Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323150593
label
Press Conference - Economic Summit 7/16/89
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323150593
contentType
document
title
Press Conference - Economic Summit 7/16/89
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13495-012
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Draft Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323150593
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
44a05ce54d518680
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Draft Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13495
Folder ID Number:
13495-012
Folder Title:
Press Conference - Economic Summit 7/16/89
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
25
6
4
1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Paris, France)
For Immediate Release
July 16, 1989
PRESS CONFERENCE
BY THE PRESIDENT
The Ambassadors' Residence
Paris, France
6:01 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Well, we've just
concluded two and a half days of intensive and productive meetings
with the summit counterparts on economic and political issues. And
let me take this opportunity, first of all, to thank President
Mitterrand for his most gracious hospitality. The summit, in my
view, was a clear success. We met in a time of sustained economic
growth and agreed that the prospects are good for the continued
expansion without inflation of that growth. It was against this
backdrop that we conducted a wide-ranging discussion on critical
global issues, from East-West relations to the growing environmental
challenge that we face.
We came to Paris at a truly remarkable moment. The winds
of change are bringing hope to people all around the world. And who
would have thought just a few short years ago that we would be
witness to a freely-elected Senate in Poland, or political pluralism
in Hungary?
I was really touched by what I saw and heard in those two
countries -- people determined to keep their dreams alive, people
determined to see a Europe whole and free. And that's why America
brought to this summit our determination to support the reform
movement in Hungary and Poland. People yearning for freedom and
democracy deserve our support, and it's because of the community of
values shared by these summit countries that we were able to agree to
meet soon to discuss concerted action that will help Poland and
Hungary.
Democracy and economic growth go hand-in-hand, whether in
Eastern Europe, the Summit Seven, or the developing world. And,
therefore, much of our discussion here in Paris centered on
economics. We reaffirmed our international economic cooperation and
our whole policy coordination process. Our strengthened debt
strategy was firmly supported. We reaffirmed our determination to
maintain and improve the multilateral trading system calling for the
completion of the Uruguay round by the end of 1990 and extending the
GATT to new areas, including agriculture.
This summit marked a watershed in the environment. And
we agreed that decisive action is urgently needed to preserve the
Earth. We committed to work together, as well as with the developing
world, to meet our responsibility of global stewardship. The
measures we've agreed to in Paris are timely and they lay the
groundwork for further specific steps when we meet again next year in
the United States.
And finally, I was especially pleased to find that my
colleagues share our sense of urgency and sense of the importance of
ags.
Among other steps, we agreed to
establish a financial action task force to find new ways to track and
prevent the laundering of drug money. I look forward to meeting my
summit colleagues in the United State next year as we continue
MORE
- 2 -
working on these and other priority issues, build on the progress
that we made -- genuine progress that I think was made here in Paris.
And I might say that I was very pleased that this meeting
coincided with the Bicentennial here. It was a very moving
experience for all of us.
Now I will be glad to take any questions.
Q
Mr. Gorbachev wants to play a part in the world
economic discussions. Would he be welcome at the next economic
summit table?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that's a little premature,
but it was very interesting, I found, that a leader of the Soviet
Union would address a letter to the French President as head of this
year's summit. We talked about that letter a great deal. There's an
awful lot that has to transpire in the Soviet Union, it seems to me,
before anything of that nature would be considered. We're talking
about free market economies here. But I found fascinating the very
fact of the letter. But there was no -- there certainly -- I don't
think any indication that he will be attending the next summit.
He'll get a very courteous and very thoughtful reply from Mr.
Mitterrand.
Q How about the poor countries -- Bangladesh? Would
they ever be welcome?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is an economic summit of
countries whose economies -- drawn together by the free economies of
the West, and so I don't think there's a question at this point of
expanding the summit. There is concern about the economies in the
world that aren't doing so well. Bangladesh is a country that does
need aid and, indeed, the communique addressed itself to trying to
help Bangladesh.
Q Mr. President, you consulted with the NATO allies on
military matters in Brussels and then you had an economic summit here
in Paris. What's left before you sit down with Mr. Gorbachev for a
superpower summit?
THE PRESIDENT: A little more time, I think.
Q
I mean, is there anything -- any more -- don't you
have anything to discuss with him now that you've planted this
groundwork --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me explain to those who aren't
familiar with the policy that Secretary Baker has met a couple of
times with Mr. Shevardnadze. There will be another such meeting of
that nature and, at an appropriate time, I will have a meeting with
Mr. Gorbachev. But I don't think anything at the summit influenced
that bilateral meeting.
Q Mr. President, the summit called for decisive action
on the environment, but various environmental groups are saying that
you did not take decisive action. Could you respond to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I did see some -- one or two
groups. They didn't think I took decisive action when I sent -- or,
took proper action when I sent a very far-reaching clean air proposal
up to the Congress. And so some have been critical. Many have been
supportive on the broad -- the very fact -- I'll tell you where we
got a lot of support is the very fact that the communique addressed
itself with some specificity to various environmental goals. The
whole concept of cooperation on research, technology and transfer to
the LDCs, the prevention of pollution, the idea of setting up
monitoring stations SO we can better predict and, thus, avoid
environmental disaster.
- 3 -
There was a lot of common. ground. In fact, I would say
that, on that and perhaps antinarcotics, there was most fervor. And
so I think many environmental groups see the very fact that this
matter was on the front burner as being very positive, and the summit
did take -- make strong enough statements to commit all of our
members, and hopefully others around the world, to sound
environmental practice. So you get criticized, but I think generally
speaking, it's been very, very forward-looking.
Q Mr. President, you promised in Poland and Hungary
that you would seek concerted action on the part of the countries
meeting here to help those countries. There seems to have been a
pledge that there would be concerted consideration of action, no
dollar figure attached, and no specified action promised, and a
meeting apparently planned. And do you feel you got what you wanted,
sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I think SO. And you'll notice, Britt,
that in both Poland and Hungary, I stopped well short of setting
dollar figures or of challenging others to meet dollar figures. But
on this one, let there be no doubt, there was unanimity that we
should address ourselves to the problems of Poland and Hungary. And
SO I was not not disappointed. I didn't go in there with a specific
package of -- with dollar figures on it, and I think that an early
meeting to do just that is good. It called for food aid to Poland --
that's specific -- doesn't have a figure on it, but -- no, I think we
got what we sought, and there was no rancor on that question and no
division on the question. But there was unanimity that we have to
move on it.
Q
Can you tell us -- since you've said that, you spent
a lot of time last night talking about Mr. Gorbachev's letter. Can
you tell us a little bit about those discussions, and can you tell us
what your view is? What is an appropriate response from the West to
such an extraordinary request by Mr. Gorbachev to become part of the
economy of the Western democracies?
THE PRESIDENT: We would welcome any movement by the
Soviet Union towards market-oriented or Western economies. There's
no question about that. And there's nothing begrudging about our
saying, in replying to Helen's comment -- my replying to Helen's --
that I don't expect Mr. Gorbachev to sit as a member of the -- at
next year's summit. But the discussion was -- it started off by,
what do you think he means by this? And a lot of discussion -- we'll
get the experts to analyze it. And all of that took place and people
concluded that it was just one more manifestation of the changing
world we're living in.
And that, I think, was the main message. And then, where
we go from here, some of that has been addressed in the communique,
because we talked in there about help for the Third World, and some
of his letter, as you know, was on that very subject. So it was --
when it came in, Mr. Mitterrand read it off to the group there and
then said, well, what will we do? And my suggestion was, which he
had intended to adopt anyway, that he, as the man to whom the letter
was addressed, would reply to it.
So that's the way it was, and the fact that it's
happening, is taking place -- the President of the United States can
go to Eastern Europe and witness the very kind of change we're
talking about.
I'll tell you -- I want to reply to Carl's question here
-- that almost the most dramatic for me was when Mr. Nemeth, the
Prime Minister of Hungary, handed me that piece of barbed wire,
tearing down
Now,
who
would have thought that possible? And this letter -- just one more
manifestation of the exciting times we're in of change. They're
moving towards our open system, our free system, our system of free
elections. And that's the way I would look at the letter in that
MORE
- 4 -
context.
Q Mr. President, in connection with next year's
summit, there's been some talk among some of your people about
possibly having it in your home state of Texas, possibly in San
Antonio. And I wondered whether you'd like to see that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'd have to run that by the Dallas
Morning News and see how they felt about it. But that's a distinct
possibility. However, it's too early. No decision has been made.
The fact that Jim Baker is from Houston and I'm from Houston and Bob
Mosbacher's from Texas should have nothing to do -- (laughter) --
with where the next summit's going to be, and there has been no
decision.
Q
That wouldn't mean some discrimination against
Dallas because of your roots?
THE PRESIDENT: No, none whatsoever. Get that down --
the fall elections are up in 19 -- Charles?
Q Let me follow on the question about summits. These
things have gotten a lot bigger than they were originally planned to
be. Hundreds of your people, thousands of us. It's your first
summit, but you've got to host the next one. Have you given any
thought to how you want to do it in terms of style?
THE PRESIDENT: No, but I'll tell you the part and I'm
the new boy, the new kid in school but the part I found most
interesting was the unstructured part, the part where you sit with
these other leaders, tell them what you think, listen carefully to
what they think, and that happens sometimes in the corridors or
sometimes before a structured seminar, sometimes at a meal. And I
would like to think that the more emphasis we've placed on that kind
of interaction, the better it would be. But there was no discussion
by the summit interlocutors on how to restructure it.
Indeed, it went smoothly. And I will again say that Mr.
Mitterrand handled the formal part very well. But for me, I'd like
to see more just plain unstructured interaction between the leaders
where you don't just have to talk on the agenda items.
Q It'll be 20 years ago next Thursday that man first
landed on the moon. There are some people in your administration
that would like for you to announce on Thursday that we're going to
go back to the moon, possibly even to Mars. Can you and Dick Darman
find that kind of money in the budget?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you put your finger, John, on some
of the real problems the major problem on setting major goals for
space, space exploration. And whether we will be ready by next week
or later this week to make any momentous announcements, I'm not sure.
I have not made a decision on what we will say on that historic day.
0 Would it be too quick going in on it with the
Soviets, though?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that has been suggested, but and
some, as you know, discussion have gone on -- not, I don't think,
recently between us and the Soviets on this, but certainly the
concept of international is not offensive to me. But we'll have to
wait and see because no decision.
Q Mr. President, Friday's economic indicators show
some weakening of the U.S. economy. Apparently, some of your summit
partners expressed some concern about that What assurances did you
give them and can you give us that we're not headed for a recession?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, ironically, none did
express to me their concern about the U.S. economy stalling out. We
MORE
- 5 -
really didn't get into that discussion. I must say that, from time
to time, it is a matter of concern to me and, thus, I've tried to
think through with our Secretary of the Treasury and others the
concept of how the interest rate structure should be.
But I've had no indication from home, nor had we picked
up any here that they felt that the U.S. economy was going to move
towards a recession. And that's the thing, of course, that you'd
want to guard against. Our growth has not been as robust as the
growth in some others countries, but we're still moving. And when
you have a several-trillion-dollar Gross National Product and you
take a small percentage of growth and it makes for enormous dollar
figures in growth.
Q
Mr. President, how much change would the Soviet
Union have to make before they could earn an invitation to next
year's economic summit? If you can't answer that specifically, at
least could you give us some sense of scale?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, one, as you know, I have welcomed
the reforms that are taking place in the Soviet Union. But I don't
-- this concept of the Soviets coming to a G-7 summit has never been,
to my knowledge, thought much about until this letter appeared. so
there's no standards for entrance into the G-7.
The Soviet economy needs a lot of work. And I say that
not to be critical, but certainly that's an objective judgment. The
economy is in bad, bad shape -- far worse shape than the Western
economies. And so I think what we ought to do is to encourage the
kinds of economic changes in Eastern Europe and -- to the degree the
Soviets would not consider that an intervention into their internal
affairs in the Soviet Union. And that -- those should be the next
steps.
Welcome the interest that was shown by this letter. This
wasn't an application for admission to the G-7. It was saying, let's
do something in a common way about solving problems around the world.
And so I wouldn't set a standard right now. I'd simply say, let each
of us try to get our economies in order. And as soon as that happens
and as soon as we see the manifestations of freedom break out there,
in terms of demonstrably free elections all over, then we start
talking about democratic change and then the day approaches. But I
don't think -- I think it's very premature to start laying down
guidelines from here as to what we need to do on that.
Q
Mr. President, you've talked about a whole and
united Europe and Mr. Gorbachev has talked about a common European
home. Are they the same concept or what is the difference? Is there
a difference between the role of the U.S. in those two statements?
THE PRESIDENT: Europe whole and free is our concept.
His common European home is fine, so long, as I said earlier, you can
move from room to room. And that means a coming along further on
human rights. That means much more openness. It means support them
when you see them move towards perestroika and glasnost. But it
means an evolution in the Soviet Union and it means an evolution in
Eastern Europe. And we've begun to see it.
A Europe whole and free does not visualize a Europe where
you still have barbed wire separating people, where you still have
human rights abuses in one or two of the countries that are
egregious. And so it is whole and free. And the common home theme
is a good one. I mean, that's a very good theme and we should
encourage it. But we want to see these countries continue to move
towards what works. And what works is freedom, democracy, market
economies -- things of that nature.
Q May I follow up? In the meeting of the G-7, is
there room -- or did you sense the countries want U.S. leadership or
they want the U.S. to be a co-equal partner?
MORE
- 6 -
THE PRESIDENT: You mean with the Soviets? No, I sense
that they -- that those colleagues feel that we have disproportionate
responsibility. I think there's a keen interest in how I will work
with the Soviets. There's no question about that. I felt that very
clearly.
Q At the risk of seeming fixated by Mr. Gorbachev,
when you discussed his letter, was there a suggestion from anybody
that it might have been a bit of mischief or an attempt to get some
publicity out of a Western summit?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't say that that never occurred.
(Laughter.) But I don't think that, after people thought about it
rationally, that anyone was prepared to say that and that alone was
what motivated this letter. There is change taking place. And I
think for some time people really wondered whether I was a little
begrudging in recognizing that change and encouraging that change,
but I think now that has been laid to rest.
So when you see something of this nature, you take a look
at it and you assess it and then you -- but you don't discount it in
a cynical fashion. But I think there was -- the timing -- the summit
has been planned for a long time. And this letter might have come in
-- earlier on -- for more serious sherpa consideration, as every
other issue was subjected to marvelous work by the sherpas, who
incidentally did a superb job -- and this one didn't. So I think
people would excuse a reasonable degree of cynicism. But don't think
the conclusion was cynical.
Q Mr. President, going back to the other day in
Poland, an elderly man said that when people talk to you folks about
change, just remember that the communists still have the bayonettes.
So my question to you is -- do you believe that countries like Poland
and Hungary are really going to have serious and permanent change, or
is there a line that their leaders and that Moscow just won't go
past?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, I think that you've already
seen serious change. I think you see -- the political situation in
Hungary, for example, is absolutely amazing compared to the way we
used to view Hungary. And if the Soviet Union, instead of taking
their troops out of Hungary, had tried to tighten down, I don't
expect we'd see the kind of change in Hungary that we're seeing
today.
And so, I'd say that we're a long way from what Gorbachev
has spelled out as a common European home, but it's moving. So let's
encourage the progress.
Maybe I missed the nuance of your question.
Q That there is a course that's going to lead to a
permanent change, or, again, the question is, are the Soviets going
to step in and pull the rug out from under at some point?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I would quote Mr. Gorbachev's words
back to him on that -- what he told me in New York and what Jim Baker
has heard from Shevardnadze and what everybody who interacts with the
Soviets hear, and that is that perestroika is for real. You cannot
set the clock back. It is going to go forward. And so I would see
that as what guides now.
However, I have said as long as there are enormous
imbalances in conventional forces and in certain categories of
strategic forces, the West should keep its eyes wide open. And,
indeed, there was some reference
to
was unanimity on the part of the NATO allies that we ought to be
cautious and that we -- and so to answer your question, it's not a
done deal and that's, I think, what was being reflected there in
Poland.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Mr. President, I wonder, as you put all of this
together, what you said about Poland and Hungary and Gorbachev asking
to join the world economy, as a matter of policy, do you see the Cold
War over and do you think the West has won it?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't like to use -- quote -- "Cold
War" -- unquote. That has a connotation of worse days in terms of
East-West relationship. I think things have moved forward so that
the connotation that those two words conjure up is entirely different
now. And yet I don't want to stand here and seem euphoric that
everything is hunkey-dorey between the East and the West -- on arms
or on differences in the economy or on how we look at regional
problems, we have some big differences still. But let's encourage
the change. And then I can answer your question in a few more --
maybe a few more years more definitively.
Q
Mr. President, the Summit Seven leaders are
celebrating a gathering that was so successful it went two and a half
days instead of three. Could you not find another half days' worth
of problems to discuss and maybe resolve, sir? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: We're kind of running out of gas. I'll
tell you, it's been a vigorous experience in physical fitness for me,
and I try to stay in pretty good shape. But this one -- when you
couple the summit with the Bicentennial and then tack on Poland and
Hungary, I wasn't about to argue we needed more time and nor was
anyone else. I think the fact that this rather complex agenda was
completed in harmony is the fact that ought to really carry the
spotlight, not the fact that we finished in advance.
There's going to be plenty of opportunities to discuss a
lot more problems that exist around the world. But we had an agenda,
we addressed it, we finished it on time, and it was done
harmoniously. So I think that's why it worked out. And that is
exactly what happened. We did complete it. And we had a lot more
opportunity because of the Bicentennial to have interaction with the
other leaders, more so than at any other summit.
Q
Do you feel, sir, you accomplished all you could?
THE PRESIDENT: We accomplished what we set out to
accomplish.
Q
Mr. President, the Stealth bomber had a couple of
setbacks this week and Senator Nunn, as I understand it, indicated
he's not going to pay for a plane that just taxis. (Laughter.) Do
you have faith in this project or are you alarmed by the recent
developments?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Senator Nunn and 250 million other
Americans that pick up the bill for it. But he's not going to pay
for it -- I mean, it's a decision that the Congress is going to have
to take collectively. If Senator Nunn decides that it isn't a good
idea, it's going to be a whale of a fight. But I think that
legitimate questions have been raised about the bomber and Secretary
Cheney has addressed them very forcefully, giving the
administration's position. Being gone, I don't have quite as
sensitive a feel as I would if I were at home of the nuances of the
battle. But we have gone forward with our proposal and now it's up
to the Congress to decide what they're going to do.
And when I saw Dick Cheney, in essence, saying make up
your minds, I think he was doing the right thing. When I saw Senator
Nunn expressing his reservations, we have to understand he's doing
what he is obligated to do as chairman of that committee. But it
will be sorted out, I think.
Q
Mr. President, you're giving away money to Poland
and Hungary and you're talking about spending more money on the
MORE
- 8 -
environment; there are a lot of needs at home, and now you're in a
new budget cycle. Is this the time -- and you promised today to
reduce the deficit, the U.S. budget deficit -- is this the time to
announce that it's necessary to raise taxes in the United States?
THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter.)
Q
How are you going to do it then? How are you going
to meet --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we've already got a proposal up on
the Hill, and look at it very carefully. And our Director of the OMB
has done a very good job in sorting out priorities. He's worked --
and our Cabinet has given him full cooperation, and the proposals
that I have made can be and are included in our budget thinking --
not just for this year, but beyond.
But you put your finger on something that does trouble me
when I come to countries like Poland and Hungary. I wish we did have
more, more funds with which to help others, encourage private
investment and public-private partnerships and privatization. I wish
we had much more to do there or speedily apply to environmental
concerns, or antinarcotics cooperation.
So I don't want to sound like we have it all made at all.
We've had to sort through priorities in a very complicated way. But
to answer your question, you have to go up to the question that was
earlier asked about the economy itself, and I do not want to risk
screeching growth - modest though it may be -- to a halt by raising
revenues in the way that some have suggested.
MS. THOMAS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, thank you, Helen. Are you willing to
give them a four-minute extension? There are BO many this is what
gets it -- Marlin, what is your advice, as a man who has been through
this every single day? (Laughter.)
MR. FITZWATER: Two more, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Two more. You weren't necessarily one of
the two, but go ahead, Maureen (Laughter.) Far be it from me, in
this land of delicacy and grace, to not recognize you. (Laughter.)
Q
-- in Eastern Europe you talked about two themes
constantly; one encouraging democracy and moves to a market economy;
and two, that you weren't there to try to raise tensions with the
Soviet Union or challenge them in any way. But my question is, if
what you want is carried out -- moves to democracy and a market
economy - aren't you really talking about the dissolution of the
Soviet empire? And is that what you mean when you call for a Europe
that's whole and free?
THE PRESIDENT: Soviet empire, if you mean the imposition
of a Marxist system, or a socialism in their definition -- system on
others yes, I'd like to see Europe whole and free. But with the
Soviet moving towards market -- and they're not there -- towards more
freedom, towards more openness, they themselves have recognized that
their system doesn't work. So you don't run the risks or have the
same tensions that we might have had 10 years ago talking about the
very same themes I talked about in Poland and Hungary.
I went to -- some of you were on this trip went to
Vienna several years ago and gave a speech, and a man in -- the
speech was on differentiation. And I will spare him identification,
but a Hungarian official told me that he personally he befriended
us and we talked carefully had gotten a lot of grief
that we had singled out Hungary as a country that was moving. Even
then -- even those short years ago -- moving in a way that their
changes could be accommodated by closer relationships with the West.
MORE
- 9 -
And that conversation I had on this trip showed me how dynamic the
change.
So we're -- I don't think there's a risk of -- if we're
right in our assessment that change is going forward, I don't think
there is this risk.
Q
Is Mr. Mitterrand free to reply to the Gorbachev
letter himself or will it be circulated, or would you like to see the
letter? How would you like that to go?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think that he should reply to it
himself. He has a good relationship with Mr. Gorbachev. Gorbachev
was here. They've had some follow-up, I believe, and the letter was
addressed to him, albeit as the President of the summit. And so I
think it's fitting that he simply use his good judgment and reply to
it in any way he wants. And that's exactly what he's going to do,
incidently. That was discussed.
Q
And if next year's summit is in Texas, can it be
very early? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Parting -- walking shot.
Q
Mr. President, in this summit, you achieved all your
goals. Do you have the feeling of being the winner number one of
this summit?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I pointed out before we came over
here that something of this nature ought not to be judged in terms of
winners and losers. Your question sounds very much like some that we
engage in at home of who's up, who's down, who's ahead, who's
winning, who's more popular, who's ahead in the poll -- Bush or
Gorbachev -- in Eastern Europe or Connecticut. (Laughter.)
And it doesn't really have much to do with that. What --
Q
Are you satisfied --
THE PRESIDENT: I am very satisfied. I am very satisfied
that the summit achieved its goals. Every other summit leader tells
me that it was the best summit they have attended, and I again would
salute the President of the French Republic for the way in which he
conducted the meetings. But, yes, I am very, very satisfied, and
there aren't any winners or losers or who is up or who is down.
We're together is how we approached the East. We're together is how
we approached the environmental questions. I didn't take a question
here on Third World debt, but there was a strong endorsement for the
Brady plan. And there was no dissension on that approach. So it
came together very, very well.
And if the Brady -- and I shouldn't say this. I know
this is going to get me in real trouble. But if the Brady plan looks
like it's going to be successful, we may call it the Bush plan.
(Laughter.)
Thank you all very, very much.
END
8:37 P.M. (L)
FILE
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
JULY 16, 1989/6:00 P.M.
I HAVE JUST CONCLUDED TWO AND ONE-HALF DAYS OF
INTENSIVE AND PRODUCTIVE MEETINGS WITH MY SUMMIT
COUNTERPARTS ON ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES. LET ME
TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK OUR HOST, PRESIDENT
MITTERAND, FOR HIS GRACIOUS HOSPITALITY.
- 2 -
THIS SUMMIT WAS A CLEAR SUCCESS. WE MET IN A TIME
OF SUSTAINED ECONOMIC GROWTH AND AGREED THAT THE
PROSPECTS ARE GOOD FOR CONTINUED EXPANSION WITHOUT
INFLATION. IT WAS AGAINST THIS BACKDROP THAT WE
CONDUCTED A WIDE-RANGING DISCUSSION ON CRITICAL GLOBAL
ISSUES -- FROM EAST-WEST RELATIONS TO THE GROWING
ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES WE FACE.
- 3 -
WE CAME TO PARIS AT A TRULY REMARKABLE MOMENT. THE
WINDS OF CHANGE ARE BRINGING HOPE TO PEOPLE ALL OVER
THE WORLD. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT JUST A FEW SHORT
YEARS AGO THAT WE WOULD BE WITNESS TO A FREELY-ELECTED
SENATE IN POLAND, OR POLITICAL PLURALISM IN HUNGARY? I
WAS TOUCHED BY WHAT I SAW AND HEARD IN THOSE TWO
COUNTRIES -- PEOPLE DETERMINED To KEEP THEIR DREAMS
ALIVE -- PEOPLE DETERMINED TO SEE A EUROPE WHOLE AND
FREE.
- 4 -
THAT'S WHY AMERICA BROUGHT To THE SUMMIT OUR
DETERMINATION TO SUPPORT THE REFORM MOVEMENT IN POLAND
AND HUNGARY. PEOPLE YEARNING FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY
DESERVE OUR SUPPORT. AND IT IS BECAUSE OF THE
COMMUNITY OF VALUES SHARED BY THE SUMMIT COUNTRIES THAT
WE WERE ABLE TO AGREE TO MEET SOON TO DISCUSS CONCERTED
ACTION THAT WILL HELP POLAND AND HUNGARY.
- 5 -
DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH GO HAND IN HAND,
WHETHER IN EASTERN EUROPE, THE SUMMIT SEVEN, OR THE
DEVELOPING WORLD. THEREFORE, MUCH OF OUR DISCUSSION
HERE IN PARIS CENTERED ON ECONOMICS. WE REAFFIRMED OUR
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND OUR POLICY
COORDINATION PROCESS. OUR STRENGHTENED DEBT STRATEGY
WAS FIRMLY SUPPORTED.
- 6 -
WE REAFFIRMED OUR DETERMINATION TO MAINTAIN AND
IMPROVE THE MULTILATERAL TRADING SYSTEM, CALLING FOR
COMPLETION OF THE URUGUAY ROUND BY THE END OF 1990, AND
EXTENDING THE GATT TO NEW AREAS INCLUDING AGRICULTURE.
THIS SUMMIT MARKED A WATERSHED ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
WE AGREED THAT DECISIVE ACTION IS URGENTLY NEEDED TO
PRESERVE THE EARTH. WE COMMITTED TO WORK TOGETHER, AS
WELL AS WITH THE DEVELOPING WORLD, TO MEET OUR
RESPONSIBILITY OF GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP.
- 7 -
THE MEASURES WE HAVE AGREED TO IN PARIS ARE TIMELY, AND
LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR FURTHER SPECIFIC STEPS WHEN WE
MEET NEXT YEAR.
FINALLY, I WAS ESPECIALLY PLEASED TO FIND THAT MY
COLLEAGUES SHARE OUR SENSE OF THE URGENCY AND
IMPORTANCE OF THE WORLDWIDE FIGHT AGAINST DRUGS. AMONG
OTHER STEPS, WE AGREED TO ESTABLISH A FINANCIAL ACTION
TASK FORCE TO FIND NEW WAYS TO TRACK AND PREVENT THE
LAUNDERING OF DRUG MONEY.
- 8 -
I LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING MY SUMMIT COLLEAGUES IN
THE UNITED STATES NEXT YEAR AS WE CONTINUE WORKING ON
THESE AND OTHER PRIORITY ISSUES, AND BUILD ON THE
PROGRESS MADE HERE IN PARIS.
###