at the White House

April 12, 1999

[The First Lady began the program making brief remarks and introducing 
Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, the evening's featured speaker, 
who then made remarks.]

    The President. Ladies and gentleman, we have all been moved by one 
more profound example of Elie Wiesel's lifetime of bearing witness.
    Before we open the floor for questions, and especially because of 
the current events in Kosovo, I would like to ask you to think about 
what he has just said in terms of what it means to the United States, in 
particular,

[[Page 632]]

and to the world in which we would like our children to live in the new 
century.
    How do we avoid indifference to human suffering? How do we muster 
both the wisdom and the strength to know when to act and whether there 
are circumstances in which we should not? Why are we in Kosovo?
    The history of our country for quite a long while had been dominated 
by a principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. 
Indeed, for most of our history we have worn that principle as a badge 
of honor, for our Founders knew intervention as a fundamentally 
destructive force. George Washington warned us against those 
``entangling alliances.''
    The 20th century, with its two World Wars, the cold war, Korea, 
Vietnam, Desert Storm, Panama, Lebanon, Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, 
Kosovo, it changed all that. For good or ill, it changed all that. Our 
steadily increasing involvement in the rest of the world, not for 
territorial gain but for peace and freedom and security, is a fact of 
recent history.
    In the cold war, it might be argued that on occasion we made a wrong 
judgment, because we saw the world through communist and noncommunist 
lenses. But no one doubts that we never sought territorial advantage. No 
one doubts that when we did get involved, we were doing what at least we 
thought was right for humanity.
    Now, at the end of the 20th century, it seems to me we face a great 
battle of the forces of integration against the forces of 
disintegration, of globalism versus tribalism, of oppression against 
empowerment. And this phenomenal explosion of technology might be the 
servant of either side or both.
    The central irony of our time, it seems to me, is this: Most of us 
have this vision of a 21st century world with the triumph of peace and 
prosperity and personal freedom; with the respect for the integrity of 
ethnic, racial, and religious minorities; within a framework of shared 
values, shared power, shared plenty; making common cause against disease 
and environmental degradation across national lines, against terror, 
organized crime, weapons of mass destruction. This vision, ironically, 
is threatened by the oldest demon of human society: our vulnerability to 
hatred of the other. In the face of that, we cannot be indifferent, at 
home or abroad. That is why we are in Kosovo.
    We first have to set an example, as best we can, standing against 
hate crimes against racial minorities or gays, standing for respect, for 
diversity. Second, we have to act responsibly, recognizing this unique 
and, if history is any guide, fleeting position the United States now 
enjoys of remarkable military, political, and economic influence. We 
have to do what we can to protect the circle of humanity against those 
who would divide it by dehumanizing the other. Lord knows we have had 
enough of that in this century, and Elie talked about it.
    I think it is well to point out that Henry Luce coined the term, 
``the American Century,'' way back in 1941. A lot of terrible things 
have happened since then, but a lot of good things have happened as 
well. And we should be grateful that, for most of the time since, our 
Nation has had both the power and the willingness to stand up against 
the horrors of the century, not every time, not every place, not even 
always with success, but we've done enough good to say that America has 
made a positive difference.
    From our successes and from our failures, we know there are hard 
questions that have to be asked when you move beyond the values and the 
principles to the murky circumstances of daily life. We can't, perhaps, 
intervene everywhere, but we must always be alive to the possibility of 
preventing death and oppression and forging and strengthening 
institutions and alliances to make a good outcome more likely.
    Elie has said that Kosovo is not the Holocaust but that the 
distinction should not deter us from doing what is right. I agree on 
both counts. When we see people forced from their homes at gunpoint, 
loaded onto train cars, their identity papers confiscated, their very 
presence blotted from the historical record, it is only natural that we 
would think of the events which Elie has chronicled tonight in his own 
life.
    We must always remain awake to the warning signs of evil. And now, 
we know that it is possible to act before it is too late.

[[Page 633]]

    The efforts of Holocaust survivors to make us remember and help us 
understand, therefore, have not been in vain. The people who fought 
those battles and lived those tragedies, however, will not be around 
forever. More than a thousand World War II veterans pass away every day. 
But they can live on in our determination to preserve what they gave us 
and to stand against the modern incarnations of the evil they defeated.
    Some say--and perhaps there will be some discussion about it 
tonight--that evil is an active presence, always seeking new 
opportunities to manifest itself. As a boy growing up in my Baptist 
church, I heard quite a lot of sermons about that. Other theologians, 
like Niebuhr, Martin Luther King, argued that evil was more the absence 
of something, a lack of knowledge, a failure of will, a poverty of the 
imagination, or a condition of indifference.
    None of this answers any of the difficult questions that a Kosovo, a 
Bosnia, a Rwanda present. But Kosovo is at the doorstep or the 
underbelly of NATO and its wide number of allies. We have military 
assets and allies willing to do their part. President Milosevic clearly 
has established a pattern of perfidy, earlier in Bosnia and elsewhere. 
And so we act.
    I would say there are two caveats that we ought to observe. First of 
all, any military action, any subsequent peacekeeping force, cannot 
cause ancient grudges and freshly opened wounds to heal overnight. But 
we can make it more likely that people will resolve their differences by 
force of argument rather than force of arms and, in so doing, learn to 
live together. That is what Romania and Hungary have done recently, with 
their differences. It is what many Bosnian Croats, Serbs, and Muslims 
are struggling to do every day.
    Second, we should not fall victim to the easy tendency to demonize 
the Serbian people. They were our allies in World War II; they have 
their own legitimate concerns. Any international force going into Kosovo 
to maintain the peace must be dedicated also to protecting the Serbian 
minority from those who may wish to take their vengeance.
    But we cannot be indifferent to the fact that the Serbian leader has 
defined destiny as a license to kill. Destiny, instead, is what people 
make for themselves, with a decent respect for the legitimate interests 
and rights of others.
    In his first lecture here, the first millennium lecture, the 
distinguished historian, Bernard Bailyn, argued how much we are still 
shaped by the ideals of our Founding Fathers and by their realism, their 
deeply practical understanding of human nature, their understanding of 
the possibility of evil. They understood difficult moral judgments. They 
understood that to be indifferent is to be numb. They knew, too, that 
our people would never be immune to those who seek power by playing on 
our own hatreds and fears and that we had more to learn about the true 
meaning of liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness.
    Here in this house, we have tried to advance those ideals with our 
initiative against hate crime, the race initiative, AmeriCorps, the 
stand against the hatred that brought us Oklahoma City and paramilitary 
groups, the efforts to forge peace for Northern Ireland to the Middle 
East.
    But our challenge now, and the world's, is to harmonize diversity 
and integration, to build a richly textured fabric of civilization that 
will make the most of God's various gifts, and that will resist those 
who would tear that fabric apart by appealing to the dark recesses that 
often seem to lurk in even the strongest souls.
    To succeed, we must heed the wisdom of our Founders about power and 
ambition. We must have the compassion and determination of Abraham 
Lincoln to always give birth to new freedom. We must have the vision of 
President Roosevelt, who proclaimed four freedoms for all human beings 
and invited the United States to defend them at home and around the 
world.
    Now, we close out this chapter of our history determined not to turn 
away from the horrors we leave behind but to act on their lessons with 
principle and purpose. If that is what we are, in fact, doing, Kosovo 
could be a very good place to begin a new century.
    Thank you very much. [Applause] Thank you.

[[Page 634]]

    We have hundreds of questions--I know. Ellen, do you want to 
describe what we're going to do?
    Ellen Lovell. Well, I think, Mr. President, you have a question for 
Mr. Wiesel. And then I'm going to begin the questioning from the room, 
and Mrs. Clinton will take the questions from the Internet.
    The President. I would like to ask you a question about what you 
think the impact of the modern media and sort of instantaneous news 
coverage will be. It is obvious to me that we built a consensus in the 
United States and throughout Europe for action in Bosnia in no small 
measure because of what people saw was going on there. It is obvious to 
me that the support in the United States and Europe for our actions in 
Kosovo have increased because of what people see going on.
    And I think I worry about two things, and I just would like to hear 
your thoughts on it. Number one, is there a chance that people will 
become inured to this level of human suffering by constant exposure to 
it? And number two, is there a chance that even though people's interest 
in humanity can be quickened, almost overnight, that we're so used to 
having a new story every day, that we may not have the patience to pay 
the price of time to deal with this and other challenges? A lot of these 
things require weeks and months, indeed years, of effort. And that seems 
to be inconsistent with, kind of, rapid-fire new news we are used to 
seeing.
    Mr. Wiesel. Mr. President, usually, in this room, people ask you 
questions. [Laughter]
    The President. That's why I like this. [Laughter]
    Mr. Wiesel. What you said is correct. The numbness is a danger. I 
remember during the Vietnam war, the first time we saw on television, 
live, the war in Vietnam--usually, of course, the networks broadcasted 
during dinner. So we stopped eating. How can you eat when people kill 
each other and people die? After 2 weeks, people went on eating. They 
were numb. And it's a danger.
    But nevertheless, I don't see the alternative. Except I hope that in 
the next millennium, the next century, those who are responsible for the 
TV programs, for the news programs, will find enough talent, enough 
fervor, enough imagination, to present the news in such a way that the 
news will appeal to all of us day after day. I do not see an 
alternative. We must know what is happening.
    And today we can know it instantly. If the American people now are 
behind you, it is because they see it on television and they see it in 
newspapers. They see the images. They see the pictures of children in 
the trains, as you said, in the trains. So how can they remain 
indifferent? And therefore, I am--the risks are there, but I have faith 
that we shall overcome the risks. But we must know.

[At this point, Ms. Lovell, Director, White House Millennium Council, 
and the First Lady led the question-and-answer portion of the evening. 
Ms. Lovell called on a Native American leader in attendance who briefly 
described atrocities in her peoples' history and asked Mr. Wiesel what a 
nation can do to overcome indifference to suffering without resorting to 
military action to awaken awareness. The First Lady cited Bernard 
Bailyn's remarks from the first millennium evening noting people too 
often overlook or ignore segments of history that are discomforting.]

    The President. I'd just like to say one thing specifically, Chief. 
First of all I'm glad you're here, and I'm glad you're here for this. I 
think that Hillary and I have spent more time on Native American issues 
and with Native American leaders, than any previous administration, at 
least that I know anything about. And with all respect, one of the 
things that I think is killing us in this country--still is a big 
problem--is a phenomenal amount of ignorance on the part not just of 
schoolchildren but of people in very important positions of 
decisionmaking, about the real, factual history of the Native Americans 
in the United States.
    And you can almost find no one who understands the difference in any 
one tribe or another. And you can almost find no one who understands 
that, yes, a few tribes are wealthy because of gaming, because of the 
sovereignty relationship, but also the poorest Americans are still in 
Native American communities. And I think this disempowerment, this 
stripping of autonomy and self-respect

[[Page 635]]

and self-reliance, and the ability to do things that started over a 
century ago, still, in subtle ways, continues today.
    And from my perspective, I've been terribly impressed with a lot of 
the elected leaders of the tribes all across the country. And I think 
that we really have a huge job to do to not have kind of a benign 
neglect or not benign, a malign neglect, under the guise of preserving 
this sovereignty relationship. And we need to recognize what we did and 
what is still there that's a legacy of the past, so that we can give the 
children of the Native American tribes all over this country the future 
they deserve.
    I think it's a huge issue, and I still think ignorance is bearing 
down on us something fierce. And I thank you for being here.

[The question-and-answer portion of the evening continued. A Rwandan 
participant asked how individuals around the world who, by their 
indifference in 1994 allowed genocide to occur, could show that they 
were not still indifferent to the fate of Rwanda. Mr. Wiesel briefly 
responded.]

    The President. I think we could have prevented a significant amount 
of it. You know, it takes--the thing about the Rwanda massacre that was 
so stunning is it was done mostly with very primitive weapons, not 
modern mass killing instruments, and yet it happened in a matter of just 
a few weeks, as you know.
    And I want to give time for others to ask their questions, but let 
me say I have thought about this a great deal, more than you might 
imagine. And we went to Kigali when we were in Africa, and we talked to 
a number of the survivors, including a woman who woke up to find her 
husband and six children all hatcheted to death, hacked to death. And 
she, by a miracle, lived and was devoting herself to the work of helping 
people like you put your lives back together.
    One of the things that made it, I think, more likely that we would 
act in Kosovo and, eventually, in Bosnia, is that we had a mechanism 
through which we could act, where people could join together in a hurry, 
like with NATO. And one of the things that we are trying to do is to 
work with other African countries now on something called the Africa 
Crisis Response Initiative, where we send American soldiers to work with 
African countries to develop the ability to work with other militaries 
to try to head these kinds of things off and to do it in a hurry.
    I can only tell you that I will do my best to make sure that nothing 
like this happens again in Africa. I do not think the United States can 
take the position that we only care about these sorts of things if they 
happen in Europe. I don't feel that way. And I think that we will, next 
time, be far more likely to have the means to act in Africa than we had 
last time in a quicker way.

[The next question, which came from the Internet, was: Who determines 
exactly what human rights are; is there a list; are human rights 
different in various locales? The First Lady pointed out that there is a 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations, 
and Mr. Wiesel briefly responded.]

    The President. Let me just say--there was another part to that 
question. The young man asked a very good question. The only thing I 
would say is you should get a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. You should read it. You will find that it also says, in addition 
to what Mr. Wiesel says, that all people should have certain rights 
against government. They should have the right to speak their mind. They 
should have the right to dissent. They should have the right to 
organize. They should have the right to chart their own course.
    And then the last question you ask is a very important one. He said, 
``Is human rights, are they different from country to country?'' And the 
truth is that to some extent they are, but that's not because people can 
use their own cultures or religion as an excuse to repress women and 
young girls, for example, the way the Taliban does in Afghanistan. It's 
because countries should be free to go beyond the baseline definition if 
they choose.
    For example, we have an Americans with Disabilities Act, which we 
believe is sort of a further manifestation of the basic human rights. So 
we don't want--when you say, are they the same in all countries?--no, 
countries normally, when they have more wealth

[[Page 636]]

or a more advanced democracy, find new ways to manifest those rights. 
And to that extent, they can be different from country to country.
    Countries do have different religious and cultural institutions, but 
the whole purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was so 
that no country could get away with oppressing the basic humanity of any 
person on the grounds that they were somehow different from some other 
country. That's the most important point to be made. That's why there 
needed to be a Universal Declaration.

[The question-and-answer portion of the evening continued. A participant 
pointed out that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all preach love, 
kindness, and compassion, but that each had been used as a tool of 
oppression and suffering. Mr. Wiesel responded briefly that this was due 
to fanaticism and that part of the solution had to be education.]

    The President. I would like to just offer a couple of observations, 
if I might.
    First of all, I think one of the most hopeful signs I have seen to 
deal with this whole issue of religious fanaticism in the last few years 
is the enormous support of Jews in America and throughout the world for 
the Muslim populations of Bosnia and Kosovo. I think it doesn't answer 
all the questions of what should be the details of the resolution 
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It doesn't solve all the 
problems, but everybody should see that this is a good thing. I think 
that the American Jewish community was maybe the most ardent community, 
earliest, for the United States stepping forward in Kosovo. And I think 
we have to see that as a good thing.
    Secondly, I think this whole question of the treatment of women and 
children by the Taliban has aroused a vocal opposition among members of 
the Muslim community around the world who feel that they can say this 
and not be betraying their faith. I think this is a good thing.
    Now, I would just like to make two other points, one of which is to 
agree with Elie on this one point. I agree on education, but education 
for what? There are a lot of geniuses that are tyrants. What is it that 
we're going to educate?
    I believe that every good Jew, every good Christian, and every good 
Muslim, if you believe that love is the central value of the religion, 
you have to ask yourself, why is that? The reason is, we are not God; we 
might be wrong. Every one of us--I might be wrong about what I've been 
advocating here tonight. It's only when you recognize the possibility 
that you might be wrong or, to use the language of Saint Paul, that we 
see through the glass darkly, that we know only in part, that you can 
give the other person some elbow room.
    And somehow, one or two central scriptural tenets from Judaism, from 
Islam, from the Koran, and from Christianity, need to be put in one 
little place and need to be propagated throughout the world--to preach a 
little humility, if you please. Otherwise, we'll never get there.
    The second point I wanted to make is this: A lot of these people 
that are saying this in the name of religion, they're kidding. They know 
perfectly well that religion has nothing to do with it. It's about power 
and control, and they're manipulating other people. And when it is, if 
it's someone who practices our faith, we've got to have the guts to 
stand up and say that. And it's hard, but we have to.

[The First Lady stated her belief that it was essential to speak out 
when you believe your religion has been misappropriated or misused and 
that the new century offered an opportunity for Jews, Christians, and 
Muslims to work together against fanaticism.]

    The President. I would like to make one more point which I think is 
very important in the dealings between the West and the Islamic 
countries, generally, and I will use Iran as an example.
    It may be that the Iranian people have been taught to hate or 
distrust the United States or the West on the grounds that we are 
infidels and outside the faith. And therefore, it is easy for us to be 
angry and to respond in kind. I think it is important to recognize, 
however, that Iran, because of its enormous geopolitical importance over 
time, has been the subject of quite a lot of abuse from

[[Page 637]]

various Western nations. And I think sometimes it's quite important to 
tell people, ``Look, you have a right to be angry at something my 
country or my culture or others that are generally allied with us today 
did to you 50 or 60 or 100 or 150 years ago. But that is different from 
saying that I am outside the faith, and you are God's chosen.''
    So sometimes people will listen to you if you tell them, ``You're 
right, but your underlying reason is wrong.'' So we have to find some 
way to get dialog, and going into total denial when you're in a 
conversation with somebody who's been your adversary, in a country like 
Iran that is often worried about its independence and its integrity, is 
not exactly the way to begin.
    So I think while we speak out against religious intolerance, we have 
to listen for possible ways we can give people the legitimacy of some of 
their fears or some of their angers or some of their historic 
grievances, and then say they rest on other grounds; now, can we build a 
common future? I think that's very important. Sometimes I think we in 
the United States, and Western culture generally, we hate to do that. 
But we're going to have to if we want to have an ultimate accommodation.

[The question-and-answer portion of the evening continued. An African-
American participant who emigrated from the Caribbean suggested that, in 
the next few years, the Nation's minorities will become the majority and 
asked if and how we could actually become a global society.]

    The President. I would just make two points, I think. First of all, 
I think given the fact that we're living in an age of globalization, 
where, whether we like it or not, more and more of our economic and 
cultural and other contacts will cross national lines, it is, in fact, a 
very good thing that sometime in the next century there will be no 
single majority racial group.
    But I should also tell you that before we had large numbers of 
African-Americans coming, who were not here or direct descendants from 
slaves but others coming, like you did, from the Caribbean, and before 
we had large numbers of Hispanics, 100 years ago, Irish immigrants to 
this country were treated as if they were of a different racial group. 
So we've always had these tensions.
    But I think if we can learn to live together across our racial and 
religious lines, in a way that not just respects but actually celebrates 
our diversity, that does it within the framework, as I said, of a common 
fabric of shared values and shared opportunity, I think that will be 
quite a good thing for the 21st century. I think it will make America 
stronger, not weaker. So I look forward to that.
    The second thing I want to say is I think that to get there we're 
going to have to more broadly find a way to have more economic and 
educational balance in the share of wealth, in the share of knowledge, 
across all of our racial and ethnic groups. There is no easy way to 
achieve that. But I am convinced that--and I see your colleague, Mr. 
Silber, out here, who's thought about this a great deal in his life--I'm 
convinced that lowering standards for people who come from poor 
backgrounds is not the answer.
    I think we should raise standards and invest more resources in 
helping people achieve them. And then I think we need to provide the 
incentives in every neighborhood, in every Native American reservation, 
in every rural area, that have made the economy work elsewhere. It will 
never be perfectly done, but we can do a much, much better job of it. 
And unless we do a much better job educationally and economically, then 
we won't have all the benefits from our racial diversity that we could 
otherwise enjoy.

[The question-and-answer portion of the evening continued. Ms. Lovell 
then thanked the participants and asked for the President's closing 
remarks.]

    The President. I don't think there's much more to say, except to 
thank you again for once again giving us your witness and for the 
powerful example of your life. We thank your family for joining us. And 
I thank all of you for caring about this.
    I believe there's grounds for hope. I think the history of this 
country is evidence. I think the civil rights movement is evidence. I 
think the life and triumph of Nelson Mandela is evidence. I think 
evidence abounds.
    What we all have to remember is somehow how to strike the proper 
balance of passion

[[Page 638]]

and humility. I think our guest tonight has done it magnificently, and I 
thank him.
    Thank you very much.

Note: The White House Millennium Evening began at 7:37 p.m. in the East 
Room at the White House. In his remarks, the President referred to Chief 
Joyce Dugan of the Eastern Band Cherokee Nation, North Carolina; 
President Slobodan Milosevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 
(Serbia and Montenegro); John Silber, chancellor, Boston University; and 
President Nelson Mandela of South Africa. The discussion was entitled, 
``The Perils of Indifference: Lessons Learned From a Violent Century.'' 
The transcript made available by the Office of the Press Secretary also 
included the remarks of the First Lady, Elie Wiesel, and the question-
and-answer portion of the evening. The discussion was cybercast on the 
Internet.