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
368557012
label
POTUS Trip to Brussels, Belgium; Prague, Czech Republic; Moscow, Russia; Kiev, Ukraine; Minsk, Belarus; and Geneva, Switzerland (January 8-16, 1994) [7]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
368557012
contentType
document
title
POTUS Trip to Brussels, Belgium; Prague, Czech Republic; Moscow, Russia; Kiev, Ukraine; Minsk, Belarus; and Geneva, Switzerland (January 8-16, 1994) [7]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the National Security Council Office of Press and Communications (Clinton Administration)
Philip "PJ" Crowley's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
368557012
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
7585702-20170413F-002-007-2024
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b310b825a37490f5
ocrText
Case Number: 2017-0413-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the Clinton Presidential
Library Staff.
Folder Title:
POTUS Trip to Brussels, Belgium; Prague Czech Republic; Moscow, Russia; Kiev, Ukraine;
Minsk, Belarus; and Geneva, Switzerland (January 8-16, 1994) [7]
Staff Office-Individual:
Press-Crowley, Philip J. (PJ)
Original OA/ID Number:
3460
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
Stack:
42
5
7
3
V
Pool Report #29-A, Jan. 12-13, 1994
Air Force one, Kiev to Moscow
Flight from Kiev uneventful. No official deigned come back
to talk to your pool. Air Force One touched down at 12:51 a.m.
local. Clinton debarked hatless in light snow, temperature 8
degrees F. Portly Premier and assortment of Russian officials met
the president at the plane, gave him a bouquet, and both parties
went quickly to motorcade, which also was uneventful. Your pool
noted the militsia, out in force standing at every intersection
on the way into town, did not regard it as cold enough to put the
ear flaps down.
Nussbaum letter to Reno and stephanopolous statement were
handed out in Filing Center shortly after our arrival.
Chad announced there would be no jog in the morning, and
first pool would assemble at 8:00 a.m. Sleep well.
Michael Putzel, Boston Globe
ROSSIA
Pool Report #30
Monastery Visit -- Not
Moscow
January 13, 1994
Because of the patriarch's illness, the visit to the monastery
and, alas, Pool 32, were canceled. Nothing definitive about how
the president will fill the void. Dee Dee Myers said he was just
"extending his down time." She described him as feeling "good but
tired."
-- George Condon, Copley News Service
JAN-13-1994 17:52
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509
P.001
Pool report #31
Moscow, January 13, 1994
Pre-position in st. George's Hall and Kremlin walkaround
Yeltsin and Clinton met formally a little before 9:15 am in st.
George's Hall in the Grand Palace of the Kremlin. The leaders
each emerged alone at either end of the vast white and gilt, very
formal, very lavish barrel-vaulted room -- about 60 yards long.
They emerged to a flourish from a band in an upper balcony, and
they maintained eye contact manfully as they strode the red
carpet to the center of the room.
The attending officials and the press were all lining the end of
the room where Clinton entered, so that Yeltsin's approach was
solitary. He smiled. Could not see Clinton's face until they
shook hands and took to the lecturns. Pool understands the
remarks they exchanged were piped to the filing center and assume
they will be transcribed by press office. Each leader spoke
without notes, their voices nearly lost in the echoing hall.
Two dozen aides and cabinet members formed a line along Clinton's
approach. The leaders went down the line greeting each. Russian
PM Viktor Chernomyrdin was first and got the longest chat. Jovial
laughs all around, but pool could hear no conversation. other
Russians were Gaidar and Kozyrev. Americans in line were SecState
Christopher, Lloyd Bentsen, Thomas Pickering, strobe Talbott,
Tony Lake, Nick Burns, Larry Summers from Treasury, Mack McLarty,
and David Gergen.
Fashion note: Christopher was ministerial in his dark suit and
red silk pocket kerchief, but check the gum-soled duck boots
pushing his trousers up around his ankles.
The room was hung with six gilded chandeliers the size of VW
beetles. Electric candles line the wall ledges every six inches
the length of the room. The floor is an elaborate parquet/inlay.
St. George is esteemed by Russians for his personification of
valor, according to a guidebook, and the walls of the hall are
inscribed with the names of the Knights of st. George.
Leaders appeared to this pool on their walk around the Kremlin as
they rounded the Bell tower of Ivan the Great, which they stopped.
and admired in lip-numbing cold. Ditto in front of the Czar's
cannon. No news. Clinton wore a black wool coat, plaid scarf, and:
black leather gloves. No hat.
Bus was not waiting to return pool to the filing center. Walked
back.
marshall ingwerson
christian science monitor
JAN-13-1994 18:00
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.002
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Prague, Czech Republic)
For Immediate Release
January 12, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN PHOTO OPPORTUNITY WITH PRESIDENT KOVAC OF SLOVAKIA
Library
U.S. Ambassador's Residence
Prague, Czech Republic
11:06 A.M. (L)
Q
President Clinton, what's been the reception so
far to what you have brought to these nations?
THE PRESIDENT: So far, so good.
Q No objections, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: We've had three different
conversations, of course, and this will be the fourth. And each
of them, although leaders can characterize them for themselves,
but I have been very pleased so far.
Q
Have they raised security issues with you, that
they are worried that if there should be some kind of resurgence
in Russia that they feel protected, or are they still worried
about this?
THE PRESIDENT: NO one has said that they expect
something like that in the near future. What no one knows is
whether the future of Europe will be like its past or if it will
be different.
2
Are you saying that all have accepted the
Partnership so far?
THE PRESIDENT: You'll have to ask them when we do
the press conference.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
11:07 A.M. (L)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 13, 1993
PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES SHIRLEY WILCHER TO HEAD
LABOR DEPT. OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
President Clinton today announced his intention to nominate Shirley J. Wilcher as
director of the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
(OFCCP).
"Throughout her career, Shirley Wilcher has dedicated her efforts to preventing
discrimination in America's workplace and educational institutions," the President said. "I am
pleased she has agreed to accept this important position."
Wilcher has been general counsel and director of state relations for the National
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Washington, D.C. since February
1990. As OFCCP Director, Wilcher will ensure discrimination will be prohibited in
employment by federal contractors and subcontractors. The agency is part of the department's
Employment Standards Administration.
Before she began working at the National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities, Wilcher was associate counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee
on Education and Labor. In that position, she worked with federal agencies charged with
enforcing equal employment opportunity laws, including OFCCP, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights.
From 1980-85, Wilcher was a staff attorney for the National Women's Law Center in
Washington, where she worked on litigation involving sex-based discrimination in education.
Wilcher received a law degree from Harvard Law School in 1979, where she was the
special projects editor of Harvard Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Law Review. She earned a
master's degree from the New School for Social Research in New York, N.Y. in 1976 and
graduated with honors from Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass. in 1973.
She was listed in several Who's Who directories, including Who's Who in Washington
1983; Who's Who Among Blacks in Metropolitan Washington. D.C. 1984; and, Who's Who in
the East 1991-92.
(continued)
In addition to naming Wilcher, the President announced the appointment of Leslie
Loble as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy and Mary M. Meagher as the Labor
Department Deputy Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs.
Leslie Loble has served for the past year as a special assistant to Labor Secretary
Robert Reich. Her responsibilities have included two of the department's key initiatives --
building a national school-to-work transition system and stimulating development of voluntary
national skill standards. Before coming to the Labor Department early in 1993, Loble was
staff director of the training subcouncil of the Competitiveness Policy Council.
Loble served as a senior policy analyst for the National Governor's Association in
1991. From 1981 to 1991 she was a member of the headquarters staff of the Communication
Workers of America. A graduate of Cornell University, Lobel has a master's degree in public
administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Mary Meagher for the past year has served as the Labor Department's spokesperson
and has played an integral part in developing media strategies for DOL initiatives, policies
and programs.
Prior to joining the Clinton Administration, Meagher worked for the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) as the Political Communications Director.
From 1989-91, Meagher worked for Representative Jill L. Long (D-Ind.) as campaign
communications director and congressional press secretary. She was a legislative and
communications aide to Senator Alan J. Dixon from 1987-89 and previously served as a staff
assistant to Representatives Dante B. Fascell (D-FI.) and George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Ca.)
Meagher also worked for two years as a research assistant at the National Bureau of
Economic Research in New York, New York. Originally from Aurora, III., Meagher graduated
from Rosary High School and received a bachelor's degree in political science and economics
from Queen's College, City University of New York in 1986.
###
January 12, 1994
Pool Report #25
Prague
A Belated K-Mart Pool
Not much happened, there was even less color, but here goes.
President Clinton motorcaded from the U.S. Ambassador's residence
as thousands of people stood on the roadsides for virtually the
whole ride. Outside the K-Mart, which had been closed all day in
preparation, even more greeted the black Caddy.
Inside, the president touched nothing and didn't buy anything.
Instead, he sat at a semi-circle table with seven others to discuss
doing business in the Czech Republic and the U.S. He was seated
beside Czech Prime Minister Klaus and Stephen Heintz, director of
the Institute for East-West Studies. It was wonking-American style.
A press kit was in the filing center and identified all else.
Behind the president were many U.S. and Czech goods, including
bottles of Coke and Pepsi, Tix Extra detergent, and Barbi playsets.
The K-Mart guy who appears in the ads sat in the front row.
Prices of the goods, such as the Czech thighmaster, or "Posilovac,
Girls style," were about the same as in the States.
At one point, Tony Lake showed up and rearanged a setting of cheap
furniture so he could have a seat and watch the scene.
When he left, Clinton saw that his motorcade had attracted some
3,000 along Narodni Street - or People Street. Despite warnings he
would campaign, he hopped in the car and we beat you to the plane.
bedard - wash. times
JAN-13-1994 17:59
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.001
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Prague, Czech Republic)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
AND PRESIDENT VACLAV HAVEL OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC
First Courtyard
Prague Castle
Prague, Czech Republic
6:50 P.M. (L)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much. First, I
want to express my thanks to President Havel for his warm
welcome. I'm coming back to Prague only for the second time in
my life. I was here 24 years ago in this same week, in a very
different role in life.
I have been deeply impressed by the progress made by
the Czech Republic, and was deeply impressed by the meeting I had
today with the President and the Prime Minister and with other
leaders of the government. I reaffirmed the fact that the
security of this Republic, and of the nations of Central and
Eastern Europe are important to the security of the United States
and to Europe and to the Atlantic Alliance; that the Partnership
For Peace is the beginning of a genuine security relationship
which can lead to full membership in NATO; and that we must also
be mindful of the economic dimension of security. For it is
difficult for nations to pursue good policies and to reflect
democratic values unless they can also offer the hope of success
to the people within their borders who work hard, obey the law
and try to contribute to the welfare of society.
so we talked about these things, and I look forward
to talking tomorrow with all the leaders who will be here
together in perhaps somewhat more specific terms about what we
can do to further both these objectives. But I am very
encouraged by this meeting tonight, and I thank President Havel
for his support for the Partnership For Peace.
Q
(Asked in Czech.)
THE PRESIDENT: That issue has not been resolved, so
since it was not discussed one way or the other, I suppose it iss
theoretically possible. NATO is a security alliance in which all
the members undertake to assume certain responsibilities for the
welfare of the entire group. One of the things I want to
emphasize about the Partnership For Peace is a security
relationship that will permit immediately the military commanders
of NATO to begin to work with the military leaders of each
country involved in the Partnership, to look at joint training,
to look at joint exercises, to deal with the whole range of
issues which will help to move toward membership.
Q
President Havel, sir, can you tell us how
concerned are you about the rise of ultranationalists and
communists in the parliamentary elections in Russia? Does that
cast a cloud over this region?
PRESIDENT HAVEL: (Answers in Czech.)
END
6:53 P.M. (L)
JAN-13-1994 17:53
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509
P.002
186 WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(MOSCOW, Russia)
For Immediate Release
January 13. 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT CLINTON
AND PRESIDENT YELTSIN
IN OFFICIAL GREETING CEREMONY
St. George's Hall
The Kremlin
MOSCOW. Russia
9:16 A.M. (L)
PRESIDENT YELTSIN: Mr. President of the United
states of America, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you as a
most honored guest of the Russian Federation. You begin this
day's official business in the famous and legendary Georgian Room
of the Grand Kremlin Palace, which has names of some of Russia's
best sons inscribed on its walls. And I believe that this is a
good omen for the coming discussions that we're going to have.
I very well remember the first meeting that we had
in Vancouver where we laid the foundations for U.S. Russia
partnership and also for our personal rapport and friendship.
And I believe that we have every reason to think that the comine
discussions will be even more profound, more practical and more
sweeping in nature.
: also believe that you will take back from your
visit to Russia a very good memory. And I'm sure that as you
meet people here, they will also remember you very well and your
stay here. so, Mr. President, welcome to Russia. Welcome to
MOSCOW.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you. Well. Mr. President.
I am delighted to see you again and deeply honored to be in this
magnificent hall, which is a great testimony to the rich history,
the leadership and the greatness of your nation -- the greatness
that has been demonstrated again by the remarkable changes over
which you have presided in the last two years.
I have just come from a set of historic meetings
that we'll have a chance to talk about, meetings which make it
clear that Russia and the United States must work together to
build a new future for Europe on which a new future for our
entire world depends.
I believe that together we can work to lead a new
security for Europe based on democratic values, free economies,
the respect for nations for one another. We will be discussing
the specific things we can do to keep the economic reform going
in Russia and to help the Russian people to realize the benefits
of the courageous changes that have been going on: to use the
Partnership For Peace to develop mutual security all across
Europe and for the first time in all of history to have a Europe
that is not divided by an artificial line between peoples; and to
work toward the historic agreement that you and I will sign with
President Kravchuk on Friday to make the world a safer place with
fewer nuclear weapons.
These are the ways in which. under your leadership,
your nation 1s defining its greatness. And I am very pleased to
be here to work on these things with you. (Applause.)
END
9:21 A.M. (L)
TOTAL P.002
JAN-09-1994 20:49
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.007
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 9, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO MULTINATIONAL AUDIENCE OF FUTURE LEADERS OF EUROPE
Gothic Room
Hotel De Ville
Brussels, Belgium
6:00 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Prime
Minister, Mr. Mayor, distinguished leaders. I'm delighted to be
here with the Prime Minister and with many of Europe's future
leaders in this great hall of history.
I first came to Brussels as a young man in a very
different, but a difficult time, when the future for us was
uncertain. It is fitting that my first trip to Europe as
President be about building a better future for the young people
of Europe and the United States today, and that it begin here in
Belgium. As a great capital and as the headquarters of NATO and
the European Union, Brussels and Belgium have long been at the
center of Europe's steady progress toward greater security and
greater prosperity.
For those of you who know anything about me
personally, I also have a great personal debt of nearly 40 years
standing to this country because it was a Belgian, Adolf Sax, who
invented the saxophone. (Laughter.)
I have come here at this time because I believe that
it is time for us together to revitalize our partnership and to
define a new security at a time of historic change. It is a new
day for our transatlantic partnership: The Cold War is over;
Germany is united; the Soviet Union is gone; and a constitutional
democracy governs Russia. The specter that haunted our citizens
for decades of tanks rolling in through Fulda Gap or nuclear
annihilation raining from the sky -- that specter, thank God, has
largely vanished. Your generation is the beneficiary of those
miraculous transformations.
In the end, the Iron Curtain rusted from within, and
was brought crashing down by the determination of brave men and
women to live free -- by the Poles and the Czechs; by the
Russians, the Ukrainians; the people of the Baltics. By all
those who understood that neither economics nor consciences can
be ordered from above.
Equally important, however, their heroic efforts
succeeded because our resolve never failed, because the weapons
of deterrence never disappeared and the message of democracy
never disappeared.
As the East enjoys a new birth of freedom, one of
freedom's great victories lives here in Europe's West -- the
peaceful cleaving together of nations which clashed for
centuries. The transformation was wrought by visionary leaders
such as Monnet, Schumann, Spaak, and Marshall, who understood
that modern nations can enrich their futures more through
cooperation than conquest.
MY administration supports European union, and
Europe's development of stronger institutions of common purpose
MORE
JAN-09-1994 20:50
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.008
- 2 -
and common action. We recognize we will benefit more from a
strong and equal partner than from a weak one.
The fall of the Soviet empire and Western Europe's
integration are the two greatest advances for peace in the last
half of the 20th century. All of us are reaping their blessings.
In particular, with the Cold War over and in spite of the present
global recession which clouds your future, all our nations now
have the opportunity to take long, deferred steps toward economic
and social renewal. My own nation has made a beginning in
putting our economic house in order, reducing our deficits,
investing in our people, creating jobs and sparking an economic
recovery that we hope will help not only the United States, but
also will lift all nations.
We're also facing up to some of the social problems
in our country we have ignored for too long: From the challenge
to provide universal health care, to reducing crime in our
streets, to dealing with the needs of our poor children. We have
a truly multicultural society. In one of our counties there are
people from over 150 different national and ethnic groups. But
we are working to build an American community for the 21st
century.
And with the European Union, we have recently led
the world to a new GATT agreement that will create millions of
new jobs in all our countries. In many ways it would be easy to
offer you only a message of simple celebration, to trumpet our
common heritage, to rejoice that our labors for peace have been
rewarded, to cheer on the economic progress that is occurring.
But this is not a time for self-congratulation. And certainly we
have enough challenges that we should act true partners -- that
is, we should share one another's burdens rather than only
talking of triumphs. And we should speak honestly about what we
feel about where we are and where we should go.
This is the truth as I see it. We served history
well during the Cold War. But now history calls on us again to
help consolidate freedom's new gains into a larger and a more
lasting peace. We must build a new security for Europe, the old
security was based on the defense of our bloc against another
bloc. The new security must be found in Europe's integration --
an integration of security forces, of market economies of
national democracies. The purpose of my trip to Europe is to
help lead the movement to that integration and to assure you that
America will be a strong partner in it.
For the peoples who broke communism's chains, we now
see a race between rejuvenation and despair. And the outcome
will -- bound to shape the security of every nation in the
transatlantic alliance. Today that race is being played out from
the Balkans to Central Asia. In one lane are the heirs of the
enlightenment, who seek to consolidate freedom's gains by
building free economies, open democracies and tolerant civic
cultures. Pitted against them are the grim pretenders to
tyranny's dark throne -- the militant nationalists and demagogues
who fan suspicions that are ancient, and parade the pain of
renewal in order to obscure the promise of reform.
We, none of us, can afford to be bystanders of that
race. Too much is at stake. Consider this: The coming months
and years may decide whether the Russian people continue to
develop a peaceful market democracy or whether, in frustration,
they elect leaders who incline back toward authoritarianism and
empire. This period may determine whether the nations
neighboring Russia thrive in freedom and join the ranks of
nonnuclear states or founder under the strain of reform and cling
to weapons that increase the risk of nuclear accident or
diversion.
This period may decide whether the states of the
former Soviet bloc are woven into the fabric of transatlantic
MORE
JAN-09-1994 20:49
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.007
THE WHITE HOUSE
office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 9, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO MULTINATIONAL AUDIENCE OF FUTURE LEADERS OF EUROPE
Gothic Room
Hotel De Ville
Brussels, Belgium
6:00 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Prime
Minister, Mr. Mayor, distinguished leaders. I'm delighted to be
here with the Prime Minister and with many of Europe's future
leaders in this great hall of history.
I first came to Brussels as a young man in a very
different, but a difficult time, when the future for us was
uncertain. It is fitting that my first trip to Europe as
President be about building a better future for the young people
of Europe and the United States today, and that it begin here in
Belgium. As a great capital and as the headquarters of NATO and
the European Union, Brussels and Belgium have long been at the
center of Europe's steady progress toward greater security and
greater prosperity.
For those of you who know anything about me
personally, I also have a great personal debt of nearly 40 years
standing to this country because it was a Belgian, Adolf Sax, who
invented the saxophone. (Laughter.)
I have come here at this time because I believe that
it is time for us together to revitalize our partnership and to
define a new security at a time of historic change. It is a new
day for our transatlantic partnership: The Cold War is over;
Germany is united; the Soviet Union is gone; and a constitutional
democracy governs Russia. The specter that haunted our citizens
for decades of tanks rolling in through Fulda Gap or nuclear
annihilation raining from the sky -- that specter, thank God, has
largely vanished. Your generation is the beneficiary of those
miraculous transformations.
In the end, the Iron Curtain rusted from within, and
was brought crashing down by the determination of brave men and
women to live free -- by the Poles and the Czechs; by the
Russians, the Ukrainians; the people of the Baltics. By all
those who understood that neither economics nor consciences can
be ordered from above.
Equally important, however, their heroic efforts
succeeded because our resolve never failed, because the weapons
of deterrence never disappeared and the message of democracy
never disappeared.
As the East enjoys a new birth of freedom, one of
freedom's great victories lives here in Europe's West -- the
peaceful cleaving together of nations which clashed for
centuries. The transformation was wrought by visionary leaders
such as Monnet, Schumann, Spaak, and Marshall, who understood
that modern nations can enrich their futures more through
cooperation than conquest.
MY administration supports European union, and
Europe's development of stronger institutions of common purpose
MORE
JAN-09-1994 20:52
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.009
- 3 -
prosperity and security, or are simply left hanging in isolation
as they face the same daunting changes gripping so many others in
Europe.
These pivotal decisions ultimately rest with the
people who threw off communism's yoke. They must make their own
decisions about their own future. But we in the West can clearly
help to shape their choices, and we must summon the political
will to do so.
The task requires a steady and patient effort,
guided by a strategic star that points us toward the integration
of a broader Europe. It also requires a fair amount of humility
-- understanding that we cannot control every event in every
country on every day. But if we are willing to assume the
central challenge, we can revitalize not only the nations of the
East, but also our own transatlantic relationship.
Over the past half-century, the transatlantic
community only realized half the promise of World War II's
triumph over fascism. The other half lay captive behind Europe's
walls of division. Now we have the chance to realize the full
promise of Europe's victories without its great disappointment:
Normandy without Yalta, the liberation of the low countries
without the Berlin blockade.
During this past half-century, transatlantic
security depended primarily on the deterrents provided by our
military forces. Now the immediate threat to our East is not of
advancing armies, but of creeping instability. Countering that
threat requires not only military security, but also the
promotion of democratic and economic renewal. Combined, these
forces are the strongest bulwark against Europe's current dangers
-- against ethnic conflict, the abuse of human rights, the
destabilizing refugee flows, the rise of aggressive regimes and
the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
The integration of the former communist bloc with
the rest of Europe will be gradual and often difficult, as
Germany's bold efforts demonstrate. And like all great
opportunities, we must remember that this one could be fleeting.
We must not now let the Iron Curtain be replaced with a veil of
indifference. For history will judge us as it judged with scorn
those who preached isolationism between the world wars, and as it
has judged with praise the bold architects of the transatlantic
community after World War II.
with the Cold War over, some in America with short
memories have called for us to pack up and go home. I am asked
often: Why do you maintain a presence in Europe? How can you
justify the expense when we have so many problems here at home?
We tried that, right after World War I. But the American people
this year proved their resistance to the siren song of global
withdrawal. We did so when the Congress voted for the North
American Free Trade Agreement, voted for America to compete in a
global economy, not to retreat. And we did so when we reached
out to Europe and to others, and in working with the European
Union, led the world to accept a new GATT agreement on world
trade.
I have come here today to declare and to demonstrate
that Europe remains central to the interests of the United
States, and that we will help to work with our partners in
seizing the opportunities before us all.
Without question, Europe is not the only focus of
our engagement, we must reach out to Latin America and to Asia --
areas that are increasingly important both to the United States
and to Europe. And our bonds with Europe will be different than
they were in the past, but make no mistake about it: the bonds
that tie the United states and Europe are unique. We share a
passionate faith that God has endowed us as individuals with
MORE
JAN-09-1994 20:54
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.010
- 4 -
inalienable rights and a belief that the state exists by our
consent solely to advance freedom and security and prosperity for
all of us as individuals. That is still a radical idea in the
world in which we live. Developed by Locke and Montesquieu, put
into practice in my country by Jefferson and Madison, it has
toppled tyrants, it has drawn millions to our country's shores.
Over three centuries, the ties of kinship between
the United States and Europe have fostered bonds of commerce and
you remain our most valued partner, not just in the cause of
democracy and freedom, but also in the economics of trade and
investment.
But above all, the core of our security remains with
Europe. That is why America's commitment to Europe's safety and
stability remains as strong as ever. That is why I urged NATO to
convene this week's summit. It is why I am committed to keeping
roughly 100,000 American troops stationed in Europe, consistent
with the expressed desires of our allies here. It is not habit,
but security and partnership that justifies this continuing
commitment by the United States.
And Just as we have worked in partnership with
Europe of every major security challenge in this century, it is
now time for us to join in building the new security for the 21st
century, the century in which most of you in this room will live
most of your lives. The new security must seek to bind a broader
Europe together with a strong fabric woven of military
cooperation, prosperous market economies and vital democracies.
Let me speak briefly about each of these. The first
and most important element of the security must be military
strength and cooperation. The Cold War is over, but war itself
is not over. As we know it rages today not only in distant lands
but right here in Europe and the former Yugoslavia. That
murderous conflict reminds us that even after the Cold War,
military forces remain relevant. It also reveals the
difficulties of applying military force to conflicts within as
well as among states. And it teaches us that it is best to act
early to prevent conflicts that we may later not be able to
control.
As we work to resolve that tragedy and ease the
suffering of its victims we also need to change our security
institutions so they can better address such conflicts and
advance Europe's integration. Many institutions will play a
role, including the European Union, the Western European Union,
the Council of Europe, the Conference for Security and
Cooperation in Europe and the United Nations. But NATO,
history's greatest military alliance, must be central to that
process.
Only NATO has the military forces, the integrated
command, the broad legitimacy and the habits of cooperation that
are essential to draw in new participants and respond to new
challenges. One of the deepest transformations within the
transatlantic community over the past half-century occurred
because the armed forces of our respected nations trained,
studied and marched through their careers together. It is not
only the compatibility of our weapons, but the camaraderie of our
warriors that provide the sinews behind our mutual security
guarantees and our best hope for peace.
Two years ago our nations began to adapt NATO to
this new era by creating the North Atlantic Cooperation Council.
It includes all the state of the former Soviet bloc, as well as
the 16 of NATO. Now it is time to move beyond that dialogue and
create an operating partnership. That is why I have proposed
that we create the Partnership For Peace.
This partnership will advance a process of evolution
for NATO's formal enlargement. It looks to the day when NATO
MORE
JAN-09-1994 20:52
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.009
- 3 -
prosperity and security, or are simply left hanging in isolation
as they face the same daunting changes gripping so many others in
Europe.
These pivotal decisions ultimately rest with the
people who threw off communism's yoke. They must make their own
decisions about their own future. But we in the West can clearly
help to shape their choices, and we must summon the political
will to do so.
The task requires a steady and patient effort,
guided by a strategic star that points us toward the integration
of a broader Europe. It also requires a fair amount of humility
-- understanding that we cannot control every event in every
country on every day. But if we are willing to assume the
central challenge, we can revitalize not only the nations of the
East, but also our own transatlantic relationship.
Over the past half-century, the transatlantic
community only realized half the promise of World War II's
triumph over fascism. The other half lay captive behind Europe's
walls of division. Now we have the chance to realize the full
promise of Europe's victories without its great disappointment:
Normandy without Yalta, the liberation of the low countries
without the Berlin blockade.
During this past half-century, transatlantic
security depended primarily on the deterrents provided by our
military forces. Now the immediate threat to our East is not of
advancing armies, but of creeping instability. Countering that
threat requires not only military security, but also the
promotion of democratic and economic renewal. Combined, these
forces are the strongest bulwark against Europe's current dangers
-- against ethnic conflict, the abuse of human rights, the
destabilizing refugee flows, the rise of aggressive regimes and
the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
The integration of the former communist bloc with
the rest of Europe will be gradual and often difficult, as
Germany's bold efforts demonstrate. And like all great
opportunities, we must remember that this one could be fleeting.
We must not now let the Iron Curtain be replaced with a veil of
indifference. For history will judge us as it judged with scorn
those who preached isolationism between the world wars, and as it
has judged with praise the bold architects of the transatlantic
community after World War II.
with the Cold War over, some in America with short
memories have called for us to pack up and go home. I am asked
often: Why do you maintain a presence in Europe? How can you
justify the expense when we have so many problems here at home?
We tried that, right after World War I. But the American people
this year proved their resistance to the siren song of global
withdrawal. We did so when the Congress voted for the North
American Free Trade Agreement, voted for America to compete in a
global economy, not to retreat. And we did so when we reached
out to Europe and to others, and in working with the European
Union, led the world to accept a new GATT agreement on world
trade.
I have come here today to declare and to demonstrate
that Europe remains central to the interests of the United
states, and that we will help to work with our partners in
seizing the opportunities before us all.
Without question, Europe is not the only focus of
our engagement, we must reach out to Latin America and to Asia --
areas that are increasingly important both to the United states
and to Europe. And our bonds with Europe will be different than
they were in the past, but make no mistake about it: the bonds
that tie the United States and Europe are unique. We share a
passionate faith that God has endowed us as individuals with
MORE
JAN-09-1994 20:55
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.011
- 5 -
will take on new members who assume the Alliance's full
responsibilities. It will create a framework in which former
communist states and others not now members of NATO can
participate with NATO members in joint military planning,
training, exercises and other efforts. This partnership will
build new bonds of cooperation among the militaries of the East
and the West. It will reinforce the development of democracies
and democratic practices, such as respect for human rights and
civilian control over military forces. It can give NATO new
tools for responding to ethnic instability and other dangers of
our era.
The use of NATO forces in such missions will always
be considered and must be on a case-by-case basis. But
tomorrow's summit will put us in a stronger position to make
those decisions, and to make them early and wisely.
The Partnership For Peace will not alter NATO's
fundamental mission of defending NATO territory from attack. We
cannot afford to abandon that mission while the dream of empire
still burns in the minds of some who look longingly toward a
brutal past. But neither can we afford to draw a new line
between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling
prophecy of future confrontation.
This partnership opens the door to cooperation with
all of NATO's former adversaries, including Russia, Ukraine and
the other newly-independent states, based on a belief that
freedom's boundaries must now be defined by new behavior, not old
history.
I say to all those in Europe and the United States
who would simply have us draw a new line in Europe further east
that we should not foreclose the possibility of the best possible
future for Europe which is a democracy everywhere, a market
economy everywhere, people cooperating everywhere for mutual
security. We can guard against a lesser future, but we should
strive for the best future for you and your generation.
NATO can also help to meet Europe's new security
challenges by doing more to counter the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. I tell you, frankly, it is one of our most
difficult and challenging tasks. Countering those weapons and
the missiles that deliver them will require close cooperation,
honesty and discipline, and a willingness of some not now willing
to do it to forego immediate financial gain.
The danger is clear and present. Growing missile
capabilities are bringing more of Europe into the range of rogue
states such as Iran and Libya. There are disturbing reports of
efforts to smuggle nuclear materials into and out of Eastern
Europe. And this eastward-looking summit will give us the chance
to begin to address the threat on our own territory.
The second element of the new security we are
building must be greater economic vitality, the issue which I
would imagine is of most immediate concern to most of you. We
must build it on vibrant and open market economies, the engines
that have given us the greatest prosperity in human history over
the last several decades in Europe and in the United States.
Our combined success in leading the world to a new
GATT agreement capped seven years of effort to expand prosperity
to all trading nations. NOW we must define a successor agenda to
GATT that focuses on the renewal of advanced economies and the
enlargement of prosperities to the nations of our east that are
making the difficult transitions to market economics.
First, the renewal of our own economies is critical.
Unless we are creating jobs and unless we are raising incomes in
and in the United states and Japan, in the advanced
people
of
JAN-09-1994 20:57
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.012
- 6 -
those nations, all our nations, to continue support of policy of
involvement with the rest of the world.
The nations of the European Union face particular
severe economic challenges with nearly 20 million people
unemployed and, in Germany's case, the extraordinarily high costs
of unification. All our nations have had to struggle against the
restless forces of this new global economy, against the
competition that comes from countries with lower wages or that is
generated when technology enables us to do more with fewer
workers, but there is not new technology to provide new jobs for
those who are displaced. This is problem not just for Europe,
but also for the United States, and now for Japan as well.
Among the Atlantic nations, economic stagnation has
clearly eroded public support in finances for outward-looking
foreign policies and for greater integration. Our respective
effort to revive our own economies are, therefore, important not
only for our own living standards, but also for our collective
strength. And both of them will shape the future you and your
children will have.
We must proceed quickly to implement the GATT
agreement. But we also must learn together and from each other
on making a broader and bolder series of adjustments to this new
global economy.
We Americans have a lot to learn from Europe in
matters of job training and apprenticeship, of moving our people
from school to work and to good paying jobs with the capacity to
continue to learn new skills as the economy forces them to do so.
But we also may have something to teach in the area of the
flexibility of our job structure and our capacity to generate
work and new employment opportunities. This is an area in which
we can usefully draw lessons from each other. And that is why I
am pleased that in March our leading ministers will hold a jobs
conference that I proposed last July. We simply must figure out
how to create more jobs and how to reward people who work both
harder and smarter in the workplace. It is the basis of all the
other attitudes that we want to foster to remain engaged with one
another and with the rest of the world.
But as we work to strengthen our own economies, we
must know that we serve our own prosperity and our security by
helping the new market economies of Europe's eastern half to
thrive. Successful market reforms in those states will help to
deflate the region's demagogues. It will help to ease ethnic
tensions. It will help new democracies to take root. It is also
in your long-term interest because one of the things that we have
learned is that wealthy nations cannot grow richer unless they
have customers beyond their borders for their goods and their
services.
So the short-term difficulties of taking Eastern
Europe into our economic alliance will be more than rewarded if
they succeed and if they are customers for Western Europe's goods
and services tomorrow. That is why early on in our
administration we committed to increase support substantially for
market reforms in the new states of the former Soviet Union, and
why we have continued our support for economic transition in
Central and Eastern Europe.
Ultimately, the success of market reforms to the
East will depend more on trade than aid. None of us have enough
money to markedly change the future of those countries as they
move to free market systems in the government coffers. We cannot
give them enough aid to make them full partners. They must grow
and trade their way into full partnership with us.
One of our priorities, therefore, should be to
reduce trade barriers to the former communist states. It will
make little sense for us to applaud their market reforms on the
MORE
JAN-09-1994 20:56
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.011
- 5 -
will take on new members who assume the Alliance's full
responsibilities. It will create a framework in which former
communist states and others not now members of NATO can
participate with NATO members in joint military planning,
training, exercises and other efforts. This partnership will
build new bonds of cooperation among the militaries of the East
and the West. It will reinforce the development of democracies
and democratic practices, such as respect for human rights and
civilian control over military forces. It can give NATO new
tools for responding to ethnic instability and other dangers of
our era.
The use of NATO forces in such missions will always
be considered and must be on a case-by-case basis. But
tomorrow's summit will put us in a stronger position to make
those decisions, and to make them early and wisely.
The Partnership For Peace will not alter NATO's
fundamental mission of defending NATO territory from attack. We
cannot afford to abandon that mission while the dream of empire
still burns in the minds of some who look longingly toward a
brutal past. But neither can we afford to draw a new line
between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling
prophecy of future confrontation.
This partnership opens the door to cooperation with
all of NATO's former adversaries, including Russia, Ukraine and
the other newly-independent states, based on a belief that
freedom's boundaries must now be defined by new behavior, not old
history.
I say to all those in Europe and the United States
who would simply have us draw a new line in Europe further east
that we should not foreclose the possibility of the best possible
future for Europe which is a democracy everywhere, a market
economy everywhere, people cooperating everywhere for mutual
security. We can guard against a lesser future, but we should
strive for the best future for you and your generation.
NATO can also help to meet Europe's new security
challenges by doing more to counter the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. I tell you, frankly, it is one of our most
difficult and challenging tasks. Countering those weapons and
the missiles that deliver them will require close cooperation,
honesty and discipline, and a willingness of some not now willing
to do it to forego immediate financial gain.
The danger is clear and present. Growing missile
capabilities are bringing more of Europe into the range of rogue
states such as Iran and Libya. There are disturbing reports of
efforts to smuggle nuclear materials into and out of Eastern
Europe. And this eastward-looking summit will give us the chance
to begin to address the threat on our own territory.
The second element of the new security we are
building must be greater economic vitality, the issue which I
would imagine is of most immediate concern to most of you. We
must build it on vibrant and open market economies, the engines
that have given us the greatest prosperity in human history over
the last several decades in Europe and in the United States.
Our combined success in leading the world to a new
GATT agreement capped seven years of effort to expand prosperity
to all trading nations. Now we must define a successor agenda to
GATT that focuses on the renewal of advanced economies and the
enlargement of prosperities to the nations of our east that are
making the difficult transitions to market economics.
First, the renewal of our own economies is critical.
Unless we are creating jobs and unless we are raising incomes in
Europe and in the United states and Japan, in the advanced
countries of the world, it will be difficult for the people of
JAN-09-1994 20:59
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.013
- 7 -
one hand while offering only selective access to our markets on
the other. That's like inviting someone to a castle and refusing
to let down the drawbridge. The United states has already
eliminated many of our Cold War barriers to products from these
countries. And all our nations must find more ways to do the
same thing. The economic success of these states simply cannot
be separated from our own renewal and security.
In 1931, a remarkable British political cartoon
portrayed the United States and Europe in a rowboat. At the back
end of the boat, where Europe's more Eastern powers sat, there
was a terrible leak and it was sinking fast. The front end,
where the United states and Western Europe were, was still
afloat; the boat was sinking from the back end. And one of the
figures in our end of the boat was saying, "Thank goodness, the
leak's not at our end of the boat." In the end, the whole boat
sank. That will happen again unless we work together. Europe's
western half clearly, as history shows, cannot long be secure if
the eastern half remains in turmoil.
The third and final imperative of this new security
is to support the growth of democracy and individual freedoms
that has begun throughout Europe's former communist states. The
success of these democratic reforms make us all more secure
because democracies tend not to wage war on one another, and they
tend not to break their word to one another. Democratic
governments nurture civil society, respect for human rights and
habits of simple tolerance. The democratic values at the heart
of the Western community are also our best answer to the
aggressive nationalism and ethnic hatreds unleashed by the end of
the Cold War.
We in the transatlantic community must commit our
selves to helping democracy succeed in all the former communist
states that are Western Europe's immediate neighbors, because
their security matters to our security. Nowhere is democracy's
success more important to us all than there and then in Russia.
I will say again, in Russia, if the nation continues to evolve as
a market democracy, satisfied within her borders and at peace
with her neighbors, defining her greatness in terms of the
ability to enable all of the children of Russia to live to the
fullest of their potential, then our role toward Europe's full
integration will be wider and smoother and safer. As one
Ukrainian legislator recently stated, if Russia is democratic,
Europe will be calm.
The results of the recent elections in Russia and
the statements of some Russian political figures have given us
all genuine cause for concern. We must consistently condemn
expressions of intolerance and threats of aggression. But we
should also keep those concerns in some historical perspective.
It was only two years ago, after all, that the Soviet Union
dissolved. Just two months ago, Russia appeared to be on the
brink of a civil war. But since then Russia has held a free and
fair national election, its people have ratified a genuinely
democratic constitution, and they have elected their first-ever
post-Soviet legislature. And the government continues to pursue
democratic and economic reform.
The transformation Russia is undertaking is
absolutely staggering. If you just think about what the country
has been like since 1917; if you go back to the 18th century and
imagine the history of the nation from that point to this; the
idea that the nation could seriously be involved by democratic
vote in undertaking these transformations is absolutely
staggering. We cannot expect them to correct overnight three-
quarters of a century of repressive leadership, three-quarters of
a century of totalitarian policy, or a whole national history in
which there was no democracy.
As in the other communist nations, this will be the
work of generations. We in the United States have been at it for
JAN-09-1994 21:01
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.014
- 8 -
200 years now and we're still working to try to get it right.
All of us have to recognize that there will be wrong turns and
even reversals, as there have been in all of our own countries
throughout our histories. But as long as these states continue
their progress toward democracy and respect the rights of their
own and other people, that they understand the rights of their
minorities and their neighbors, then we should support their
progress with a steady patience.
In order to support these new democracies, we are
supporting grass-roots efforts to build the institutions of civil
society, from community organizers in the Czech Republic to
election volunteers in Bulgaria. We also will take steps to
encourage cooperation among the new democracies. As with Western
Europe after World War II, we must get regional neighbors working
together rather than looking at each other with suspicion.
The broader integration in peace we are building is
not only a European concern -- I say again, it is distinctly in
the interests of the United States. My nation has thrilled at
the progress of freedom on this continent over the past five
years. And we understand well the toll that European discord
ultimately takes on our own people.
Only a few hours of this place lie the graves of
thousands of Americans who died in Europe's two great wars.
History records where they fell -- at Flanders Field, on the
shores of Normandy, and in the Battle of the Bulge. But let us
remember as well why they came here; why they left the safety of
their homes to fight in a distant land. They came because our
security depends more on things that go far beyond geographical
divides. Our security depends on more than the ocean that
divides us. It depends on the existence of a strong and free and
democratic Europe.
Today we can honor the sacrifice of those Americans
buried here on your soil by expanding the reach of the freedoms
they fought and gave their lives to preserve. The fight for your
generation across a broader Europe will be joined and won not on
this continent's beaches or across its plains, but rather in its
new parliaments and city councils; in the offices and factories
of its new market economies; in the hearts and minds of the young
people like may of you here. You have the most to gain from a
Europe that is integrated in terms of security, in terms of
economics, in terms of democracies.
Ultimately, you will have to decide what sort of
Europe you want and how hard you are willing to work for it. But
I want. you to know that the United States stands by you in that
battle, as we have in the other battles of the 20th century.
I believe that our freedom is indivisible. I
believe our destinies are joined. I believe that the 21st
century can be the most exciting period that Europe and the
United States have ever known, and that your future can be the
richest and brightest of any generation. But we will have to
work to make it so. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
6:32 P.M. (L)
JAN-09-1994 20:59
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.013
- 7 -
one hand while offering only selective access to our markets on
the other. That's like inviting someone to a castle and refusing
to let down the drawbridge. The United states has already
eliminated many of our Cold War barriers to products from these
countries. And all our nations must find more ways to do the
same thing. The economic success of these states simply cannot
be separated from our own renewal and security.
In 1931, a remarkable British political cartoon
portrayed the United States and Europe in a rowboat. At the back
end of the boat, where Europe's more Eastern powers sat, there
was a terrible leak and it was sinking fast. The front end,
where the United states and Western Europe were, was still
afloat; the boat was sinking from the back end. And one of the
figures in our end of the boat was saying, "Thank goodness, the
leak's not at our end of the boat." In the end, the whole boat
sank. That will happen again unless we work together. Europe's
western half clearly, as history shows, cannot long be secure if
the eastern half remains in turmoil.
The third and final imperative of this new security
is to support the growth of democracy and individual freedoms
that has begun throughout Europe's former communist states. The
success of these democratic reforms make us all more secure
because democracies tend not to wage war on one another, and they
tend not to break their word to one another. Democratic
governments nurture civil society, respect for human rights and
habits of simple tolerance. The democratic values at the heart
of the Western community are also our best answer to the
aggressive nationalism and ethnic hatreds unleashed by the end of
the Cold War.
We in the transatlantic community must commit our
selves to helping democracy succeed in all the former communist
states that are Western Europe's immediate neighbors, because
their security matters to our security. Nowhere is democracy's
success more important to us all than there and then in Russia.
I will say again, in Russia, if the nation continues to evolve as
a market democracy, satisfied within her borders and at peace
with her neighbors, defining her greatness in terms of the
ability to enable all of the children of Russia to live to the
fullest of their potential, then our role toward Europe's full
integration will be wider and smoother and safer. As one
Ukrainian legislator recently stated, if Russia is democratic,
Europe will be calm.
The results of the recent elections in Russia and
the statements of some Russian political figures have given us
all genuine cause for concern. We must consistently condemn
expressions of intolerance and threats of aggression. But we
should also keep those concerns in some historical perspective.
It was only two years ago, after all, that the Soviet Union
dissolved. Just two months ago, Russia appeared to be on the
brink of a civil war. But since then Russia has held a free and
fair national election, its people have ratified a genuinely
democratic constitution, and they have elected their first-ever
post-Soviet legislature. And the government continues to pursue
democratic and economic reform.
The transformation Russia is undertaking is
absolutely staggering. If you just think about what the country
has been like since 1917; if you go back to the 18th century and
imagine the history of the nation from that point to this; the
idea that the nation could seriously be involved by democratic
vote in undertaking these transformations is absolutely
staggering. We cannot expect them to correct overnight three-
quarters of a century of repressive leadership, three-quarters of
a century of totalitarian policy, or a whole national history in
which there was no democracy.
As in the other communist nations, this will be the
work of generations. We in the United States have been at it for
JAN-11-1994 20:45
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS GFC
32 509 F.018/024
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN STATEMENT WITH EU LEADERS
News Conference Theatre
EU Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
12:49 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. We have just
had a very productive meeting, President Delors and Prime
Minister Papandreou and I. As I have said many times in the last
few days, I came to Brussels in the hope of working with the
leaders of Europe to build a broader and more integrated Europe.
At the heart of this new concept of security is the
economic vitality of the relationship between the United states
and the European Union. The EU remains America's most valued
partner in trade and investment. A strong relationship between
us is good for America. It can help to generate more jobs, more
growth, more opportunities for workers and businesses at home as
well as for those here in Europe.
That is one of the reasons that our administration
strongly supported the Maastrict Treaty. We believe a strong and
more unified Europe makes for a more effective economic and
political partner. I think we proved that through our combined
efforts to lead the world to a new GATT agreement in December.
One key to achieving that accord came last spring
when President Delors agreed to join me in focusing on market
access at last year's G-7 summit. I'm committed to deepening our
relationship with the EU through regular meetings at all levels
to continue to address other concerns as we address the market
access concern and as we work together to get a new GATT
agreement.
I have argued in my own country that to advance the
global economy and to advance the interests of American workers
as well, we must compete, not retreat. All advanced economies
dall only generate more jobs and higher incomes when they have
more people beyond their borders to buy their goods and services.
Therefore, we must continue our efforts to expand global growth
and world markets. The GATT agreement will help in that regard.
I am convinced it will create millions of jobs in the global
economy between now and the end of the decade. But we also have
responsibilities, the United States, the EU and others, to
continue our own efforts toward open trade and more global
growth.
In today's meeting, we discussed four ways in which
we can build on the momentum generated by the GATT agreement.
First, we stressed the need to finalize and ratify the agreement.
The agreement itself was an impressive breakthrough, but there
are several areas in which we did not reach full agreement. I
emphasized today our strong desire to resolve our outstanding
differences.
We also agreed that further market access offers
from Japan and from other countries are also needed to meet the
ambitious goals on which we agreed. The U.S. and the EU cannot
alone create the open markets the world needs.
JAN-11-1994 20:46
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.019/024
- 2 -
We think it is clearly time for the other great
economic power, Japan, to join us in this effort to open markets.
Second, we agreed on the importance of putting jobs at the center
of our trade and economic agenda. Today, the nations of the
European Union are facing high and persistent rates of
unemployment and sluggish growth.
In the United States, we have begun to generate more
jobs, but our nation still has a long way to go before our
unemployment is at an acceptable level and before our workers
begin to generate more income when they work harder. The renewal
of each of our economies will benefit all of them. We discussed
some of the innovative ideas contained in the Delors White Paper.
President Delors and Prime Minister Papandreou both made very
thoughtful comments about the kinds of things we could do to
generate more job growth both in Europe and the United States.
And we look forward to pursuing those ideas at the jobs
conference in Washington this spring, and again at the G-7 summit
this July.
Third, we agreed to explore the next generation of
trade issues. I suggested that the successor agenda to the
Uruguay Round should include issues such as the impact of
environmental policies on trade, antitrust and other competition
policies and labor standards -- something that I think we must,
frankly, address.
While we continue to tear down anticompetitive
practices and other barriers to trade, we simply have to assure
that our economic policies also protect the environment and the
well-being of workers. And as we bring others into the orbit of
global trade people who can benefit from the investment and
trading opportunities we offer, we must ensure that their
policies benefit the interest of their workers and our common
interest in enhancing environmental protection throughout the
globe. That is exactly what we tried to do with the North
American Free Trade Agreement. And in the coming months I look
forward to continuing discussions on these issues with our EU
partners.
Finally, we discussed the imperative of helping to
integrate the new market democracies of Europe's Eastern half
into the transatlantic community. Yesterday, NATO took an
historic step in this direction with the Partnership For Peace.
We must match that effort by helping to ensure that our markets
are open to the products of Eastern Europe. Ultimately, the
further integration of Europe can be a future source of jobs and
prosperity for both the United States and Western Europe as these
nations become increasingly productive and, therefore,
increasingly able to serve as consumers in the global economy.
We have already begun to open our markets to these
new democracies. And I have urged that both the United states
and the EU explore additional ways in which we can further open
our markets to the nations to our east. Our trade are a source
of strength, the source of jobs, a source of prosperity.
I look forward to continuing these discussions in
the future. We had a lot of very good specific discussions this
morning on the jobs issue in particular. And we intend to
continue to work together and to make progress together.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT PAPANDREOU: President Clinton, in this
very brief presentation, has covered the issues that we discussed
today. He has done so in a very complete way so I will make two
or three comments and not more. To begin with, we have the
revitalization of transatlantic relations, relations between
Europe, the European Union and the United states of America.
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:45
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.018/024
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN STATEMENT WITH EU LEADERS
News Conference Theatre
EU Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
12:49 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. We have just
had a very productive meeting, President Delors and Prime
Minister Papandreou and I. As I have said many times in the last
few days, I came to Brussels in the hope of working with the
leaders of Europe to build a broader and more integrated Europe.
At the heart of this new concept of security is the
economic vitality of the relationship between the United states
and the European Union. The EU remains America's most valued
partner in trade and investment. A strong relationship between
us is good for America. It can help to generate more jobs, more
growth, more opportunities for workers and businesses at home as
well as for those here in Europe.
That is one of the reasons that our administration
strongly supported the Maastrict Treaty. We believe a strong and
more unified Europe makes for a more effective economic and
political partner. I think we proved that through our combined
efforts to lead the world to a new GATT agreement in December.
One key to achieving that accord came last spring
when President Delors agreed to join me in focusing on market
access at last year's G-7 summit. I'm committed to deepening our
relationship with the EU through regular meetings at all levels
to continue to address other concerns as we address the market
access concern and as we work together to get a new GATT
agreement.
I have argued in my own country that to advance the
global economy and to advance the interests of American workers
as well, we must compete, not retreat. All advanced economies
dell only generate more jobs and higher incomes when they have
more people beyond their borders to buy their goods and services.
Therefore, we must continue our efforts to expand global growth
and world markets. The GATT agreement will help in that regard.
I am convinced it will create millions of jobs in the global
economy between now and the end of the decade. But we also have
responsibilities, the United States, the EU and others, to
continue our own efforts toward open trade and more global
growth.
In today's meeting, we discussed four ways in which
we can build on the momentum generated by the GATT agreement.
First, we stressed the need to finalize and ratify the agreement.
The agreement itself was an impressive breakthrough, but there
are several areas in which we did not reach full agreement. I
emphasized today our strong desire to resolve our outstanding
differences.
We also agreed that further market access offers
from Japan and from other countries are also needed to meet the
ambitious goals on which we agreed. The U.S. and the EU cannot
alone create the open markets the world needs.
JAN-11-1994 20:43
PRAGLE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.020.024
- 3 -
It 18 very important for President Clinton that
European integration, the great objective of a united Europe, is
very important. Now, the other important issue is an opening
towards Eastern Europe. The wall separating the Bast from the
West have been dismantled. We do not want any further divisions
in Europe. But we should not ignore the dangers that may
confront us on this road.
Russia is involved in a very difficult economic,
political and social reform. And we would like to contribute in
any way we can so that this road will lead to a modern economy,
to a peace policy and to a just society. We hope that that will
be the final outcome of this process.
Now, the third point which is directly linked to
what we have mentioned so far is a Partnership For Peace. We
have to work together for peace. This is a great concept. we
should consider ways of working together in the area of defense
in connection with problems arising due to crises, due to
nationalist fanaticism, due to conflicts in Burope or at the
periphery. Crisis management is a very important objective.
Military cooperation without Eastern European countries being
members of NATO, but cooperation between them and NATO is not a
threat for Russia, but rather an invitation to Russia to
contribute constructively.
I will not embark on the problem of the European
economy. Mr. Delors will speak about this problem. But the
truth is that there are three regions in which we have both
unemployment and recession -- Europe, Japan and the United
states. Now, the United States has started an upswing.
We are faced with a very serious problem in
connection with employment, and we will have to live with this
problem for many years unless we manage to find a radical
solution. It is not the right time to go into the details of
these solutions. Now, this is what I wanted to say at the
present juncture.
so, President Delors.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Questions immediately, because
this is more interesting that what I could add to what Prime
Minister Papandreou has spoken on behalf of the Community.
Q
Back to NATO, Mr. President. what makes you
think that the Serbs will take the threat seriously now since
NATO has been the boy crying wolf in the past? And what really
has stiffened everybody's spine now after two years of shelling,
bombing, slaughter?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, keep in mind now the
resolution was directed toward a specific set of circumstances.
They reaffirmed -- NATO reaffirmed the August position that if
Sarajevo was subject to strangulation defined as large-scale
shelling, that air power from NATO could be used as a response to
that, And then, today there were added two conditions that we
asked our military leadership to come up with plans to ensure
that the troop replacement in srebrenica could proceed and to see
whether the airstrip at Tuzla could be opened.
I can only tell you what happened in the meetings.
The Secretary General of NATO and I both said that these steps
should not be called for unless everyone voting in the
affirmative was prepared to see them through. And there was an
explicit discussion of that. so I think that the continued
deterioration of conditions, the frustration of all us that no
peace agreement has been made and that explicit debate should
give this vote the credibility that I believe it deserves.
Q Listening to what you said about growth and
jobs and also defense of the environment and social rights, I'm
JAN-11-1994 20:50
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.021/024
- 4 -
very struck by how similar your language is to the proposals
which President Delors recently put to the European heads of
government. Would you acknowledge that your thinking on these
issues is very largely convergent? And what would you say to
some people who responded in this Union by saying now is no time
to be unduly concerned about workers' rights or the environment,
that this can no priority when we are tackling mass unemployment
priority when we are tackling mass unemployment? It's a debate
we've had here in the Union. I wonder how you would advise
people in that respect here.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think it is fair to
say that President Delors and I share a lot of common ideas.
Prime Minister Papandreou and I have shared some ideas. I've
read some of his thoughts and interviews. I think any person who
seriously studies this issue, who studies income trends in the
United States, who studies job trends in Europe, who studies now
what is happening in Japan, will reach the conclusion that every
wealthy country in the world is having great difficulty creating
jobs and raising incomes, and that there are some common elements
to this malady which have to be addressed.
Now, let me say in response to the two issues you've
raised, first of all, with regard to the environment, I believe
that dealing with the environment creates jobs, doesn't cost jobs
if you do it in the right way. And I think we now have about 20
years of evidence that supports that -- that if you have the
right sort of sensible environmental policy and if you finance it
in the right way, you will create jobs, not cost jobs. Much of
the environmental cleanup that is sensible requires the
development of technologies and the generation of high-wage jobs
which will be virtually exclusively the province of the same
countries that are having trouble creating jobs.
with regard to workers' rights, I would respond in
two ways. First of all, if in order to create jobs we have to
give up all the supports that we have worked hard for over
decades for working families, then we may wind up paying the same
political price and social price. That is, we do not want to see
the collapse of the middle class in Europe or in the United
States. What we want to do is to rebuild and strengthen the
middle class.
If you look at the vote in Russia, if you look at
the recent vote in Poland, you see what happens in democracies
when middle class people feel that the future will be worse than
the present. so if you're going to ask for changes in the system
of support, those changes have to be done in a way that increase
the sense of security that middle class working class families in
all these countries.
Secondly, the issue of worker rights and the issue
of the environment should be seen from our prospective as a
global one. That 1s, if you look at what Ambassador Kantor
negotiated with Mexico in the NAFTA treaty, the first trade
agreement ever to explicitly deal with environmental and labor
issues, we did it because we said, okay, if we're going to open
our borders and trade more and invest more with developing
nations, we want to know that their working people will receive
some of the benefits and a fair share of the benefits of this
trade and investment. Otherwise, they won't have increasing
incomes and they won't be able to buy our products and services.
So I see this whole worker rights issue as more a
function of the global economy and one that will help us to build
up ordinary citizens everywhere, which I think should be our
ultimate objective.
Q Mr. President, back on Bosnia. You mentioned
that this threat of military action is not a new threat. How
long can NATO keep on making these threats without carrying them
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:43
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.020/024
- 3 -
It 18 very important for President Clinton that
European integration, the great objective of a united Europe, is
very important. Now, the other important issue is an opening
towards Eastern Europe. The wall separating the East from the
West have been dismantled. We do not want any further divisions
in Europe. But we should not ignore the dangers that may
confront us on this road.
Russia is involved in a very difficult economic,
political and social reform. And we would like to contribute in
any way we can so that this road will lead to a modern economy,
to a peace policy and to a just society. We hope that that will
be the final outcome of this process.
Now, the third point which is directly linked to
what we have mentioned so far is a Partnership For Peace. We
have to work together for peace. This is a great concept. We
should consider ways of working together in the area of defense
in connection with problems arising due to crises, due to
nationalist fanaticism, due to conflicts in Europe or at the
periphery. Crisis management is a very important objective.
Military cooperation without Eastern European countries being
members of NATO, but cooperation between them and NATO is not a
threat for Russia, but rather an invitation to Russia to
contribute constructively.
I will not embark on the problem of the European
economy. Mr. Delors will speak about this problem. But the
truth is that there are three regions in which we have both
unemployment and recession -- Europe, Japan and the United
states. Now, the United States has started an upswing.
We are faced with a very serious problem in
connection with employment, and we will have to live with this
problem for many years unless we manage to find a radical
solution. It is not the right time to go into the details of
these solutions. Now, this is what I wanted to say at the
present juncture.
so, President Delors.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Questions immediately, because
this is more interesting that what I could add to what Prime
Minister Papandreou has spoken on behalf of the Community.
Q Back to NATO, Mr. President. What makes you
think that the Serbs will take the threat seriously now since
NATO has been the boy crying wolf in the past? And what really
has stiffened everybody's spine now after two years of shelling,
bombing, slaughter?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, keep in mind now the
resolution was directed toward a specific set of circumstances.
They reaffirmed -- NATO reaffirmed the August position that if
Sarajevo was subject to strangulation defined as large-scale
shelling, that air power from NATO could be used as a response to
that, And then, today there were added two conditions that we
asked our military leadership to come up with plans to ensure
that the troop replacement in Srebrenica could proceed and to see
whether the airstrip at Tuzla could be opened.
I can only tell you what happened in the meetings.
The Secretary General of NATO and I both said that these steps
should not be called for unless everyone voting in the
affirmative was prepared to see them through. And there was an
explicit discussion of that. so I think that the continued
deterioration of conditions, the frustration of all us that no
peace agreement has been made and that explicit debate should
give this vote the credibility that I believe it deserves.
Q
Listening to what you said about growth and
jobs and also defense of the environment and social rights, I'm
JAN-11-1994 20:51
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.022/024
- 5 -
out, without delivering? At what point does it become, as you
warned about yesterday, an empty threat?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we have two
different issues here. The French and the British proposed the
motion to ask our military planners to come up with a strategy to
ensure the rotation of troops in Srebrenica and to see whether
with the use of air power or some other device we might secure
the opening of the airstrip at Tuzla to continue the U.N.
mission, the humanitarian mission. So we'll await the plan and
see what happens.
On the question of the use of air strikes in
retaliation for the strangulation of Sarajevo, that is largely
going to be a function of the behavior of the people who have
been shelling Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serbs. so we'll just have to
-- part of it depends upon -- when you say how long -- it depends
on what is their behavior? Is the shelling going to abate now,
as it did after August when we adopted the resolution? And then
it basically escalated dramatically only relatively recently. Or
will they continue to do it? And then we'll see if our resolve
is there. My resolve is there. That's all I can tell you. And
I believe the people in that room knew what they were doing when
they voted for this resolution.
It depends in part -- when you say how long, it
depends in part on what will be the conduct from this day forward
of those who have been responsible for shelling Sarajevo.
Q
I had a question on Partnership For Peace. And
I'd be grateful if, Mr. President, you could answer, and perhaps
President Delors, too.
With hindsight, I wonder whether you don't think you
missed a trick by making entry into NATO for the former communist
countries of Central and Eastern Europe work on the same track as
entry into the European Union. Would this not have been a more
credible approach for Partnership For Peace?
THE PRESIDENT: I'll be glad to answer that
question, but I think perhaps I should defer to President Delors
since he has a much better sense of how the membership track for
the European Union works and let him answer the question that you
specifically posed, and then I'll also respond. And perhaps
Prime Minister Papandreou will respond.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Back in 1989 already, with the
event that took place then, the Summit of Industrialized Nations
dealt at length with this question: HOW, after the fall of the
Berlin wall and the collapse of communism, could we make it
possible for the countries in question to get back onto the track
of pluralist democracy and open economy? And then, it seemed to
us that immediate entry by the countries in question into the
European Union would be more damaging for them than would be a
period of preparation and adaptation.
We were afraid then that there would be a clash
between the strong and the weak, however much aid we could give
them. so a period of transition was necessary. It was in the
context of the mission that was entrusted to the European
Community and to the Commission that we endeavored to help them
in order to make it possible for them to progress in parallel
along the two tracks that I have indicated today. After four
years of experience and speaking in my personal name, I am ready
to take stock of this aid to which the Community has contributed
a lot.
May I recall that in 1989, the European Union only
represented 25 percent of the external trade of the countries of
Eastern Europe. NOW we represent 60 percent. And so we have
replaced COMICON, and that was absolutely necessary. We have
doubled our imports over three years from these countries. We
JAN-11-1994 20:53
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.023,024
- 6 -
represent 60 percent of total aid, including the aid from the
international financial organizations.
But we cannot replace them. These countries are
responsible countries. They have to learn the workings of an
open economy and democracy. of course, there are claims in our
countries. There are also people that are recommending other
solutions, but I still think that immediate entry to the European
Union would have been very damaging to them, irrespective of what
our leaders would have had to explain to our citizens who are
taxpayers.
For today, we have to take stock of what's happened,
but not do this having in mind the idea that we could substitute
for them. They are responsible for the fates. Some of them have
chosen the "big bang" approach in order to reform their
economies. I deplore this, and I feel that this was one of the
reasons for the return of the former communists and others.
Others have taken a more gradualist approach.
But each country was different. Czechoslovakia was
traditionally an industrial country. Hungary, even out of
communism, had begun experiments in decentralization way back in
1970. So we cannot act in their stead. Today, they have to face
a growing problem of security. The Partnership For Peace is
there to deal with this, but there is also a need for economic
security.
But I'm a pragmatist. I'm open to any solution.
But when I hear some leaders within Europe saying that we should
have acted otherwise, I remain convinced that we did opt for the
right solution. Now, have we always supplied it with the
desirable efficacy? That's another question. It remains open.
But again, with the commissioners responsible, we shall take
stock of all of this.
But we have to be careful. All of the miracle
solutions that have been proposed would not have resolved the
problems, and anyway, we can see this with German unification.
It is not this that in any way has diminished the frustration of
the populations concerned, or filled the psychological gap, or
even made it possible to get onto the ideal road towards
modernization. There are all sorts of problems. Besides, I'm
very respectful of what is happening in Germany. But it is an
experience contrary to the other one. You can see what problems
remain to be resolved.
PRIME MINISTER PAPANDREOU: Just a few words,
because I think President Delors has stated very clearly our
stand. There is a very delicate relationship between deepening
of the European Union and enlargement of the Union. They must go
together in a careful relationship. Otherwise, the Union itself
may not be able to achieve its fundamental goals. so some delays
are necessary, both from the point of view of the countries
petitioning the entry and also from the Union itself. But I
think I've said enough, in view of what President Delors has
already said in such detail.
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to go back to your original
question. What you asked, I think, was since there will be --
since there is sort of a phased-in possibility for additional
membership to the European Union and a phased-in possibility for
membership in NATO, should the criteria and timetables have been
reconciled. I think that's the question you're asking.
I can't give you a yes or no, except to say that I
think it would have been difficult to do that for a couple of
reasons. First of all, NATO and the European Union are
fundamentally different organizations. Membership in NATO means
that each member has a solemn obligation to defend the security
of each other -- any other member from attack. And membership in
NATO includes a guarantee, therefore, coming from the United
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:51
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.022/024
- 5 -
out, without delivering? At what point does it become, as you
warned about yesterday, an empty threat?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we have two
different issues here. The French and the British proposed the
motion to ask our military planners to come up with a strategy to
ensure the rotation of troops in Srebrenica and to see whether
with the use of air power or some other device we might secure
the opening of the airstrip at Tuzla to continue the U.N.
mission, the humanitarian mission. So we'll await the plan and
see what happens.
On the question of the use of air strikes in
retaliation for the strangulation of Sarajevo, that is largely
going to be a function of the behavior of the people who have
been shelling Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serbs. so we'll just have to
-- part of it depends upon -- when you say how long -- it depends
on what is their behavior? Is the shelling going to abate now,
as it did after August when we adopted the resolution? And then
it basically escalated dramatically only relatively recently. or
will they continue to do it? And then we'll see if our resolve
is there. My resolve is there. That's all I can tell you. And
I believe the people in that room knew what they were doing when
they voted for this resolution.
It depends in part -- when you say how long, it
depends in part on what will be the conduct from this day forward
of those who have been responsible for shelling Sarajevo.
Q
I had a question on Partnership For Peace. And
I'd be grateful if, Mr. President, you could answer, and perhaps
President Delors, too.
With hindsight, I wonder whether you don't think you
missed a trick by making entry into NATO for the former communist
countries of Central and Eastern Europe work on the same track as
entry into the European Union. Would this not have been a more
credible approach for Partnership For Peace?
THE PRESIDENT: I'll be glad to answer that
question, but I think perhaps I should defer to President Delors
since he has a much better sense of how the membership track for
the European Union works and let him answer the question that you
specifically posed, and then I'll also respond. And perhaps
Prime Minister Papandreou will respond.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Back in 1989 already, with the
event that took place then, the Summit of Industrialized Nations
dealt at length with this question: HOW, after the fall of the
Berlin wall and the collapse of communism, could we make it
possible for the countries in question to get back onto the track
of pluralist democracy and open economy? And then, it seemed to
us that immediate entry by the countries in question into the
European Union would be more damaging for them than would be a
period of preparation and adaptation.
We were afraid then that there would be a clash
between the strong and the weak, however much aid we could give
them. so a period of transition was necessary. It was in the
context of the mission that was entrusted to the European
Community and to the Commission that we endeavored to help them
in order to make it possible for them to progress in parallel
along the two tracks that I have indicated today. After four
years of experience and speaking in my personal name, I am ready
to take stock of this aid to which the Community has contributed
a lot.
May I recall that in 1989, the European Union only
represented 25 percent of the external trade of the countries of
Eastern Europe. NOW we represent 60 percent. And so we have
replaced COMICON, and that was absolutely necessary. We have
doubled our imports over three years from these countries. We
JAN-11-1994 20:55
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.024/024
- 7 -
States and from Canada, something that is not the same with the
European Union.
On the other hand, membership in the European Union
now involves a commitment to a level of economic and political
integration that some who may want to be a part of NATO may or
may not want to commit to. So I think as a practical matter, it
would have been very difficult to reconcile these two timetables
since the organizations are different. Some may be more
interested in being in the European Union. I can conceive of
some countries who want to be in the Union who may not want to be
in NATO. Some may wish to be in NATO before they're able to meet
the responsibilities of the European Union.
PRESIDENT DELORS: I would just like to add one
sentence. In my humble opinion, the generation that I belong to
and which holds responsibility at present has two obligations,
and to reconcile these is not easy. On the one hand, we want to
create a political union with the European countries that desire
this, because we think that none of our countries is capable of
coping with these problems and with world responsibilities.
And secondly, given the events that have occurred in
the East, we have another obligation which is equally important;
that is to extend our values of peace, cooperation and mutual
understanding to the wider Europe. Believe me, to combine the
two is no easy task.
And, again, I criticize those who put forth
simplistic solutions in this area. Life is difficult. No one
can prevent such events being conflictual. A little modesty on
the part of those proposing miracle solutions will be necessary.
9 Mr. President, Germany recently requested that
the famous Article 5 of the NATO Pact should apply for the
security for the Czech Republic, not a NATO member, in order to
face a threat not been defined yet. Since Greece is a NATO
member, according to the report, many of them are facing a real
threat in her northern border from an expected movement of
Albanian refugees from Kosovo via skopje. If the same article
could apply on that case, keep also into account that European
Union and Western European Union are not guaranteeing the Greek
borders. And I'm taking this opportunity, Mr. President, to ask
directly if America will be in the position to guarantee the
security of Greece from such a threat on a bilateral basis?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Frankly, that's a conversation I
think I ought to have with Prime Minister Papandreou before I
have it in public in some ways. But let me respond in two ways.
First of all, the United States has taken two strong steps to try
to make sure that the dire situation you described does not
occur. We have sent 300 troops to be located in Macedonia -- or
Skopje, as the Prime Minister describes it, as a part of a NATO
effort or a U.N. effort to contain the conflict in Bosnia.
In addition to that, shortly before I became
President but after I was elected President, the previous
administration with my strong support sent a very strong and firm
warning about involving Kosovo in the conflagration in Bosnia.
And we made it very clear that we would have very strong views
about that and a strong reaction to it.
So I think the real issue is, are we trying to
protect the interests of Greece and other nations from being
embroiled in the conflict now in the Balkans. And the answer is
yes, and I think we've taken two strong steps to do that. I
believe we will be successful in doing that.
THE PRESS: Thank you very much.
END
1:19 P.M. (L)
ADVANCE
36502 P.008
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
JOINT AMERICAN-RUSSIAN STATEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The President of the United States of America and the President
of the Russian Federation share the view that full guarantees of
respect for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of all
persons are indispensable for the maintenance of good relations
between countries and the strengthening of stability and security
in the world. They also share the view that the development of a
state founded on the rule of law with an independent, impartial
and effective legal system is essential for the respect of human
rights.
They agree that aggressive nationalism and political extremism
are the main threat to peace and democracy today. They therefore
reaffirm their resolve to focus attention, through joint efforts
where possible, on violations of human rights wherever they may
occur and to continue to work for the elimination of
discrimination, intolerance, racial and national prejudices,
xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Adhering to the principle of
intolerance of any nationalistic or religious extremism, they
reiterate their commitment to take all necessary measures for the
effective guarantee of the rights of all citizens, regardless of
their nationality or religion.
They will take coordinated steps to increase the effectiveness of
the activities of international organizations and mechanisms in
order to improve human rights practices everywhere and to
guarantee their full respect. They reaffirm the determination of
CSCE Foreign Ministers in Rome that better use of CSCE human
dimension instruments, including CSCE missions, should be made to
promote open and diverse media. They reiterate their commitment
to safeguard freedom of expression as a basic human right and
underscore its importance for a free and open society.
The United states reaffirms its support for democratic reforms in
Russia. Among these reforms are the establishment of an
independent judiciary as a fundamental part of a state based on
the rule of law, the strengthening of other foundations of a
civil society and full realization of personal rights and
liberties. The Presidents agree that the continued success of
the democratic transformation in Russia is of great importance
for the promotion of the principles of democracy and human rights
all over the world and for the maintenance of international
stability and security.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 18, 1994
Statement by the Press Secretary
The President made two phone calls this afternoon to foreign
leaders. In a conversation with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of
Germany, the two leaders discussed impressions from the
President's recent visit to Western and Central Europe, Ukraine,
Russia and Belarus, and their common support for new intiatives
at the NATO Summit, including the Partnership for Peace. The
conversation lasted about 20 minutes.
The President also spoke with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia.
The two leaders discussed President Clinton's meeting on January
16 in Geneva with President Asad of Syria. They exchanged views
on the Middle East peace process and other issues. The
conversation lasted about 15 minutes.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 10, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE TRAVEL POOL
Grand Place
Brussels, Belgium
THE PRESIDENT: As you know, we had a good, long
dinner tonight. And we talked about only two subjects; we talked
about Russia and Bosnia. We spent the first half, perhaps more
than half the dinner on Russia. And I basically gave a report
about what I would be doing in Russia, and they gave me their
advice about what we could do to strengthen the process of
reform, create a system of support for people who had been
dislocated economically, how we could build a better partnership
with Russia and have the kind of future we want, with Russia
being a great nation, but a nonaggressive one.
And it was very, very helpful. I mean, they had
very keen insights and a lot of them had just been there, so it
was helpful.
Then we talked about Bosnia at some length. And I
urged that we stay with the present communique, the present
policy, which gives us the right to ask the U.N. for permission
to use air strikes if Sarajevo continues to be shelled. We
discussed some other options and agreed that we would have
another discussion tomorrow about it.
So I can't say that there was any conclusion reached
except that I do believe we'll stay with our present policy. I
think the language in the communique will stay in, and we'll have
some other discussions about it tomorrow morning.
Q
Was there an agreement to ask the U.N.
permission to use air strikes?
THE PRESIDENT: No. Because under the procedure
what would happen is one of the member states would have to ask
the North Atlantic Council, our military group, to review it to
say it was appropriate, and then to go to the U.N. So I think,
plainly, we know that if the language stays in there and if the
shelling continues, there will have to be some action taken.
So I think you can tell by what happens tomorrow, if
we keep the language, which I hope and believe we will, then it's
basically up to the behavior of those who are shelling Sarajevo,
principally the Serbs. We'll just have to see what happens.
Q
With regard to Russia, is there a larger
economic plan envisioned?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what they talked about today
was -- first of all, we have quite a large plan. We've got to
dislodge some of the money that we've committed that has tied up
in the international institutions. They all believe that we
needed a combination of two things -- we need to try to speed up
the privatization, because in the end that was the real guarantor
of reform. And Russia has done a phenomenal job of privatizing
industries. Thousands just in the last year.
And, secondly, that we needed some sort of social
support network -- an unemployment system, a retraining system, a
MORE
- 2 -
system to train people to manage and operate businesses and banks
that will enable people to deal with the dislocations that are
coming. And that's basically what we talked about.
Q
Thank you, Mr. President.
END
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1994
Bobby R. Inman,
Admiral, U. S. Navy (Ret.)
3300 Bee Cave Road
Suite 650-221
Austin, TX 78746
Dear Admiral Inman:
It is with regret that I accept your request
that I not submit your nomination as
Secretary of Defense. While I understand the
personal considerations that have led you to
this decision, I am nevertheless saddened
that our Nation will be denied your service.
I wish you the very best as you continue to
work on your many important endeavors as a
private citizen.
Very truly yours,
Biu Clinton
3300 Bee Cave Road
Suite 650-221
Austin, Texas 78746
January 8, 1994
The Honorable William J. Clinton
The President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President,
After much deliberation, I hereby request that you withdraw my
nomination to be the Secretary of Defense. I regret letting you
down, but I have concluded that it is the right decision for both
of us.
I have been overwhelmed by the volume of positive public support
for the nomination from so many quarters, including former
Presidents, and especially from Dick Cheney and Bob Gates, and
Senators Sam Nunn, John Warner, John McCain and Kay Hutchison,
for which I will be eternally grateful. But the reality is that
my family and I have not found it possible to focus on the
positive and ignore the negative, but rather have been drawn
daily to the rush-to-judgment distortions of my record, my
character, and my reputation. I have had many calls from old
friends telling me that I simply need thicker skin, but for only
the second time in my life (the other was my seventeen months as
the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence) I find I wake up in
the morning focused on the negatives and not on the
opportunities.
The precipitating event for my decision was news first received
on December 30th that Senator Dole had directed a partisan
response to my nomination. During my years in public service, I
did not have an occasion to work with Senator Dole, so he has no
personal experience that would have led him to join his fellow
Republicans, who have been so supportive. But without solid
bipartisan support from the leadership at the outset, I bring no
special qualifications to the prospective job. I do not need
another title for my resume, and I was willing to leave the
private sector only if there was a strong probability for gaining
the kind of legislation that would fundamentally change how the
Department of Defense spends the tax payers dollars. From Austin
I sense elements in the media and the political leadership of the
country who would rather disparage or destroy reputations than
work to effectively govern the country. I do not wish to provide
those elements fodder for their daily attacks.
Finally, Mr. President, I want you to know that one of the few
positive things I take out of this unhappy experience is a great
appreciation for your intellect, for your clear understanding of
what has not gone well in the National Security arena in the
first year of your Presidency, and of your determination to build
on the NAFTA experience to forge new and lasting bipartisan
approaches to the intractable problems in front of this Country.
I hope you will find a strong candidate for Secretary of Defense
who will bring the political skills and toughness that will be
required. I am persuaded that you are fully ready and capable of
being the Commander in Chief this Country must have.
If I had really wanted the job I might have been willing to
subject my family to the daily onslaught that awaits those doing
highly visible public service. But I have already given more
than thirty years of public service to my Country, of which I
remain proud, and I have concluded that duty to family must now
come before further duty for service to County.
Very respectfully,
Bobby R. Inman
Admiral, U. S. Navy, (Ret.)
POOL REPORT #46
January 15, 1994 - Geneva
The President went to dinner at Restaurant Les Armures.
He entered the restaurant at 8:10 pm. He was with Hillary,
Chelsea, and several members of her staff, includinmg press
secretary Lisa Caputo, Julie Hopper, Capricia Marshall, and Kelly
Craighead. Wendy Smith was also there from the President's staff.
They came out about 11:30 pm. Chelsea first; she got a big roar
from the crowd of people who gatehred outside. Next came Hillary
and the President who gat big applause. The President waved and
went to his car. Inside the restaurant he chatted with patrons
before leaving.
Frisby, Wall St. Journal
Toast at the Kremlin
1-14-93
Hall of Facets Pool Report
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin exchanged toasts in the Hall
of Facets -- described by WJC as "this wondrous hall" -- at the
Kremlin Friday night. Clinton told Yeltsin Russia is building
"a new society, yet it remains grounded in your people and your
history."
Yeltsin's toast was in Russian and I am advised there are no
plans to provide us translation tonight.
Yeltsin spoke for about 15 minutes. Clinton had a piece of
paper in front of him in which he appeared to be following
Yeltsin's remarks, but there was no opportunity to ask him what
it was. He smiled through most of it.
Clinton's response took about two minutes and Yeltsin spoke
for about 10.
The Hall of Facets is inside the palace, where the Romanovs
held sway and the Clintons will be sleeping tonight.
I did not get a count, but there appeared to be more than
100 muckety mucks dining in the splendor.
The guests were grouped in tables of 6 or 7. At the head
table, set up in front of murals (facets) composed of assorted
archers, wood nymphs, clerics and soldiers -- sat -- Mr. and
Mrs. Chernomyrdin, Mr. and Mrs. Yeltsin and Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.
Their table was decorated with monkey pods, two candelabras,
and white table cloths with a yellow skirt.
Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Yeltsin both wore black dresses with
silver buttons -- but they weren't exactly alike.
The Yeltsins and Clintons came down a grand staircase of
gold filligree and black railing into the grand hall and stood in
a receiving line under a massive gold chandalier. The receiving
line began at 7:08 p.m. and ended at 7:42 p.m
Among those I spotted almong the U.S. delegation were
Gergen, Dee Dee, Christopher, Lake, Bentsen, McClarty and
Hillary. Chelsea was not at the dinner.
I will not attempt to spell many Russian names tonight, but I
have some phonetically spelled officials and titles of people
spotted with the help of Russian reporters there.
For anybody who wants to go over them with me and read the tea
leaves, I'll be around here till about midnight and on the plane
tomorrow.
Clinton appeared to spend the most time in this lengthy
receiving line with Vladimir Shumeiko, the new reform-minded
speaker of the Federation Council -- the upper house of
parliament, and the chairman of the central bank, whose name was
spelled for me as Viktor Geratschenko. Likewise, Yeltsin seemed
to hold Bentsen in the line longer than any of the others and he,
Clinton and Yeltsin all gathered around in a circle for a rather
animated and laughter-filled conversation that mayh have listed a
minute.
Also spotted was Yegor Gaidar, who is either in or out here
as a deputy minister depending on what day it is.
We were escorted out of the Hall of Facets before the first
course was served. In the cavernous corridor outside the Hall, a
large orchestra was set up way down at the other end with chairs
arrayed in front of it. And downstairs, a group of about 50
Russian dancers and singers in native costumes were waiting to
perform.
pool report # 42
Minsk, January 15, 1993
Signing ceremony for U.S.-Belarus Investment treaty.
Turns out this is the first visit by a U.S. president since
Richard Nixon came on July 1, 1974. Signing ceremony took place
at the Vosgoviy Guest House, which was built for Nixon's visit.
The building is decorated in a rather European fashion with rooms
with fabric panels on the walls and lace curtains. Signing
ceremony took place in the Blue Room, a very ornate amd heavily
gilded blue and white room with gilded columns and eight
chandeliers.
President Clinton and Chairman of the Supreme Soviet Stanislev
Shushkevich sat at a table, each with a two-pen ink stand of wood
in front of him. They signed two copies of the agreement with an
array of about 20 officials, mostly Belarusian, standing in back
of them. The observers applauded. Then two women came in with
trays of cut glass champagne flutes filled with, of course,
champagne. The two principals stood and there was some clinking
of glasses, though not between the two principals (don't read
anything into this -- the clinking was ad hoc and spurred by a
request from watching press). POTUS raised his glass to toast
some of the Belarusians from a distance.
Then a senior administration official gave a short backgrounder
on night at Kremlin, the wonderful evening and events there, the
farewell ceremony at Kremlin, and the provisions of the U.S.-
Belarus treaty to encourage U.S. investment. Senior official also
discussed the political factors behind the decision to shift the
Kuropaty stop to the end of the Minsk visit instead of at the
beginning, as originally planned -- transcript will be
forthcoming shortly. Senior official noted that the president on
this visit announced an additional $25 million in Nunn-Lugar aid
for Belarus, making a total of $101 million over the past year.
One final note -- although we didn't see the First Daughter,
Chelsea has her own mini-motorcade and a brief schedule here.
Belarusians say she is visiting the Minsk Ballet School.
-- Deborah Orin, New York Post
Bob Cohen, Newsweek
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Minsk, Belarus)
For Immediate Release
January 15, 1994
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
MARK GEARAN
Hotel Planeta
Minsk, Belarus
5:15 P.M. (L)
MR. GEARAN: Good afternoon. My name is Mark
Gearan. I'm the White House Communications Director. And we
thought we might give you an assessment of where we thought the
trip of the President stands at this point. We have miles to go
before we sleep, literally, back in Washington, but several folks
are preparing some assessments of the trip and what we thought we
had accomplished and what our objectives were, that we thought at
this point, anyway, it might be helpful for some of you.
Let me begin by saying that what we set out to do
with the trip, what our objectives were and, indeed, what we felt
we concluded at this point, anyway, in the trip. Before we even
left from Washington, we realized that the President's trip comes
at a really historic moment of opportunity in this post-Cold War
period.
The President sought to come here on his visit to
these cities and to these nations to affirm the importance to
their leaders and, indeed, to the people of the transatlantic
relationship that we want to affirm and reaffirm in instances so
that global stability and prosperity with these new democracies
are most important to us.
A lot of what the President spent time talking about
in his various remarks was the importance of the political,
economic and security interests and the ties among the Western
nations. So when we left from Washington we sought to accomplish
five principal objectives, and we're looking forward to those
along this trip.
The first was -- and this is not in the order of the
trip, necessarily, but a bit in what we sought out to do -- is to
encourage continued reform in Russia so that they would avoid any
return to the authoritarian or ultranationalism and aggressive
foreign policy of the past.
Secondly, the President sought to reassert the
centrality of what has been the world's most successful alliance,
NATO, and to the security of the challenges that we face in this
post-Cold War world, largely through the advancement of his
initiative, the Partnership For Peace initiative that was
endorsed by the NATO allies.
Third, we wanted to deepen our relations with the
European Union in building on the cooperation that we had at the
G-7, in the GATT Uruguay Round, and on the European Union's
desire for stronger foreign and security policy roles.
Fourth, we wanted to draw the nations of Central and
Eastern Europe into the community of Western democracies. And
our trip to Prague and our visit with the four Visegrad leaders
evidenced that.
- 2 -
Finally, we wanted to proceed with measures to
ensure the denuglearization efforts. The President's been
working, obviously, on the initiatives we have and the agreement
we had with Ukraine, Belarus here. So that is what we set out to
do in the trip.
As we stand now, certainly the President gives a
great deal of credit to his foreign policy team -- Secretary
Christopher, who was very involved from the outset -- suggested
the NATO summit and the activity there; Secretary Aspin; the
President's National Security Advisor, Tony Lake; and the
important work of our representative to the United Nations,
Madeleine Albright; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Shalikashvili who played key roles in the Central
and European leaders' acceptance of our Partnership For Peace
initiative.
In terms of the efforts in Russia and our efforts to
encourage democracy and reform there, the President, as I said,
wanted to go to urge and continue Russia down the path for
democracy and free markets so that they would not revert to their
past roles of the kind of authoritarian rule and aggressive
foreign policy. His meetings with President Yeltsin -- as we
have said previously in briefings and in the President's personal
conversations with you -- have been very productive. They have
really forged a very warm and genuine friendship. The State
Dinner last evening at the Kremlin and the President and his
family were allowed the hospitality to stay at the Kremlin, and
they enjoyed that and the opportunity to visit more extensively
with President Yeltsin.
The meetings that he had in Moscow, as we've said,
allowed President Clinton to note to President Yeltsin his
appreciation for all of the remarkable changes that have existed
there. We also had the opportunity to stress the reform process
in Russia and the benefits that have been derived from it. And,
thirdly, I think in the TV show that many of you saw that the
President did yesterday -- it was an opportunity for him and one
of the things we did throughout the trip was for him to visit
with people in the countries along the way; whether it was from
the consumers in the Russian bread store to the pub and the
restaurant in Prague to the stops in Brussels, he wanted to have
an opportunity to meet and to visit with people more informally
and some of those settings allowed for that.
What he has also said from his trip in Russia is
that he was very appreciative for the other leaders that came,
because one of the objectives we sought right from the beginning
was to broaden the context that we had with other leaders in
other political groups in Russia.
In terms of the NATO meeting, the important piece,
of course, is what we'd observe is that the Central European and
Eastern Europeans and Russia showed their support for, and
enthusiasm for it. And that as important to us. We worked very
hard in the weeks preceding the trip to secure endorsement with
our allies. And as I mentioned earlier, Ambassador Albright and
General Shalikashvili's work was critical to the support from the
leaders. We've spoken previously about the Partnership For
Peace, which, again, the American-led initiative that we're very
excited about.
The Partnership, in summary, of course, reflects our
best judgment at this point in time about how to promote security
and stability in Europe. It avoids, as we have said previously,
drawing new and any hostile dividing lines in Europe. And we
look forward now, as the invitations proceed, to go forth.
The European Union we spoke of when we were in
Brussels and that important relationship that the President
sought to really deepen and broaden when we were there to enhance.
the relationships and the relationships that we developed. And
MORE
- 3 -
indeed, the meanings that the President had he felt were
productive as we move forward beyond G-7 and the initiatives
there in GATT and the Uruguay Round.
We have spoken previously about our efforts in
Prague. And the Partnership For Peace, of course, was important.
We also wanted to develop the kinds of relationships with those
leaders that will be important in the years to come. And we were
gratified by their acceptance and enthusiasm for our partnership
initiative.
Finally, the denuclearization of the former Soviet
states, which we're obviously here for in Minsk. The President
came to congratulate Belarus for their initiative and for their
commitment to denuclearization and to dismantle their weapons
along the lines of the Nonproliferation Treaty, and the
assistance that he suggested here in his speech that I'm sure
many of you saw.
Secondly, of course, in this regard was the three-
part trilateral agreement with Russia and the Ukraine and the
United States on the denuclearization in the Ukraine. So we
believe as we move forward now that the things that we set out in
the early part of the trip we feel gratified that we've advanced.
The President came here with a pretty strong agenda,
both in the individual meetings that he had with leaders and in
the bilateral and trilateral meetings and the NATO summit. He
had a vision of what he wanted to do. And I think he showed in
the variety of settings that he was placed in from the formal
NATO meetings to the bilateral meetings to the casual meetings in
the cities that we went to, the range of his capacity and his
performance levels here.
So that's where we stand. I'd be happy to kind of
take any questions.
Q How does the President feel he did? HOW do you
think the President did --
MR. GEARAN: Well, ultimately --
Q
-- in addition to being very gratified?
MR. GEARAN: Well, ultimately, I think you have to
judge the performance of what we've done by the results.
Q We can't tell the results yet.
MR. GEARAN: I would respectfully take some issue
with that. I think the results are critical. The
Partnership For Peace is a very important initiative. It was
American-led. The nonproliferation --
Q
-- the Partnership For Peace yet, Mark. I
mean, how does -- all of these things still have to play out.
MR. GEARAN: I understand that.
Q
I'm trying to find out how you folks feel about
how the President did. Is he happy with what he has done here on
foreign policy? I'd like to get some sort of expression like
that from you, if you care to share it.
MR. GEARAN: That's a great question. I'd like to
have the opportunity --
Q Why don't you hit it? (Laughter.)
MR. GEARAN: I'm kind of waiting for the opportunity
to. This is just to our view is both in terms -- my point is
in terms of the substance of what we achieved That's one
MORE
- 4 -
measure that I think is an important one It's an objective
standard, it's a quantifiable answer from the Partnership For
Peace, to the other initiatives, to the trilateral agreements, to
the agreements we had with President Yeltsin, to our meeting
here. Those are objective, definable standards that I think are
measurable successes of this trip.
Secondly, I think you saw an opportunity of the
President on the world stage, interacting with important leaders
that will be critical to American security in the years ahead.
President Yeltsin, obviously, in the relationship that they enjoy
are NATO allies, and the kind of force that the President went
into the NATO meeting with, and really all of the initiatives
coming out of the NATO meeting were American initiatives. And I
think you've seen kind of the commentary that has come from that
from our Allied leaders in terms of the force of personality of
the President that he went into, and the energy and commitment
that he brought into those meetings.
You've seen him previously in other settings like
this at the G-7 meeting and at the APEC meeting. The President,
by -- of his personality and his ability to forge friendships
quickly and deeply to his enthusiasm for the initiatives that he
has lead here I think combine to allow for an important first
European trip, and the first of three this calendar year to
really combine to have a very successful summit.
He has said in the past during the campaign and
throughout his presidency that to be strong at home you have to
be strong abroad. Many of you have heard that along the way. I
think what you have as we stand on the final hours of our trip
here is that -- a President who came and took advantage of --
many nations who are really thirsting for the kind of American
leadership on initiatives in their countries -- that he was able
to go into quickly to build upon and to move as we approach the
21st century.
Q
Mark, some of this had the trappings of a
political campaign. Why does he feel it necessary to come over
to this part of the world and do things that you would do if you
were running for office?
MR. GEARAN: I think the trip was very heavily laden
with opportunities for important diplomatic initiatives. I think
certainly the bulk of the time that he spent was in either the
NATO meetings or bilateral meetings or individual one-on-one
sessions informally with people that really allowed for the kind
of range of accomplishments that I've suggested previously.
He very much wanted to have informal sessions with
people, whether it was a Jam session in Prague or a dinner with
the President there, to stopping by a coffee shop in Brussels
where he has a chance to mix and to visit with people to really
take the pulse of people in the countries. He had those kinds of
opportunities. I think the television studio speech and set of
remarks yesterday was certainly something that he -- we have used
during the campaign and into his presidency. But it is a very
good format for him to have the kind of exchange of ideas and to
learn quickly what is on the minds of people.
Finally, and arguably most importantly, in this
respect that the personal involvement of the President from the
early preparation that he had on this trip to his personal
performance in these sessions and the initiatives that he led
really show the reflect what people are reaching out for in
the countries that we visited and the people. And that is for
strong American leadership in order to prepare us as we move
towards the next century.
Q Mark, is there anything that didn't go
swimmingly well and the President thinks he needs a little more
MORE
- 5 -
work that he discovered on this trip that he feels he ought to
apply himself to, perhaps?
MR. GEARAN: I guess fundamentally one would have to
observe the context in which the President started the trip
following his mother's death and obviously coming into that with
the kind of fatigue and was difficult for him. He quickly
immersed himself into the trip and into the preparations for it.
I think he recognizes that when an American
President speaks away from home, he speaks for the entire
country. And he spent a great deal of time in advance of the
meetings preparing for them. That would be the obvious --
Q: Mark, what about Bosnia? There clearly seem to
be tensions left after all that was said and done, and an
initiative that was not an American initiative, a British and
French one passed. What effect do you think that --
MR. GEARAN: I think the sum total, certainly, will
have been a good and productive session at NATO where they were
able to, in the kind of sessions they had, the combination of the
formal session and then the dinner, the working dinner, that
really allowed for the leaders to speak through clearly and
frankly where they see this going.
This is going to be an issue that we will continue
to deal with and monitor. But I think the meeting comes out with
a resolve to -- and an assessment of where we stand and where the
individual leaders stand. I think that was important, certainly,
for the President and for the leaders.
Q Would you please tell us what should we expect
from tomorrow's meeting in Geneva?
MR. GEARAN: We can handle that at the side, and
Mike McCurry from the State Department might want to go into it
briefly. I wanted to just summarize the trip, then we can go
forth from there.
Q
On the trip, what's the President's enthusiasm
about his renewed contacts and rapport with Yeltsin, somewhat
moderated by the background against which this visit played in
Moscow - the tumultuous opening of the Parliament that some
people think does not really augur well for the future of reforms
in that country.
MR. GEARAN: I think the President came away from
his meetings with President Yeltsin feeling that he was very much
on top of his job, that he felt that he had a team in place that
really had a defined strategy of what they want to accomplish.
That it is a group of people that are not unduly deterred or
distracted by the political opposition, that they have definable
goals, where they see their country going. And he was impressed
with their enthusiasm and commitment to their plan. So that was
the combination of both the meetings that he had, as well as
other Cabinet members, Secretary Christopher and Secretary
Bentsen, who had ancillary meetings with their counterparts.
Secretary Bentsen remarked in our briefing that it
was certainly one of the best economic teams that he has seen in
place. And, of course, that would be critical for the kind of
reforms that will have to ensue.
Q
When we get back to the United States, how will
this focus now on international affairs play out? Are we going
to hear more of this, or will we move right into health care?
MR. GEARAN: -- at home, there are important
initiatives that the President is anxious to return to.
Obviously, we'll be having the State of the Union Address on
January 25th, where he will outline agenda for the year. In
MORE
- 6 -
advance of that, you will also have an opportunity on the
anniversary of his inaugural to make remarks.
But our work plan for the year is an important one
and a full one, from the passage of the crime bill when we return
to, obviously, then, the serious work that will have to be done
on health care reform.
The President has stated previously this is our
number one domestic priority. He's anxious to get it done this
year, and we'll be devoting the kind of resources and energy that
the administration will bring to bear to assure enactment of
them.
Another key initiative that we're going to be
working on very hard next year is welfare reform. So we have a
great deal to go back to that awaits our return. In terms of the
trip, certainly, as I said earlier, that as the President has
said, to be strong at home you have to be strong abroad. And as
we prepare to leave this part of our trip here, I think the
successes that we've realized to date will allow for him to
return home, fortified with that kind of -- those achievements
that we have had here from Brussels to Prague, to Moscow to Minsk
-- those kinds of things allow him to return back home.
Q
In a speaking sense, will he be including that
in speeches, or will he -- like in a summation to the American
people, or any events or anything? or just back to domestic?
MR. GEARAN: It is never "just back to domestic."
What the President has made very clear to -- it's 4:30 p.m. If
you want to make Air Force One, you have to leave in another five
minutes.
Let me go back to this, because this is important.
What the President has said repeatedly, of course, is that the
distinction between foreign policy and domestic policy is an
artificial one in the sense that the issues frequently get
joined.
What you saw here on this trip, especially the kinds
of issues that we dealt with here, that distinction is not real
in the world that we live in today, -- the kinds of issues that
the NATO allied leaders dealt with, the kind of economic reforms
that we talked about in Prague and in Moscow and in Minsk.
Indeed, the economic security of Europe and with the formulation
of the European Union combined to reinforce, I believe, this
point, that that distinction is less important than it might have
been in previous years. That's how he approaches his job back
home. That's how he approached coming here on this trip.
Q
Can you see any parallels in the USA --
supposed to what the leaders of Russia and Belarus? I mean, that
the USA has made all the stakes -- put in all the stakes on Boris
Yeltsin. And here in Belarus put in all the stakes on
Shushkevich. So is the State Department and the White House
ready to change the stakes or to broaden the cycle in Russia and
in Belarus, or not?
MR. GEARAN: Well, I think the combination of events
in the schedule would evidence certainly that the President --
what we just said previously about President Yeltsin and his
support for the kind of reforms and, indeed, the appreciation
that he has for the kinds of reforms that he has led here. But
also more broadly, the reforms that are going on here. A lot of
his message in Moscow and here is -- to the kind of reforms,
economic reforms and political reforms and security reforms,
outlined in the President's speech today, that he has advanced.
He took the opportunity, in several countries we
have, as we did when we went to the G-7, to meet with other
younger, in some instances, political leaders from a variety of
MORE
- 7 -
different groups to kind of expand the contacts and to expand his
message beyond --
Q
And in Belarus? Shushkevich and -- well, maybe
some other leaders.
MR. GEARAN: He met with the leaders here and with
members of the party here. This was a briefer stop, obviously,
by time allowances that we had in so many other countries we
visited. We had -- my point was a more broader point in terms of
Moscow.
Q
Was there anything that was particularly
disappointing that didn't go the way that you expected it to?
Were you left with a bad taste in any way?
MR. GEARAN: My sense was the most disappointing
element was the lack of sleep that many of you have endured. But
I think by judging the standards of what we set out to do in
those five points that I outlined in the beginning, combined with
the personal force . magnitude and personal force that the
President brought in his stops, I think would have to allow for a
summation of the trip as having been a very successful one.
sleep deficit remains, and we will burden you with
that through Sunday night.
Q
By visiting Kuropaty, is he being critical of
the current government? I mean, he's meeting with the reformers
out there who have been here, had to stand in the mud and the ice
because they weren't allowed at these other ceremonies. or is it
-- how does that play out, the kind of the clash of meeting with
the current government and the reformers later on?
MR. GEARAN: Well, I think what it plays out is the
President had said before he left that he thought it would be
important to remember the victims of past Stalinist terror.
There was an issue that remained in terms of the schedule of
that. He has spent a great deal of his time here in the
bilateral meetings and his speech to press for the kind of
reforms; that's the broader message that he wanted to send here.
And he was certainly aware of the sensitivities that existed, but
also was very anxious to make that stop as he did.
Q
-- not trying to drive a wedge in between these
two, he's just trying to encourage these other reformers that
he's meeting with now?
MR. GEARAN: I don't think I can really add to what
the President said in his remarks here.
END
January 16, 1994
Pool Report #48
Pool Spray with Presidents Assad and Clinton
The U.S. pool went the into the Salon de Nations in the second
wave, behind the Syrian press and before the Swiss press. Masses
of security men filled the door way, but we did catch a glimpse
of the presidents sitting at a long table. Clinton, on the right,
was across from Assad. Ditto for al-Sharaa and Christopher.
Clinton said he would have a statement later and refused to bite
at questions. Assad, however, took the opportunity to say, "I'm
glad to be meeting with the president." Also, through his
interpreter, he said, "We are at the table not to speak about
expectations but to do the work."
The room was decorated in mostly gold-colored wall rugs. The U.S.
side, including the interpreter sitting on Clinton's left, had a
leather-bound folder in front of them.
Clinton looked very serious and didn't chatter, while Assad was
jovial and apparently telling funny stories to the U.S. side.
bedard-washington times
Pool Report# 47
January 16, 1994
Geneva
SUNDAY JOG
The pool watched the sun come up--and the rain come out--over
Lake Geneva for about an hour as we awaited the President. About
8:15 a.m. , he came running past, in the company of about 20 red-
sweatshirt-clad Marines, said to be from the U.S. Mission here.
The following exchange occurred:
Mr. President: Are you happy or sad this trip is coming to an
end?
Onlooker: Bonjour.
Clinton: Bonjour.
Half-hour later, he was back in the limo in the rain. and back
here.
devroy: Washington Post.
POOL REPORT #41
January 15, 1994
Pool report covering departure at Moscow airport, arrival at
Minsk, color from Gearan on last night and bus fire:
At his send-off at the Moscow airport, Clinton and Russian
Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin stood at attention on a red
carpet covering the wet tarmac as a military band played both
nation's anthems.
Hillary, wearing a dark fur hat (one of the expensive looking
kind), and Chelsea stood on the steps at the terminal behind him.
Following the anthems, Clinton and Chernomyrdin reviewed six
dozen troops standing at attention, three sets of 24 each dressed
in gray, blue and black overcoats, all wearing matching Persian
fur hats, rifles with fixed bayonets at their side. Clinton
walked in step, and seemed to nod at just the right time, as if
he'd told what to do moments before as he walked past the troops.
He went without top coat. He shook hands at the terminal
before heading to Air Force One, but did a doubleback so the
troops could pass by once more with the military band following
behind.
At the steps of Air Force One, two women dressed in red folk,
hooped dresses wearing matching caps decorated with the same
bric-a-brac as their ankle-length dresses gave the Clintons two
huge bouquets of flowers. Clinton posed for the pool carrying one
bunch of orange orchids before handing it off VBN to Andrew
Friendly. Hillary got the other arrangement, and the whole family.
walked up the steps together.
At the top, they turned and waved, while the band played
Stars and Stripes Forever. Clinton grinned widely, and when
the song reached a crescendo, Clinton shook his head in awe and
flashed a thumbs up.
Various aides got aboard before Clinton: Christopher,
McLarty, etc. (Gergen was carrying his free Coke bag)
ball-daily news
cohn-newsweek
Now this from Minsk arrival:
Almost identical honor guard deal; two more folk costumed
women were waiting at the foot of the airplane steps, carrying
bread and salt an old East Eurropean tradition visitors are
supposed to eat upon arriving in a new place. Clinton had a
taste.
And this tad of color from Gearan about Clinton's stay at
Kremlin:
They dined on a mega-course dinner, eating tomatoes salad,
liver pate, caviar, turkey with fruit and roast beef and other
items that didn't quickly come to Gearan's mind. Desert was a
white parfait shaped like a snowman. There was a symphony and
opera singer for entertainment later.
Then Yeltsin took Clinton on a tour of the guest quarters
where the Clintons slept, the historic residence of the Czars,
and Clinton remarked on how much he enjoyed the beautiful icons
and ceiling paitings.
Clinton went to bed about midnight, then woke about 4:30 a.m.
full of thought about what he'd experienced the day before and
seen last night. He dozed off again, then woke up and took an
hour-long walk, by himself, around the Kremlin grounds.
(HRC, by the way, will tour a hospital here that's getting
techinical advice and some equipment from Children's Hospital of
Pittsburg, since many children here have theyroid cancer and
other health problems related to Chernobyl.)
In the midst of Gearan' color fill on the rickety bus, exhaust
fumes filled the vehicle, forcing the remnants of Pool 41 to open
all the windows. The bus still chugged along, until strange
Two heroic photographers rushed up to help put out the sparks,
which was in the fan switch. Beaver fire!'' Gearan shouted,
after the photographers erroneously reported the bus driver was
using his hat to extinguish the sparks.
We pulled over twice, and sat on the side of the road for
about 10 minutes while the driver disconnect this switch.
Once back on the road, this prompted jokes from Gearan about
how it's his job to put out fires, etc. etc.
ball-daily news
Pool Report #44 Kuropaty Pool Report
Jan. 15. 1994
The actual site of the event was perhaps a quarter-mile up a
slushy, icy hill -- wooden planks had been laid down to cover the
water and snow melt, which was several inches deep. The mass
graves are all around, amid the trees. They are visible as
depressions in the ground, some a foot or so deep, others five or
six feet deep where the ground sank as the bodies decayed. It was
a stark image in black and white -- the snow had melted in many
of the depressions, leaving them as sunken dark patches against
the snow.
White House advance staff said the secret police used to take
about 250 victims up each night and force them to dig their own
graves, then shoot them. Some 250,000 bodies are believed buried
there according to the advance staff.
The actual monument hasn't yet been built -- at the top of the
hill is a simple slab of stone about 5 feet high with pine
branches next to it and an inscription that, we were told, says a
monument will be built. Just delivered for President Clinton's
visit, a bit lower down the hill, are a gift from the United
States -- two simple slab benches of black granite inscribed on
the back, in English: "From the people of the United States of
America to the People of Belarus in remembrance." The front
carries the same message in Belarusian, we were told. On one
bench, two white carnations and two red carnations were strewn.
Waiting for the president's party were about 40 girls, most aged
10ish to 14ish, each holding a candle lantern -- a white candle
set in a metal lantern casting a glow of light. They were wearing
parkas, pants and snow boots in a variety of colors. When we got
there the light was starting to fade -- when the president
arrived it was nearly dusk. We were told the girls were students
at a school that teaches in the ancient Belarusian language.
The president's staff clambered up the hill ahead of him and got
behind the ropeline -- among those present were David Gergen and
Warren Christopher. The president was hatless in a dark overcoat
and wore heavy-duty laceup boots that looked to be about ankle
high. He was accompanied up the hill by Chairman of the Supreme
Soviet Stanislev Shushkevich, a woman translator and Zenon
Posnyak, the archaeologist who discovered the mass grave and is
now a leader of the Belarusian opposition.
As the president neared the top of the hill, the girls with
candles formed a semi-circle behind him and one girl, 11-year-old
Radusia Vichorka, gave her candle to Clinton and walked with him
to the slab stone bench strewn with carnations, where he set down
the candle amid the flowers. The girls began singing -- we were
told it was an anthem -- in high sweet voices against the still
night as the light faded. The president stood with his head bent
and his hands clasped in front of him as they sang. When the
singing ended, he took Radusia's arm and escorted her the short
distance back to the other girls, where he patted her on the
shoulder. Radusia, incidentally, was wearing a turquoise wool
stocking cap and a fushia jacket.
Bool
#44
Og
2
Apparently the girls' choir was a mix of both Catholic and
Orthodox students, which was seen as unusual. Then an Orthodox
priest, Catholic priest and rabbi emerged from the crowd and
chatted with the president but pool couldn't hear anything. A
fourth man was with them -- it wasn't clear whether he also was a
religious leader. White House is supposed to provide names. All
anyone on-site could tell us was that the rabbi is a Lubavitcher
rabbi from Brooklyn whose last name is Wolpin and who is in Minsk
seeking* to rebuild the Jewish community that was wiped out in
World War II. Posnyak also had several exchanges with the
president, but we couldn't hear.
Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Chelsea was present. After president
left, as we made our way slowly down the hill, the candle lantern
was still sitting on the stone bench casting a circle of light.
Before the president arrived, Posnyak had a long conversation
with the local press about the day's events. Unfortunately, he
doesn't speak English so pool couldn't ask any questions. But a
young man who was with him offered a summary of his remarks
(which I can't verify since I don't speak the language).
According to the impromptu translator, Posynak said he was
"bothered" that the White House had delayed the Kuropaty visit to
the end of the day at the request of communists in the
government. Posynak also gave an account of the closed-door
meeting between opposition leaders (including himself) and
Clinton, which the young man summarized this way: "The opposition
proposed to Clinton that he should cancel (U.S.) aid to this
government because it (the money) won't go for reform, only to
support this government. Right now there is no process of reform.
The opposition said Clinton should provide moral support to other
forces (than the government) because the process of democracy
hasn't happened. Clinton said he would bear what they said in his
mind."
No immediately available White House staff to comment on that
account. But there doesn't seem any reason to doubt the young man
-- when I asked Posnyak if he spoke English, the local
journalists gathered around him all pointed to the young man in
question as someone who could translate. But it should be noted
that Posnyak -- a tall man with a pale face and dark hair who
wore a black hat -- seemed comfortable and respectful toward
Clinton as they chatted. Certainly there was no visible sign of
irritation -- quite the opposite.
-- Deborah Orin, New York Post
Pool Report
#45
AF1 Minsk-Geneva
January 15, 1994
A note for readers: We had the opportunity or misfortune, to
pick an Air Force One ride in which everyone aboard felt like
talking to the pool. So after Minsk, we have lots of comments. Be
patient.
This pool picked up after the speech at the Academy of
Science in Minsk with Chairman Shushkevich and Zenon Poznyak
accompanying the president to Kuropaty Memorial. Poznyak is a
member of Parliament who was one of the first to document the
tens of thousands - and some locals said hundreds of thousands -
that Stalin murdered in Kuropaty Forest.
For those who didn't take the tour, this is a simple
cross-style memorial in a frozen, swampy area at the edge of this
massive forest and it is truly chilling. Clinton approached,
talked to Poznyak for a few moments and then walked to the
memorial and stopped in front of it for about a minute, his head
bowed and his eyes closed.
The presidential party then headed up into the woods where we
were told he would meet some locals whose relatives had been
killed there, but that is a tale for another pool to tell, as we
were hustled off to the airport.
The departure from Belarus was uneventful, but once aboard a
baseball- loving senior administration official came back to
chat.
On how the White House feels Clinton did on this trip:
Every specific issue that we pursued
was accomplished,''''
this official said, specifically citing Partnership for Peace and
the deal with Ukraine. Even more importantly, the president
laid out in increasing specificity a vision for Europe and how
all the elements fit together.
This official emphasized how the president's personal touches
and attempts to reach the masses, using the Red Square street
walk and his visit to Minsk as examples, were important to the
tone they wanted to take.
Just as important as the specific substance of what Clinton
did, the official said, is the way he does this, which is to
see foreign policy through people and through other nation's
foreign as well as domestic policy.
Clinton was encouraging democracy by capturing the
imagination of the people rather than lecturing
Every
Russian who saw the president on television now feels part of
something exciting. As a side note, this official said he had
heard unconfirmed reports that the Moscow town meeting had been
shown three times on television in Belarus, accounting for the
large crowds at some of the events.
The official went on to say the administration was not
assuming Moscow would once more revert to expansionist policies
by pushing Partnership for Peace, but said it was lunacy to
simply accept that as an inevitablity and not to do all that you
can to prevent it.''
On Russia, we were told Yeltsin was just as solid in private
on pushing ahead in reform as he was in public events and that
the administration is confident that Clinton's words on getting
Soviet troops out of the Baltics and near-abroad, which some of
your pool suggested were tepid, helped give crucial momentum to a
difficult political decision.
Again, on Russia, the official said the Yeltsin government
finds itself at a very difficult psychological moment' in
which it would have been totally unproductive for the Americans
to arrive and tell them what to do. Instead, they were careful to
quote Yeltsin and not be partneralistic.
On pushing the social safety net issue, the officials said,
the biggest killer
both economically and politically is
inflation, as the Weimar Republic found out. The official said
that's why the U.S. has been pushing for this cushion.
The official said the Russians he had spoken with tended to
be unalarmed by Mr. Zhirinovsky, but didn't totally dismiss him
either. More concerning, he said, was the possibility of the
Communists forming a powerful voting bloc with Zhirnovsky's LDP
party.
pool
#45
0g2
A second senior official with close ties to the vice
president came back to talk about the seven Lubabitcher books
that the Clinton party will bring back to Washington.
A bit of background from this official: The Lubabitchers are
a sect of Hassidic Jews who are spread across Europe and, more
recently, the United States. For centuries they collected and
studied various books, documents, manuscripts on religious and
non-religious topics. The official describes it as an "eclectic
collection of things assembled over a very long period of time by
scholars."
When the Germans advanced on Russia in World War One, the
Lubabitchers hid their collection for safekeeping. A few years
later, during the Bolshevik Revolution, the communists seized the
cache and nationalized it. For decades the Soviets denied they
had the papers. About eight years ago they "discovered" the
papers in the Lenin (now Russian) Library. Since then the United
States has been trying to help the Brooklyn-based Lubabitchers
recover the documents.
Gore made a lot of progress on the matter when he was here
in December, and it all came together this week. of more than
12,000 books, the United States has seven, which will go to the
Library of Congress on "interlibrary loan" from Russia. The
documents are said to have significant cultural and religious
significance and some have rabbinical notations in the margins.
Then, just before landing, we were visited by a regular bevy
of senior admiminstration officials. One of the most senior
administration officials summed up Clinton's feeling about the
trip as tired but pleased.'
Both officials said Clinton has had some trouble sleeping but
has done remarkably well considering and has taken lots of naps.
We also were told that the president took a 6:30 a.m. walk this
morning around Red Square with a few unidentified aides and even
thought of stopping at the nearby McDonalds but was afraid they
weren't open.
Long spin from one of the officials on the trip was basically
a laundry list of the whole schedule, praising Clinton at NATO,
Prague, etc. He said Clinton particularly bonded with Jacques
Delors. Ah oui.
We were told that Yeltsin, privately, was unequivocal in
terms of continuing reforms. The two officials discarded the
notion that all the highpoints of the trip were preset saying,
It was all in the art of the possible, but you're never really
sure how those things are going to go
There
have
been
no
setbacks and no mistakes.'
They agreed with the earlier official in claiming that
Clinton's Moscow TV appearance had been played 3 times in Minsk
in 24 hours and was responsible for the crowds. Again, we
obviously have no way of confirming that.
The officials said that Clinton was told by the panel of
European experts who had dinner at the White House before the
trip had impressed upon him the need to not talk down to Russia,
but to treat them as an equal.
One bit of color. We were told that Clinton, in the quick
meal he had with Kravchuk in Ukraine had several vodkas and staff
felt he was very relaxed. Now we've discovered the secret to
press conferences,' one of the officials said.
Incredibly, there were even more senior officials to arrive,
this time to give us about a five-minute backgrounder on what
Clinton hopes to do with Assad tomorrow.
These two officials, very close to this subject, began by
saying that this is not going to be a breakthrough meeting,'
but one in which the administration wants to accomplish three
major, fairly subtle goals.
First, Assad is going to be making some major decisions soon
in regards to the peace process and the officials said he is the
kind of guy who will want to know the nature of the
president, before doing so.
Secondly, they said the Syrians recently agreed to reopen
negotiations that will be much more flexible in format - moving
to smaller groups that allow a chance
to try out new
ideas
to probe, to test'' in a way that you can't in larger
meetings.
The officials said the timing of the meeting, as the
negotiations move into this new format, is important. Here is
an important opportunity to give the substance a push.
pool #45 Gg3 3
Thirdly, the Syrians want to see improvements in bi-lateral
relations and this meeting will explore the usual full range of
issues.
On whether Syria would be taken off the terrorism list, the
officials suggested only if they show a total change of behavior
in terms of allowing terrorist groups to operate within their
borders. There's a contradiction between a commitment to real
peace and allowing terrorist groups to operate'' within your
country, one of the officials said.
They said that the major differences between the Israelis
and Syria concern issues of withdrawal, peace and security.
They said Clinton already has a feel for Assad, having
talked to him on the phone several times. He know he's dealing
with someone who's been around a long time,' and that Assad will
come to the table with very definite views.
Finally, the officials indicated that after tomorrow's press
conference, there will be some sort of read-out by someone who
actually might know something and maybe who even attended the
meeting.
There ends perhaps the longest pool report of this
administration.
P.S. - We aldo did the bi-lat between Clinton and the Swiss prime
minister, which contained nothing of note except the president
appeared exhausted and also appeared to call ABC's Mark Halperin
intelligent. Read the transcript. We're tired.
Nichols/USA TODAY
Cohn/Newsweek
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
MOSCOW DECLARATION
President of the United States William J. Clinton and President
of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin, having met together in
MOSCOW from January 12-15, 1994, reaffirmed the fundamental
importance of U.S.-Russian cooperation based upon the Charter of
American-Russian Partnership and Friendship, the Vancouver
Declaration, and existing treaties and agreements. They noted
with satisfaction that the relationship between the United States
and Russia has entered a new stage of mature strategic
partnership based on equality, mutual advantage, and recognition
of each other's national interests. From this perspective, they
reviewed the full range of bilateral and international issues.
The two Presidents had an extensive discussion of security
issues, including arms reduction and nonproliferation. Both
parties expressed concern over increasing challenges to global
nonproliferation regimes. They agreed upon the need to
strengthen those regimes and to create, together with other
interested states, a new mechanism to enhance transparency and
responsibility in the transfer of conventional arms and sensitive
dual-use technologies. They also strongly supported completion
of negotiations on a comprehensive test ban at the earliest
possible time. The two Presidents reiterated their support for a
cutoff of production of fissile materials for weapons and
considered new measures to strengthen strategic stability.
Based on ongoing discussions of strategic disengagement measures
between the ministries of defense of the two countries, the
Presidents announced that they would direct the detargeting of
strategic nuclear missiles under their respective commands so
that by not later than May 30, 1994, those missiles will not be
targeted. Thus, for the first time in nearly half a century --
virtually since the dawn of the nuclear age -- the United states
and Russia will not operate nuclear forces, day-to-day, in a
manner that presumes they are adversaries.
President Clinton and President Yeltsin expressed satisfaction
with the accelerating development of a wide range of economic,
scientific and technological relationships between the United
States and Russia. They also reaffirmed their strong support for
the rapid growth of bilateral trade and investment as a special
priority. In their view, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission has
become a dynamic and effective mechanism for coordination and
expansion of U.S.-Russian cooperation. A key expression of this
relationship is .-Russian joint cooperation in space,
especially their partnership, with other interested parties, in
the construction of a space station.
2
The two Presidents reaffirmed their readiness to move forward on
the path of openness and mutual trust in American-Russian
relations and to create favorable conditions for the
comprehensive development of political, commercial, humanitarian,
and people-to-people contacts between the two countries. In this
connection, a mutual interest in enlarging the consular presence
on each other's territory was expressed. In particular, the
American side intends to open a Consulate General in
Yekaterinburg in February 1994.
with the approval by the U.S. Congress of NAFTA and the
successful completion of the Uruguay Round of global trade
negotiations, President Clinton and President Yeltsin welcomed
the accelerating progress toward creation of an open and
prosperous world economy and trading system. President Yeltsin
informed President Clinton of recent steps among the member
states of the Commonwealth of Independent States toward increased
economic coordination and cooperation. The two Presidents agreed
that such initiatives, pursued in an open and voluntary manner
consistent with GATT rules and procedures, should be conducive to
the rapid inclusion of all the participating states into the
global economy.
In this context, President Clinton and President Yeltsin
exchanged views on the economic strategies of their respective
governments. President Yeltsin described the economic situation
in Russia. He affirmed the irreversibility of Russia's
transition to a market economy and his intention to further
promote reforms and to address social needs associated with this
transition. President Clinton stressed his strong support for
Russian reform and suggested that social issues could be a new
and promising area for cooperation.
President Clinton and President Yeltsin noted with satisfaction
that the end of the Cold War has brought continuous progress
toward overcoming the division of the European continent and
opened the way for broad cooperation among European states on a
new agenda of urgent tasks, with priority being given to
preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping and protection of human rights
and the rights of national and other minorities. In this
connection, the two Presidents welcomed the decisions of the CSCE
Foreign Ministers' meeting in Rome which they consider to be an
important step in making the CSCE a key mechanism of
international cooperation in Europe.
Proceeding from the conviction that new divisions of Europe must
be avoided, President Clinton and President Yeltsin agreed upon
the need to create a new European security order that is
inclusive, non-discriminatory and focused on practical political
and security cooperation. The two Presidents agreed that the
concept of the Partnership for Peace adopted at the Brussels
meeting of the NATO member states is an important element of an
emerging new European security architecture.
3
President Yeltsin informed President Clinton of Russia's
intention to participate actively in the Partnership for Peace
and to conclude substantive agreements opening the way for broad
and intensive cooperation between Russia and NATO as a partner.
Taking into account Russia's international role, President
Clinton welcomed the prospect of Russia's active participation in
the Partnership for Peace.
The two Presidents condemned aggressive nationalism, violations
of human rights, and ethnic and religious intolerance of any
kind, including anti-Semitism. They expressed serious concern
about the existence and potential for intensification of
conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and a number of the New
Independent States of the former Soviet Union. President Yeltsin
apprised President Clinton of the peacekeeping efforts undertaken
by Russia on the territory of the former USSR. The two
Presidents are determined to intensify the coordination of their
efforts, within the framework of the United Nations and the CSCE,
to promote rapid and peaceful resolution of conflicts on
conditions that correspond to generally accepted standards of
international law, including respect for the independence,
sovereignty, and existing borders of the New Independent States
of the former Soviet Union.
The two Presidents reaffirmed the support of the United States
and Russia for the United Nations. They will act with other
countries to strengthen the potential of the UN to support and
establish peace and prevent conflict. The two sides will work
out practical activities among themselves and other countries to
improve preparation for participation in UN peacekeeping
operations. In connection with the upcoming 50th anniversary of
the UN, President Clinton and President Yeltsin consider it
important to convene at the appropriate time a meeting of the
heads of state and government of the members of the UN Security
Council for a review of the work established for the UN at the
January 1992 Security Council summit and an examination of tasks
for the future.
President Clinton and President Yeltsin are convinced that the
United States and Russia will continue to consolidate their
partnership and together promote global stability, peace, and
prosperity.
Done in Moscow on January 14, 1994, in the English and Russian
languages.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
BORIS YELTSIN
For the United States
For the Russian
of America
Federation
###
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Moscow, Russia
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
DETARGETING
United States and Russian experts have discussed for several
months possible measures to improve strategic stability, increase
mutual confidence, and step back from Cold War nuclear force
postures. These discussions have included proposals for mutual
detargeting of strategic nuclear systems. Based on these talks,
the Presidents announced that they will direct the detargeting of
strategic nuclear missiles under their respective commands. This
means that by May 30, 1994, no country will be targeted by the
strategic forces of either side. For the first time since the
earliest days of the nuclear age the two countries will no longer
operate nuclear forces, day-to-day, in a manner that presumes
they are enemies.
ICBMs and SLBMS are capable of being launched against one of
several targets or sets of targets stored in weapon system
computers. Historically, a target setting associated with actual
war plans had been the routine alert assignment of U.S. missile
systems. Detargeting will involve changing weapon system control
settings so that, on a day-to-day basis, no country, including
Russia, Ukraine or any other former Soviet territory, will be
targeted by U.S. strategic forces. Russia has told us their
detargeting measures are comparable.
For three of the four U.S. strategic missile systems -- the
Trident I, Trident II, and Peacekeeper -- the missiles will
contain no targeting information. The older technology Minuteman
III missile computers, which require a constant alignment
reference, will be set to ocean area targets.
This action directly affects only the strategic nuclear forces
under the command of the United States and Russian Federation.
However, as no country will be targeted on a day-to-day basis by
U.S. and Russian strategic forces, any country whose territory
may have been of targeting interest to U.S. and Russian forces is
affected.
This initiative builds on previous steps taken unilaterally to
reduce strategic nuclear arsenals, withdraw and eliminate certain
tactical nuclear weapons, and discontinue strategic bomber ground
alert and continuous airborne command post operations.
This will not affect commitment of U.S. forces to NATO
contingency plans.
Discussions between Russia and the U.S. on strategic stability
will continue. In addition, the U.S. is conducting a
comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review to take into account rapidly
changing strategic circumstances. This review is to be completed
later this year. It is possible that other measures along these
lines may be recommended in the future.
76502
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Moscow, Russia)
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
HIGHLY-ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU)
Large numbers of nuclear warheads of the arsenal of the former
Soviet Union are being withdrawn from service as a result of arms
control agreements such as INF and START, and unilateral
initiatives to reduce tactical nuclear forces. As these warheads
are dismantled, valuable nuclear material is removed.
An important non-proliferation objective of the United States is
to ensure that the highly-enriched uranium (HEU) removed from
nuclear weapons is converted to low-enriched uranium (LEU), which
cannot be used for nuclear weapons purposes. Conversion of this
material to LEU would eliminate the risk that HEU might fall into
the wrong hands, and would make any future build-up of nuclear
forces in Russia extremely expensive and time-consuming.
LEU has economic value as fuel for nuclear power stations,
opening up an opportunity for using the reductions in nuclear
forces to support economic reform.
Under the terms of the HEU contract signed in Moscow, Russia will
convert 500 tons of HEU to LEU and sell the LEU to the United
states Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a U.S. Government
corporation. USEC will use the LEU it purchases from Russia to
fulfill contracts it has to supply fuel for nuclear power
stations in the United states and throughout the world. Over the
20-year life of this contract, Russia will earn approximately $12
billion from sales of enriched uranium that will be sold to
commercial nuclear power stations. There will be no net cost to
the U.S. Government.
In addition, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus will receive
compensation for the value of the HEU in warheads transferred to
Russia. In the case of Ukraine, as warheads are transferred to
Russia for dismantling, Ukraine will receive in compensation fuel
assemblies for its nuclear power stations. Some of the LEU
derived from HEU removed from nuclear warheads transferred from
Ukraine will be sold to USEC to cover expenses incurred by Russia
for the conversion of HEU to LEU and fabrication of fuel
assemblies.
To help begin this process, USEC will advance to Russia $60
million to help cover expenses for the initial production of fuel
assemblies for Ukraine. USEC will recover the $60 million
advance payment with funds that would otherwise be paid to Russia
under the HEU contract.
2
This agreement for the purchase of LEU derived from HEU removed
from nuclear warheads will benefit all nations involved. It will
eliminate a substantial amount of weapons-grade nuclear material,
foreclosing any possibility that this material will fall into the
wrong hands. It will provide substantial funds to Russia to
promote economic reform and the transition to a market economy.
It will provide important energy resources to Ukraine, and
compensation to Kazakhstan and Belarus as well. This transaction
demonstrates how the United States can work with the states of
the former Soviet Union to promote our mutual security, non-
proliferation, and economic interests.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
JOINT STATEMENT
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
AND
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON NON-PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
AND THE MEANS OF THEIR DELIVERY
President Clinton and President Yeltsin, during their meeting in
MOSCOW on January 14, 1994, agreed that the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and their missile delivery systems
represents an acute threat to international security in the
period following the end of the Cold War. They declared the
resolve of their countries to cooperate actively and closely with
each other, and also with other interested states, for the
purpose of preventing and reducing this threat.
The Presidents noted that the proliferation of nuclear weapons
creates a serious threat to the security of all states, and
expressed their intention to take energetic measures aimed at
prevention of such proliferation.
--
Considering the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons as the basis for efforts to ensure the
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, they called for its
indefinite and unconditional extension at conference of its
participants in 1995, and they urged that all states that
have not yet done so accede to this treaty.
They expressed their resolve to implement effective measures
to limit and reduce nuclear weapons. In this connection,
they advocated the most rapid possible entry into force of
the START I and START II treaties.
They agreed to review jointly appropriate ways to strengthen
security assurances for the states which have renounced the
possession of nuclear weapons and that comply strictly with
their nonproliferation obligations.
They expressed their support for the International Atomic
Energy Agency in its efforts to carry out its safeguards
responsibilities. They also expressed their intention to
provide assistance to the Agency in the safeguards field,
including through joint efforts of their relevant
laboratories to improve safeguards.
They supported the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and agreed with
the need for effective implementation of the principle of
full-scope IAEA safeguards as a condition for nuclear
exports with the need for export controls on dual-use
materials and technology in the nuclear field.
2
They reaffirmed their countries' commitment to the
conclusion as soon as possible of an international treaty to
achieve a comprehensive ban on nuclear test explosions and
welcomed the decision to begin negotiations at the
conference on disarmament. They declared their firm
intention to provide political support for the negotiating
process, and appealed to other states to refrain from
carrying out nuclear explosions while these talks are being
held.
They noted that an important contribution to the goal of
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons would be made by a
verifiable ban on the production of fissile materials for
nuclear weapons and by the most rapid conclusion of an
international convention to this effect with the widest
possible participation of states and on a non-discriminatory
basis.
They agreed to cooperate with each other and also with other
states to elaborate measures designed to prevent the
accumulation of excessive stocks of fissile materials and
over time to reduce such stocks.
They agreed to establish a joint working group to consider:
--
including in their voluntary IAEA safeguards offers all
source and special fissionable materials, excluding
only those facilities associated with activities having
direct national security significance;
--
steps to ensure the transparency and irreversibility of
the process of reduction of nuclear weapons, including
the possibility of putting a portion of fissionable
material under IAEA safeguards. Particular attention
would be given to materials released in the process of
nuclear disarmament and steps to ensure that these
materials would not be used again for nuclear weapons.
The Presidents also tasked their experts to study options
for the long-term disposition of fissile materials,
particularly of plutonium, taking into account the issues of
nonproliferation, environmental protection, safety, and
technical and economic factors.
They reaffirmed the intention of interested organizations of
the two countries to complete within a short time a joint
study of the possibilities of terminating the production of
weapon-grade plutonium.
The Presidents agreed that reduction of the risk of theft or
diversion of nuclear materials is a high priority, and in
this context they noted the usefulness of the September 1993
Agreement to cooperate in improving the system of controls,
accounting, and physical protection for nuclear materials.
They attached great significance to further joint work on
the separate but mutually connected problems of accounting
3
for nuclear materials used in the civilian and military
fields.
Both Presidents favored a further increase in the efforts to
prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.
--
As the heads of the countries that have the world's largest
stockpiles of chemical weapons, they acknowledged particular
responsibility for eliminating the threat posed by these
weapons. In this context, they declare their resolute
support for the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, and their intention to promote ratification as
rapidly as possible and entry into force of the Convention
not later than 1995.
To promote implementation of a comprehensive ban on chemical
weapons, they welcomed the conclusion of the implementing
documents for the Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding and
agreed to conclude work in as short a time as possible on
the implementing documents for the Bilateral Agreement on
the Destruction of Chemical Weapons.
The Presidents reaffirmed their desire to facilitate the
safe, secure, timely, and ecologically sound destruction of
chemical weapons in the Russian Federation and the United
states. They applauded the joint Chemical Weapons
Destruction Work Plan recently concluded between the two
countries which leads the way for the United States to
provide an additional $30 million in assistance to support
an analytical chemical laboratory in Russia to facilitate
chemical weapons destruction. The United States also agreed
to consider appropriate additional measures to support
Russia's chemical weapons destruction program.
They reiterated the importance of strict compliance with the
Convention on the Prohibition of Biological and Toxin
Weapons and of continued implementation of measures in
accordance with the Russia-America-British Statement of
September 1992, which provided inter alia for the reciprocal
visits of facilities and meetings between experts in order
to ensure confidence in the compliance with the Convention.
They supported convening a special conference of the states'
parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological
and Toxin Weapons in order to consider measures that would
contribute to transparency and thereby confidence in
compliance with the Convention and its effectiveness.
The Presidents expressed the determination of their countries to
cooperate with each other in preventing the proliferation of
missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction.
They welcomed the conclusion of the Bilateral Memorandum of
Understanding between the Government of the Russian
Federation and the Government of the United States of
America Concerning the Export of Missile Equipment and
Technologies, signed in September 1993, noted the importance
of this Agreement for ensuring mutually beneficial
06502
4
cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in the field of
space exploration, and agreed to collaborate closely in
order to ensure its full and timely implementation.
The U.S. welcomed Russia's intention to join the Missile
Technology Control Regime and undertook to cooperate with
Russia in facilitation its membership at an early date. The
Russian Federation and the United States of America are
certain that further improving the MTCR, including the
prudent expansion of membership, will help reduce the threat
of proliferation of missiles and missile technologies in the
regional context as well.
The Presidents of the two countries agreed that, in addition to
strengthening global norms of nonproliferation and working out
agreements to this effect, close cooperation is essential in
order to develop policies on nonproliferation applicable to
specific regions posing the greatest risk of proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
They agreed that nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula
would represent a grave threat to regional and international
security, and decided that their countries would consult
with each other on ways to eliminate this danger. They
called upon the DPRK to honor fully its obligation under the
Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its
safeguards agreement with the IABA in connection with the
Treaty, and to resolve the problems of safeguards
implementation, inter alia, through dialogue between IAEA
and DPRK. They also urged full and speedy implementation of
the Joint Declaration of the ROK and the DPRK on
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
They support efforts to reach agreement on the establishment
of a multilateral forum to consider measures in the filed of
arms control in nonproliferation that could strengthen
security in South Asia. They call on India and Pakistan to
join in the negotiation of and become original signatories
to the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Test Explosions and
the proposed Convention to Ban Production of Fissile
Materials for Nuclear Explosives and to refrain from
deploying ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons
of mass destruction to each other's territories.
They agreed that the U.S. and Russia, as co-chairs in the
Middle East peace process, would actively promote progress
in the activity of the working group for Arms Control and
Regional Security in the Middle East, striving for speedy
implementation of confidence-building measures and working
toward turning the Middle East into a region free of weapons
of mass destruction, where conventional forces would not
exceed reasonable defense needs.
They firmly supported the efforts of the UN Special
Commission and the IAEA to put into operation a long-term
monitoring system of the military potential of Iraq, and
called upon Iraq to comply with all UN Security Council
resolutions.
January 14, 1994
Pool Report #39
Clinton arrived at the Ostankino TV Station at about 3:05 pm
for his debut Russian electronic town hall. The building is a
1960s era boxy thing, sort of a dingier version of the Department
of Transportation Bldg in Washington. On the third floor, next to
the entrance to the TV studio, a Jazz band with a red grand piano
was playing Moondance. The audience chosen for the event was
full of academics from MOSCOW State University, students,
political leaders and journalists. A broadcaster came out 10
minutes before Clinton appeared to ask the audience to ask to
have a microphone passed to them, rather than going to the center
of the room to bunching around a standing mike. We ask you not
to repeat the errors of the former Supreme Soviet and crowd the
mike," he joked. He instructed: Don't engage in a polemic with
the President. Among the government officials in the group were
aides to Andrei Kozyrev, foreign minister; Gavriil Popov, former
MOSCOW mayor, was present as well. The audience gave polite
applause to Hillary Clinton, who was ushered in just before
Clinton appeared, and sat in the fourth row. As you saw from the
broadcast, the audience was generally polite, though a few
students looked a bit bored as it ran on. AFterwards, some
audience members said they were impressed with the way Clinton
handled himself. Yuri Zinchenko, a member of the Moscow State
psychology faculty, said Clinton was very open. It is a great
difference from our own president. Zinchenko said he supported
Yeltsin more or less by default, because of a lack of any more
attractive leader. Maxim Woznyak, a medical student at MSU, said:
I think I can believe him. He said he didn't think Clinton had
a perfect grasp of the intricacies of Russian politics, but
ventured that his advice to Russians was worth some attention
nonetheless. ""He gave a good impression," said another young
student, a woman. "I liked him. He was very lively. she said
she had some reservations about him, but couldn't express them
because of her poor command of foreign languages. After chatting
with the crowd for about 10 minutes after the show, Clinton
headed off for a brief interview with Tom Brokaw.
The whole session is transcribed.
Paul Richter, LA Times
JAN-15-1994 14:44
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.014
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Moscow, Russia
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
OPIC ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON'S VISIT
As a demonstration of the President's support of Russian reform
efforts, President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC), Ruth R. Harkin signed in Washington on January 7 three
OPIC protocols supporting U.S. private investments in Russia.
These protocol agreements are described below.
U.S. West
To help modernize Russia's telecommunications systems, OPIC plans
to provide close to $80 million in finance and insurance to U.S.
West International for their newly established $150 million
telecommunications holding company in Russia. The Denver-based
firm endeavors to position itself as a leader in Russian
telecommunications development by serving as a source of
financing for future Russian telecommunications projects. U.S.
West will develop and operate this project and subsequent
telecommunications projects utilizing state-of-the-art Western
practices and applying state-of-the-art technology. U.S. West is
in the process of applying for OPIC financing of up to $60
million for this project, and $20 million in political risk
insurance for a related cellular telephone project.
Snyder Oil
This joint venture will restart oil production from existing,
idle wells. OPIC would provide up to 8140 million in financing
and insurance for Snyder's joint venture project with a Russian
state-owned company, Incorporated Works Permneft, located 800
miles east of Moscow. Snyder through its subsidiaries recently
established a 50/50 joint venture, Permtex with the Incorporated
Works Permneft, a regional production association operating under
the auspices of the Government of the Russian Federation, to
engage in the development of existing major oil producing areas
in the Perm Region of Russia. Snyder expects peak production to
yield an average annual production of 8,000,000 barrels of oil.
snyder will develop and operate the project utilizing Western
environmental practices and applying state-of-the-art production
technologies.
Dresser/Petro-Hunt
In an effort to boost oil production and generate hard currency
exports, OPIC will provide $100 million of financing and
insurance to Dresser/Petro-Hunt for their crude oil production
project.
# # #
06502
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
MOSCOW, Russia
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
FUND FOR LARGE ENTERPRISES IN RUSSIA
The President today named Michael Blumenthal, former Secretary of
Treasury under President Carter, as Chairman of the Fund for
Large Enterprises in Russia. The Fund will promote private
sector development in the Russian Federation.
The U.S. plans to capitalize the Fund with $100 million in
foreign assistance appropriations this year. The Fund, which
will be managed by a Board of Directors selected from the private
sector, will have authority to make equity investments and loans
in the largest state enterprise and will be encouraged to work
with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the U.S.
Export-Import Bank to expand its capital resources. The Fund
will also offer technical assistance to promote restructuring and
help strengthen private enterprises in several of Russia's major
centers of reform.
The Fund for Large Enterprises in Russia will function similarly
to the successful Enterprise Funds in Poland, Hungary, Czech and
Slovak Republics, and Bulgaria. The Fund's establishment was
announced when the G-7 countries created the $3 billion Special
Privatization and Restructuring Program at the July 1993 Tokyo
Summit. Its activities will complement other U.S. assistance
programs underway. It will also coordinate its activities with
the Russian-American Enterprise Fund which targets small and
medium-size Russian enterprises.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary (Moscow)
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
Statement by the Press Secretary
The President was saddened to learn yesterday of the death
of Norwegian Foreign Minister Johan Jurgen Holst. Throughout his
long and distinguished career, Minister Holst was one of the
world's leading experts and wisest thinkers on international
security issues. As his nation's defense minister, head of a
leading research institute and foreign minister, he was in the
forefront of those designing and implementing international
security policies during the Cold War and adapting those policies
to the post-Cold War period.
Americans remember him best for his leading role in the
Israeli-PLO negotiations that led to the breakthrough in the
Middle East Peace Process last September. The President was
proud to have the opportunity to honor Minister Holst at the
White House signing ceremony on September 13.
The White House expresses its deepest sympathies to the
family and friends of this great statesman.
# # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
Z
Office of the Press Secretary
(Moscow, Russia)
BACKGROUND BRIEFING
BY
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL
January 14, 1994
The Briefing Room
2:07 P.M. (L)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good afternoon.
I'd like to just briefly review the events of the day and then
take you through the basic documents that were signed or issued
today by the U.S. and Russia.
Let me just say first that the President came to
Moscow with several objectives. One was to reaffirm the U.S.-
Russian partnership that he established with Yeltsin in
Vancouver. I think as a result of the past two days in the
meetings, the agreements, that he has done that.
The second was to emphasize continuation of U.S.
support for reform in Russia, economic and political, strong U.S.
support. In his statements and in his meetings, he did that as
well.
The third was to reach out to a broader cross-
section of the Russian leadership and the Russian population in
order to build a policy that can be sustained over the long-term
and not just over the short-term. That is why he met with so
many varied political leaders last night at Spaso House. That's
why he saw the Patriarch of Russia yesterday. And it's also why
he's been out walking the streets seeing average Russians.
There were four issues that ran through the two days
of meetings that have just been concluded. Four major issues
have dominated. And let me just review the progress on these
four issues. On economics, of course, we heard from President
Yeltsin an unambiguous, unequivocal pledge that reform would
continue. You heard that at the press conference today.
On Partnership For Peace, a very strong interest on
the part of the Russian government in this NATO proposal and a
specific pledge by Russia to participate in this proposal, much
like the pledge that President Kravchuk of Ukraine gave a couple
of nights ago at the airport.
Third, and probably most importantly, was the
trilateral nuclear deal that was signed this morning that my
colleague will speak to. And fourth was a discussion of foreign
policy issues that took place both yesterday and today. And that
discussion centered on the cooperation we have on foreign policy
and also on some of the differences that we have on foreign
policy.
And I would like to note one issue in particular,
and that is the Baltics. The two Presidents discussed Latvia and
Estonia and the presence of Russian troops in Latvia and Estonia
yesterday. They followed up and discussed that issue today. I
think it's fair to say that I believe -- we believe that we've
made some progress over the last 24 hours on that issue. We are
very hopeful that there will be an agreement soon Letwook Ruscia
MORE
13:55
- 2 -
and Latvia to withdraw troops and an agreement -- similar
agreement between Russia and Estonia.
Having said that, let me just mention the documents
that were signed today. Earlier today in the Kremlin, the
President, President Kravchuk and President Yeltsin signed the
trilateral nuclear agreement. And my colleague will be speaking
to that.
Secondly, the President and President Yeltsin in
their bilateral press conference signed the Moscow Declaration.
This is a very broad declaration that speaks to the security,
economic and political foundations of the relationship. Included
in it is a reference to detargeting. Also included in it is
Russia's interest, specific interest in Partnership For Peace,
and lots of other things if you care to talk about that.
There were two documents issued in the name of
President Yeltsin and President Clinton. One was a joint
statement on human rights. This is a very interesting document.
It calls specifically for a rejection of anti-semitism, and it
appeals for ethnic and religious tolerance -- gap --
back a few years have spoken together on the issue of anti-
semitism. And we were very pleased to be able to conclude this
agreement. There was also a joint statement on nonproliferation
that my colleague will discuss with you.
In addition to those presidential documents,
Secretary of State Christopher and Foreign Minister Kozyrev
signed a number of agreements. Let me just list them for you,
and if you have questions we'd be glad to take them: A
memorandum of intent concerning the cooperation in the area of
export control -- my colleague will speak to that; an air
transport agreement; an agreement on cooperation in the fields of
public health and biomedical research; an agreement on
cooperation in radiation health effects. And there are also two
documents issued in the names of the Foreign Ministers -- one on
the Middle East and another on COCOM.
Q Are we going to get those?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You'll be getting
all these shortly. Let me just say my colleague will be speaking
now to the trilateral agreement and to detargeting. My other
colleague will discuss nonproliferation and export control. My
other colleague -- who can talk more specifically about the
Moscow Declaration and human rights.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We'll take
questions after everybody's done a little sum up -- right?
Let me Just take you through the trilateral
statement and its accompanying annex. The statement signed by
the three Presidents this morning is a statement that essentially
does two things. First of all, it lays out the commitment once
again of Ukraine to become a nonnuclear state in the earliest
possible time, according to the overall obligations laid out in
the Lisbon Protocol.
That agreement -- as you know, the Lisbon Protocol
is an integral part of the START I Treaty and is also associated
with the NPT. However, you also know that for some time the
commitment of Ukraine to that document has been in a somewhat --
in a stall mode. And we had both, I think -- in Washington,
Moscow and in the Kravchuk government in Kiev have been very
concerned about that stall mode. And I think overall the
implication of the statement signed today by the three Presidents
is that it breaks loose the stall and again lays out a very firm
commitment by Ukraine to proceed to eliminate strategic nuclear
weapons from its territory in the earliest possible time. It's
very positive in that regard also in that it begins to define
MORE
- 3 -
exactly what is meant by the earliest possible time. And I'll
get into that in just a moment.
But first I wanted to mention to you what exactly is
the annex. There are two parts. The statement, as I said, lays
out the commitment once again to Lisbon, but it also lays out the
incentives for Ukraine. That is the security assurances that are
very clearly laid out there for the first time in print; also the
promise for technical and economic assistance for dismantlement
of the weapons. That's associated with the Nunn-Lugar program.
And finally, the compensation for the HEU in the warheads --
strategic nuclear warheads in Ukraine.
Those are all things that the Rada has indicated
concern and interest in seeing come to Ukraine, and they are now
laid out very clearly in this commitment by the three Presidents.
Now, the Annex is an interesting document. I said
that this set of documents really breaks loose the whole problem
that was associated with the Lisbon Protocol in Ukraine, and I
think the Annex was a key part of that process of breaking it all
loose. It's what we call the three-corner deal because it allows
for the early transfer from Ukraine to Russia by the end of
October -- I'm sorry, mid-November 1994. Then the other part of
it is that Ukraine will be immediately compensated for those
warheads as they are transferred from Ukraine to Russia. And
what made that early compensation possible was the United States'
willingness to advance money -- $60 million -- on the HEU deal.
And that's why we call it the three-corner deal. That was a key
agreement that was put together between the three sides that
really moves the process forward.
Now, let me talk for a minute about the definition
issue -- what I mean when I said that now we are getting some
definition on the phrase, "at the earliest possible time." All
of the most modern and deadly weapons in Ukraine -- the SS-24
ICBM missiles -- that's 46 missiles, 460 warheads -- will have
their warheads removed within 10 months. They will be
deactivated and no longer in operational -- combat operational
status.
or Could you repeat the numbers?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Forty-six missiles
and 460 warheads; 10 warheads per missile.
Their warheads, along with some SS-19 warheads, will
begin to return to Russia by also the same date -- 10 months
within the signature of the agreement, which is today.
Now, that, you may recall, has been a subject of
some rancor between the Rada and the Ukrainian government over
the last six to nine months. Those in Ukraine who are interested
in thinking about a nuclear future were very focused on the ss-
24 missiles as weapons that would be in place for some time.
The other weapons in Ukraine, the SS-19s, which, by
the way, Ukraine is also committed to continue deactivating --
they have been deactivating those systems since the summer --
there are now two regiments of SS-19 missiles that have been
deactivated by having their warheads removed. That amounts to 20
missiles overall, and 120 warheads total.
So they have actually begun and that's the kind of
evidemce we've seen that has given us some encouragement that
this cleal is really going to unfold at a steady pace.
The SS-19 warheads and their missiles, however, are
older systems that are entering into obsolescence in any case.
And So the Ukrainians -- from the outset across the Ukrainian
political spectrum there has been agreement that they should get
rid of those systems. The SS-19s have very volatile liquid
MORE
- 4 -
propellant and there has been an agreement, a consensus, in the
Ukrainian body politic, both executive and legislative branch,
that those things should just be gotten rid of because they pose
a profound danger.
so I really think that the value of the annex, this
three-corner deal and the associated statement, is that it gets
the 24s off the block, so to speak, gets them off the agenda in
Kiev. And I think that is extremely valuable.
nec - ... what else. Okay, now, as far as the other
aspects of what has been discussed with regard to the statement
and the annex, we have discussed today the three Presidents
discussed today certain understandings. The Russian side and the
Ukrainian side discussed between them certain understandings
which they wish to keep private, and we're going to respect that
-- they're diplomatic exchanges.
I wanted to assure you very strongly that the United
States itself has not entered into any private obligations or
private agreements of any kind. These were strictly private
matters between Ukraine and Russia which they wish to keep
confidential, and we have agreed to respect that. These were
issues that the three Presidents discussed this morning.
9 Private on what score?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Private on what
score?
Q Yes, in what area?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They are simply
issues that they wish to keep confidential and we're going to
basically respect that.
ch, a few words about detargeting. This is actually
part of the joint statement and I think it is also a very
exciting part of what has begun to occur now as the two sides,
U.S. and Russia, come out of the Cold War and are less and less
on a hair trigger with regard to their strategic nuclear forces
and their armed forces overall. We've seen on the conventional
side, of course, an overall disengagement of the Warsaw Pact as
it, of course, has gone away, and NATO. But on the strategic
side, as well, we're in a situation now where we do not need to
be at very hair-trigger levels of combat readiness.
And the overall, I think, importance of this
detargeting arrangement 1s that in terms of the day to day
operational readiness of the forces, they are at a level where
any country is no longer -- no country is any longer targeted by
the arsenals of Russia or the United States. And this is a very,
very positive development, and should be, I think, of reassurance
not only to our two countries, but to other countries around the
world. so that is an extremely positive step today.
And I will be willing to take all kinds of questions.
about the technical details of that. I understand you've had
some briefings the last couple of days, but if anybody has any
questions on that, I'll be definitely willing to talk about that.
That was a key part of the Moscow Declaration.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me only make a
couple of brief comments, in part because you don't have the
documents that I was going to discuss with you and, until you
have the documents, it will probably not be able to have too many
questions.
But there are three documents that are linked. The
first one is the joint statement On non-proliferstion that nns
agreed to by the two Presidents.
MORE
Q
We have that.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And you have that
one. 80 I'd be happy to go through that one with you. And then
there are two that Secretary Christopher signed with Minister
Kozyrev. You don't have those; the state Department will get
those to you as soon as I possibly can. And if some of you would
like to talk about those later I'd be willing to come back and
talk to you.
But one is a joint statement on conventional weapons
and export controls. This follows on from the promise that
President Clinton made to President Yeltsin at Vancouver whereby
we would aim to phase out the old regime of export controls known
as COCOM, and put in its place a new multilateral regime to
control armaments and sensitive duel-use technologies in trade
for areas of concern, and particularly trade for roque countries
among those being, in the view of the United States, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, North Korea.
You will see in the joint statement once you have a
chance to read it that we have outlined a common set of goals and
purposes between the United States and Russia for this new regime
and what we would be seeking in that new regime. And in that
connection, signed a memorandum of intent on export control
cooperation whereby the United States and Russia will work
together to put in place in Russia a responsible export control
regime that will cover not only weapons of mass destruction, but
also conventional weapons. so it's an aspect of nonproliferation
that is a little less known to many of you, but an important part
of President Clinton's overall agenda. Thanks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just say we
are now all available to take any questions you may have.
Q
Can you tell us what's involved in detargeting?
And let's say you aim a missile for the middle of the North
Atlantic and you want to retarget it back to what its original
target was, say, perhaps where we're sitting now. How long does
that take?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just
underline that this is what we think of as a strategic
confidence-building measure. It is a measure that's taken by the
two parties because they are at a point where the whole nuclear
doctrine of the two sides is not dependent on these kinds of hair
trigger approaches -- fast response, early turnaround and so
forth. So it is a confidence-building measure, but from a
technical point of view it is possible to retarget or insert
targets in some cases into these missiles fairly rapidly, within
a fairly short period of time. so it is --
Q
Within a matter of seconds?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Not a matter of
seconds, no, but within a fairly short time. within a matter of
minutes. so it is -- let me say that it differs somewhat from
weapon system to weapon system. I know there have been a lot of
questions out there about, well, are they all targeted at the
ocean or what are the targets now.
For the more modern of our systems, the Peacekeeper,
or example, the D-5, the more modern systems, they actually are
detargeted in that their targets are removed. The older systems,
the Minuteman III, for example, its guidance system needs to
continue its guidance computer, needs to have a target in it.
And those are the missiles that are actually, then, targeted into
what are called open ocean areas.
There has been quite a bit of discussion at this
point, I know. Let me just underline for you where these target
sets are concerned, they would only be affected -- in other
MORE
JAN-15-1994 14:02
MINSH STAFF ADVANCE
- 6 -
words, they would only be struck by a missile in the case of a
complete accidental or unauthorized launch. But we are very
confident in our overall means and methods of controlling
unauthorized or accidental launch. And. in fact. these strategic
detargeting measures improve the overall, or strengthen the
measures of control against accidental or unauthorized launch.
so I really think it's extremely, extremely unlikely that targets
in the open ocean area would ever be struck by a missile.
Q
-- are teams from each country going to observe
any detargeting procedures? Will there be a kind of ceremony?
Any kind of verification of this at all?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me say how this
thing came about. We have had now -- actually, there are
antecedents back into the Bush administration of the so-called
"strategic Stability Working Group." There is now a strategic
stability working group that is very active, run on our side out
of OSD, the Department of Defense; and on the Russian side out of
the Ministry of Defense. They are talking about a number of so-
called "strategic stability measures," or what I like to call
"strategic confidence-building measures," that include things
like notifications of exercises and that type of thing. Lowering
overall levels of readiness -- what we call Def Con levels --
that type of thing.
There are a number of measures that are under
discussion in this group. It's a very active group, and one of
the first things they have defined sufficiently and are ready to
get out there is this strategic detargeting measure. so I can
say it is a group that is also truly a symbol of a new era in the
idea that Russian generals, heads of the strategic rocket forces
would be sitting down from some of our leaders from OSD, dealing
with strategic issues; and talking at this level of detail I
think would have been simply astonishing a few years ago.
Q
Can you elaborate about the --
Я
On May 30th, are you simply going to announce
the missiles have been retargeted? Is there to be some ceremony?
Are teams to be exchanged? What is there to this outside from
today's announcement?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know if
there is any ceremony that will be planned for the 30th of May.
But there will not be any verification measures associated with
this.
Q
so there's nothing beyond today's announcement?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm not sure. On
May 30th there may very well be a ceremony of some kind. But as
I said, there will certainly be continued discussions as this
unfolds. One fascinating part of this whole process of getting
to where we are today is that the two groups actually exchanged
very detailed discussions of how they would go about detargeting
these missiles. This is astonishing that we could get to this
level of detail of talk through this stuff.
But, no, there are no actual verification measures
associated with this. This is in the realm of the parallel
unilateral activities that we have taken on in recent years, for
example, to remove warheads from tactical nuclear weapons, to
take bombs off of bombers and take them off of operational alert.
None of that is associated with a verification regime as under
START.
However, we have still considered these parallel
unilateral activities to be both an extraordinarily useful piece
of evidence -- that we are moving away from the Cold War era.
And don't forget they are also linked with this very, as I said,
MORE
- 7 -
interactive process between the MOD and our DOD. So I really
think that they are a very useful nature.
Q Do they object to verification?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, the issue
didn't really come up.
Q
Can I ask you about Yeltsin's comments
regarding the Partnership? At the news conference, he said, "If
you admit them one by one" -- the countries -- "that's not good.
I'm opposed." So where is this explicit acceptance of the
Partnership? His interpretation seems to be that he is in favor
of some long-term integration of these countries, but not
individual admission, which is the sense of what the President
has proposed.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think he was
referring to one aspect of the larger question. And I remember
the question, it was, what is the future relationship between
Russia and NATO, which is a different question than what is
Russia's position on the Partnership For Peace.
President Yeltsin gave President Clinton a specific
commitment that Russia was not only enthusiastic about the
Partnership For Peace, but that Russia is going to participate in
the Partnership For Peace. That allowed President Clinton in his
statement at the press conference to say categorically,
unambiguously that Yeltsin had made this statement to him that
Russia would participate. In addition to that. here in the
Moscow Declaration is a specific commitment in writing to the
Russian government to participate.
or
What do you mean by participate? Do you mean
that Russia would seek admission the way the Czech Republic has?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, as you
remember, on Tuesday -- I believe it was -- it was either Monday
or Tuesday in Brussels, NATO offered -- made an open invitation
to the countries of the East to participate in Partnership For
Peace. There is a process by which you, in effect, sign up. And
a number of the Eastern, Central European, Eastern European
countries have done that. Ukraine has expressed an interest.
And now Russia has expressed an interest. So they will need to
obviously be in contact with NATO and go through this process of
completing forms. But that's just a technicality. The political
commitment was made today.
Q
But he is not acknowledging that participation
would eventually lead to individual entry by --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, not at all.
And, again, I think that -- as I understood the question posed to
President Yeltsin and his answer, he was speaking on a longer-
term basis. But on this specific question of PFP, it's clear.
It's in writing. It was direct in the relationship --
Q
No, no, on both points I have the same question
and I don't think you've answered it, honestly.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: You don't think
I've answered honestly, or honestly, you don't --
&
No, I don't think you've answered it. On
participation -- you talk about filling out forms. Participation
involves joining exercises --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.
Q
-- sitting with NATO commanders.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right.
MORE
- 8 -
R
Is Yeltsin's consent to that arrangement as far
as Russia is concerned mean that Russian officers will now take
part in those experiments? And secondly, he is saying about --
it seems to me he's saying all or none go into NATO. And you
know there are gradations of interest among the Eastern European
countries. so he's not talking in some theoretic term. He's
saying en masse or not at all.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Let's separate
the two for just a minute. Let me ask the question. I'll ask
the question, then I'll try to answer it. Did President Yeltsin
say to President Clinton that he wanted Russia to Join the
Partnership For Peace? The answer is yes.
Q
As a preliminary to --
Q Wait a second. Let him finish.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The answer is yes.
He said unequivocally and unambiguously, Russia will join the
Partnership For Peace. Russia intends to go through the process
of joining.
Prior to today, both in Washington and in MOSCOW --
including in several hours of discussion yesterday at the Russian
Ministry of Defense, meetings at the State Department a week ago
Monday -- we talked through -- our experts talked through with
Russian military and civilian experts the process of joining the
Partnership For Peace. The Russian government has a very clear
understanding of what that is. so there's no doubt in our minds
that he's made the commitment. It is also here /in writing in the
Moscow Declaration.
You talked about joint exercises, active
participation. We already have joint military exercises planned
between one of our divisions and a Russian division later on in
'94.
Q
NATO. NATO. They're going to have them in
Poland. Will they have them in Russia?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right. And so now
we must begin the process between NATO and Russia, Russia joining
the Partnership For Peace, to define exactly the military
activities -- training, whatever -- that we will undertake with
Russia. The two presidents did not get into a discussion at that
level of detail. As leaders of the two countries, they made a
political commitment to each other to engage in this process.
Now those of us who work beneath a level of president must meet
and define what it is exactly that Russia will do. But there's
just no question on our part.
Q
Now, how about joining -- the whole group, all
or nothing? Andrea is exactly right. He said very firmly, "I
oppose it." He has something in mind that he doesn't like. I
don't think it was a philosophical statement. There's a process
underway where various Eastern and Central European countries
will come at different times. And he is saying, "Uh-uh, all
together or not at all." That's what I think he's saying. Am I
wrong?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, is there a
question? DO you have a question?
Q
The question 18, what is his stand on the
granting and entering of Eastern and Central European countries,
including Russia, into membership in NATO?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I was not in the
one-om-one, but I have seen the transcript of the one-on-one and
as far as I can recollect, the two presidents did not discuss
MORE
MINS
- 9 -
that particular issue. Now, President Yeltsin made the statement
that he did in the press conference. He's made a number of
statements in the past. That is a much larger question which we
see as a longer term question. And you know what our position is
from having been in Brussels and Praque.
Our position is that NATO is not now going to make a
decision on new members; that this is an evolutionary process:
that the Partnership For Peace and the way that countries engage
in it with NATO will be a large determinant of whether or not
they're going to be new members and which of the countries will
be the first to enter. so that would be my answer to you on
that.
Q
Just to follow on that, did it come up at any
level here -- did a Russian concern get expressed at any level
here when they said, "Okay, joining Partnership For Peace is
good, we're interested. But what concerns us is that further
down the road you're going to let the Central Europeans into NATO
as full members before Russia or the former republics will be
ready, and we want to let you know right here, right now we're
not in favor of that. It's everybody or nobody." You said it
didn't come up in one-on-one. Did it come up anywhere? Are they
expressing any concern?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, again, I
wasn't in that particular meeting so I can't speak to everything
that was in that discussion, but I don't believe that particular
point came up in this summit. But it's fair to say that in the
past couple of months in our private discussions with the
Russians and in the past, and certainly in public, the Russians
have enunciated variations of that point of view. And that's
really not a surprise.
9
Can you please tell me what's happening to the
600 gravity bombs and the bombers in Ukraine? Are they part of
this deal?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, they are part
of the deal. They are not actually gravity bombs, they are air-
launched cruise missiles.
& All of them?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: All of them are
affected by --
Q
All the weapons on the bombers are air-launched
cruise missiles?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.
Q
What's happening to them, and why aren't they
noted -- why isn't it noted in what we have, in the documents we
have?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the language
in the statement refers to elimination of all nuclear weapons in
Ukraine and all systems to be affected by the deactivation. So
in fact all weapons are covered. And that's clearly understood
by all parties to this agreement that that covers the 46 SS-24s,
130 SS-19s and the 600 ALCMs, each of which has a single warhead
on it.
Q
And what happens to the long-range bombers?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, under START
they are required to eliminate those systems under START in the
seven-year reduction period of START. By the way, I think one of
the important things about this statement and annex is that, as I
said, it gives us some definition now on this issue of what is
the earliest possible time. I am confident that we can
MORE
- 10 -
significantly beat the seven-year START reduction period for a
lot of these systems based on what they' re willing to commit to
now on early deactivation.
But let me get back to your question on how you
eliminate systems under START. Under START they can eliminate
those bombers by cutting them up, otherwise destroying them, or
they can convert them to conventional platforms. And that 18 --
they have to decide how they' re going to do that. That was all
worked out as part of the Lisbon deal.
Q Will those airplanes belong to Ukraine?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.
Я
Could you clarify one point on the SS-24s? In
the first 10 months do they get dismantled or -- rather
deactivated, or do they get deactivated and moved to Russia?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: They get
deactivated by having their warheads removed. And some of their
warheads start moving back to Russia. We begin a process of
warhead transfer that will continue. Some of that is dependent
on the availability of transport capability. By the way, that's
one of the things we helped them with under Nunn-Lugar --
containers and that type of things, rail cars. So part of it
will depend upon capacity and part of it depends on how fast they
can actually move the systems.
Q
How difficult or time-consuming would it be for
Ukraine 1f it still had SS-24 warheads on its territory at some
point to reinstall those before the final transfers are
completed?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, don't forget
the way the SRF works in Ukraine these days is that those systems
are still under the control of -- well, it's very difficult to
say because the SRF guys are professional rocket forces officers,
most of whom have sworn allegiance to Ukraine. But we hear again
and again from both the Ukrainian and the Russian sides that they
continue to work very closely with their colleagues in Moscow. I
think it would be, to me -- I just don't know. It's a very
difficult question to think about, but it gets to the question of
how you're going to handle those personnel. And really I think
those personnel once deactivation begins to occur will not be
really in a position to get them back on the missiles.
Q
To what extent does the Zhirinovsky factor
drive this thing to conclusion here this week?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think it was an
economic issue -- the crisis in the --
Q
The deactivation, detargeting; not the Ukraine
issue. To what extent does the Zhirinovsky factor drive this
deal to a conclusion?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't think at
all. Not at all. Not at all. It. really had to do with, as I
said, some overall strategic confidence-building measures that
have long been talked about between the two sides. And this was
just a very good opportunity to do so. And also in the context
of what we were doing with Ukraine, it was an additional kind of
beneficial effect for the Ukrainians.
Q
This is the third time by my count that
Kravchuk has solemnly signed a document promising to get rid of
Ukraine's nuclear weapons -- at least three times, including
Lisbon, but Lisbon was only the second time. And each time, the
deadlines change. I'd like to ask you, in terms of your sense of
Ukrainian politics, do you expect him to bring this up for
ratification to this Rada or to wait until the new elections?
MORE
JAN-15-1994 14:09
MINSK STAFF ADMANCE
06502 F.022
- 11 -
And if so, aren't you worried that same process that happened in
Russia in the parliamentary elections will happen in Ukraine,
where after all there's hyperinflation and real economic
problems?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think, first of
all, let me say that I think that we are feeling very good about
this agreement because, as I said, it breaks lose the kind of
stalling that occurred with Lisbon. And it does that in two
ways. First of all, there are some real incentives for the
Ukrainian Parliament and for the Ukrainian people overall.
But the Parliament had expressed its concern in
particular ways and done so very openly over the last couple of
months. We know exactly what those concerns are. And the
statement deals with those concerns. We know that President
Kravchuk is going to go back, confer very closely with his
Parliament and basically talk them through it and show them that
their concerns have been met. That's number one.
And number two, we had started in the summer to work
very closely with the Ukrainians. You may remember when Les
Aspin went in June. We first broached the idea of an early
deactivation initiative just as the United States is deactivating
systems that would come down under START I, and Russia is doing
so. We suggested that Ukraine might wish to join in an early
deactivation initiative as well. And they have shown us in
concrete ways that they are willing to do SO. I said we've seen
120 SS-19 warheads come off missiles. And we have begun to see
that same process unfold with the S8-24s. so I think that
there's good reason to feel confident.
Q
If I could, just the specific question -- do
you expect him to bring this up for ratification for this Rada or
to wait for new elections to another one, which after all are in
March?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question of
whether it has to be ratified or not as START is ratified is a
subject for discussion between Kravchuk and his Parliament. I
know because he has told us that he is going to confer with them
very, very closely.
I said the other night, I think, that you have to
recall that Lisbon, START I, NPT are nested very closely together
with this statement which, in fact, as I said, fulfills some of
the desiderata or some of the requirements that the desiderata
had. so whether he uses it essentially as a mechanism for
conferring with them or uses it in some other way, I just can't
-- I know he's going to do the first; I don't know what else will
happen.
Q
They haven't ratified START I in the sense that
you believe it to be ratified, is it?.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I didn't say
anything different from that. I mean, I did not say that I
believe that they ratified it.
Q
Why is this thing called a statement and not an
agreement? He keeps saying agreement and you keep saying it's a
statement. What is the difference between a statement and an
agreement?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: A statement of this
kind is standard diplomatic practice. When you have a commitment
of three presidents in this case, it is associated, as I said,
with START I and the Lisbon Protocol, which is an integral part.
They are integral documents and this statement is associated with
that in such a way as to move forward the implementation of
Lisbon and the overall implemontation After it enters into force
of START I.
MORE
- 12 -
so it's essentially a mechanism and a standard
diplomatic mechanism to move forward obligations that in this
case, by the commitment of the Presidents of these three
countries. Not only President Kravchuk, I might add, but
President Yeltsin of Russia and our own President, President
Clinton. so there are three presidents associated with this
document.
O: So it's not this that has to be ratified, it's
START I that has to be ratified.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.
Q
And then the seven years begins once the
ratification is complete?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The obligations --
the time frame obligations undertaken here, that is to deactivate
all SS-24s by 10 months, is from the date of signature of this
document, January 14, 1994. EIF of START, entry into force of
START starts that clock running.
Q
A statement is less than an agreement? It's
what you'd --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't know if
it's less an agreement --
Q
Doesn't anybody know?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's a different
kind of diplomatic mechanism.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just try to
address your question. It is in writing called a statement. But
when three presidents sit in front of the whole world and all of
you and sign something and commit themselves to it -- and we've
gone through months of negotiations that are represented in a
very detailed annex, that have very specific commitments that
need to be matched, that is an agreement, that is a commitment
that one country makes to another. In this case, the three
countries make to each other.
so what's lying in back of your question as I hear
it is, is there some way that this is kind of less than an
agreement that countries have to agree to? No, it's not. This
is something -- this is an agreement between three countries
represented in a statement, if you will. that all three of the
countries expect will be adhered to. And we take that seriously
and Kravchuk does, as well.
X
I'm sure they take it all seriously, but if
what you say was true it could have been the "North American Free
Trade Statement" and the "North Atlantic Statement Organization.'
I mean, it's clear that this language is not chosen randomly.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We did not sit down
and try to think of a word that would confuse you or a word that
would mean something less than certainty.
α
why did you choose this word?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We sat down and we
negotiated an agreement, a series of commitments as represented
in that annex among three countries. And so in reality, we
expect that this will be carried out and the commitments will be
adhered to, and that is what is most important.
Q
And so what you're saying -- can you answer one
more question? How does this differ from their agreement to sign
the Lisbon Protocol, for example, other than that President
MORE
- 13 -
Clinton is now two other Presidents watched him say he was
going to -- what's the difference?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There's another way
to come at the question that I've heard several people answer,
and that is the Lisbon Protocol and START and the NPT already
exist. That is a treaty regime. There is and existing treaty
regime that is, really this statement, this commitment of the
three presidents, both reconfirms and gives a push forward. And
that is it's overall value. There is an existing treaty regime.
We didn't need to do Lisbon over again.
what we needed to do was give a kick-start to Lisbon
and that is what this statement and its annex does, particularly,
I must say, I think as I said, there's a certain genius to
this three-corner deal because it really does get the process of
warhead transfer going in a way that clearly provides incentives
for the two parties in question, Ukraine and Russia.
Q
And the only public thing you've said about the
warhead transfer process is the 24s and the ten months?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's a combination
of SS-19 and SS-24's -- 200 of them in 10 months.
Q
What's the state of free trade after this
between the two countries? What are the barriers on each side?
And is the volume of trade supposed to increase in either or both
directions?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question is
what is the status of free trade and the restrictions on each
side. This is in many ways one of the more important long term
issues in the relationship because if the Russian economy is
going to grow and privatize, they've got to find a way to reduce
their barriers to trade. And I think it's fair to say that the
West had to find a way to reduce it's barriers to trade with the
import of Russian products.
There was a general discussion in the economic
meeting of this subject. President Yeltsin raised it and
President Clinton had a number of ideas on how we could work
together. And as you saw in the press conference today,
President Yeltsin had a number of things to say about it. so
very important. We're hoping to expand trade and investment and
by giving it a higher profile and by knocking down barriers on
both sides.
9 What are some of the existing U.S. barriers and
what were some of President Clinton's ideas to eliminate them?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, there had
been a barrier of -- Russia had not had access to the generalized
system of preferences. It now does as a result of Vancouver.
And this is preferential treatment for Russian exports to the
United States and in 44,000 categories, Russia now has duty free
access. Just in the last couple of months that it did not have
before and that is a very specific thing that we have done.
In addition, we have signed a bilateral investment
treaty which provides for national treatment and that needs to be
ratified now by the Russian Parliament.
I think it's fair to say that our dumping laws, in
many respects, restrict the access of Russian, the export of
Russian commodities to the United States and that's been a real
problem with uranium and aluminum and steel and potash and other
areas.
on the other side of the ledger, there are a number
of regulatory and tax barriers that inhibit our companies from
trading and investing, we think on a fair basis. so there WAR an
MORE
OFFICE
- 14 -
agreement that Vice President Gore and Vice President
Chernomyrdin would continue to work on these issues.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
2:53 P.M. (L)
JAN-15-1994 13:47
MINSH STAFF ADVANCE
36502 F.006
Pool Report #38
Moscow
January 14, 1994
A) Clinton-Yeltsin Bilateral at Kremlin
B) Clinton-Yeltsin Signing Ceremony at Kremlin
C) Mark Gearan on success of Clinton foreign policy team
D) Gearan discussing Clinton's efforts to deal with death of his
mother
A) Clinton-Yeltsin Bilateral: Pool escorted into st. Catherine's
Hall inside the onion-domed Kremlin Grand Palace to see Clinton
and Yeltsin enter, shake hands and sit down for their final
bilateral. Clinton, who saw Yeltsin moments earlier at the
trilateral with Kravchuk, still offered Yeltsin a hearty Good
morning, with a handshake for the cameras.
A tone of impatience prevailed. ``I suggest we begin this session
on international affairs, Yeltsin told the president in Russian
as the pair sat down with their respective delegations seated
across from each other at the white oval table. Seconds after
taking his seat, Clinton gave the finger whirl to signal aides it'
was time to escort the media out of the barrel vaulted, gilded
chamber.
St. Catherine's Hall is a long, rectangular room honoring the
Order of St. Catherine, the lone Russian order that honors women.
The order was founded by Peter the Great to honor Catherine the
Great who bought his freedom when he was held hostage as a child.
(See Russian history if you want more.)
B) Clinton-Yeltsin signing Ceremony: Clinton and Yeltsin
descended a red-carpeted stairway to take their seats at an
ornate white and gilded table in domed St. Vladimir's Hall, site
of the Nixon-Brezhnev signing of SALT I in the early 1970s and
START II by Bush and Yeltsin last January. A rank of aides
flanked each leader. The American and Russian flag stood behind
the table. Clinton and Yeltsin signed the Moscow Declaration
subsequently distributed by the White House Press Office. The
sparse audience applauded. They rose and shook hands, both
beaming.
Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Russian Foreign
Minister Andrey Kozyrev then took their places at the table to
sign four separate documents, also released by the press office.
Hand shakes and applause followed.
Waiters arrived with trays of champagne and an unidentified
non-alcoholic juice. Clinton and Yeltsin and most of the
dignitaries up front chose champagne. The officials clinked
glasses but there were no formal toasts. Clinton and Yeltsin
JAN-15-1994 13:48
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.007
Pool#38
chatted through an interpreter with several other officials
joining them.
As the pool exited, the sound of a breaking glass echoed through
the arched and domed hall. Georgi Arbatov of the U.S. -Canada
Institute either dropped a glass or knocked one off a waiter's
tray.
C) Mark Gearan spoke to the pool at St. Vladimir's Hall before
the signing ceremony about the strength of the Clinton foreign
policy team.
Secretary of state Warren Christopher has done a very able job
setting the context'' for Clinton's successes here in Europe,
Gearan said. Every initiative adopted by NATO was a U.S.
initiative sold successfully to our 16 allies, Gearan said.
(15 plus the U.S.) Gearan hailed the efforts of Christopher,
Lake, Talbott and Gore (who worked the Ukraine deal) What they
accomplished speaks well of this team, Gearan said.
Gearan said the president's visit across Europe found keen
interest in a prominent U.S. role. People are thirsty for
American leadership,' Gearan said. with the position of the
country we're in right now (i.e. Russia), given the world order,
Christopher saw the opportunity that arose for the U.S.
leadership. He did a good job. (Gearan said Clinton had no
reaction to Christopher's nod off during the Brussels town hall
speech. Gearan said he was with Clinton after the speech and the
president made no mention of the snooze to Christopher.)
D) Gearan spoke at some length about Clinton's efforts to focus
on the affairs of state days after burying his mother in Hope,
Ark. Gearan reiterated again how moved Clinton was by the
priest's invitation to light a candle in his mother's memory at
Kazansky Cathedral, the 17th century Russian Orthodox church
Clinton visited Wednesday.
Clinton also has reminisced with McLarty about the friends and
acquaintances who turned out for the funeral service last
Saturday in Hot Springs, Ark., Gearan said. The coincidental
visit to Moscow by Carolyn staley, Clinton's school chum, also
has helped the president, Gearan said. staley, who was in MOSCOW
to sing with the orchestra conducted by Sarah Caldwell when
Virginia Kelley died, flew home for the funeral and then returned
to resume her concert schedule. Clinton saw Staley Wednesday
night at the reception at the residence of U.S. Ambassador Thomas
Pickering.
I think the president believes his mother understood his job
and wanted him to do the best job he can, Gearan said. Clinton
spoke with his mother by telephone the evening she died. The
president knew his mother was failing, Gearan said. His mother
would want him to get about the important business he's doing so
even the social events (on this trip) have been maintained,
Gearan said.
Stewart Powell -- Hearst Newspapers
JAN-15-1994 13:42
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.001
January 14, 1994
Pool Report #33
MOSCOW - Spaso
Clinton motorcade left hotel at 4:20 p.m. for 15 minute drive
to Central Clinical Hospital, where he paid a 30 minute visit to
the ailing Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Alexy II. Nestled
in a sylvan park-like district, the hospital is normally used
for government officials and ordinary people, according to a
Russian security man on the scene.
Motorcade with blue lights spinning then sped to Spaso House
for reception. Motorcade pool was fed sandwiches while Clinton
talked to guests. Then we were put in an adjoining room while he
spoke at 6:30. To speak, he stood between two massive white
marble Ionic pillars in the ornate vaulted reception hall. No
Russian responded to his remarks.
Embassy staffers told the pool that about 180 guests were
invited, along with about 50 embassy and traveling U.S. staff. To
the pool, it seemed the crowd was smaller. Among those seen by
the pool was Communist Party of Russia General Secretary Gennady
Zuganov, 49, the leader of the Communist fraction in the Duma.
We looked for, but did not see, the Liberal Democratic Party's
foreign policy chief, Aleksei Mitrofanov, who was on the
invitation list. It turned out that the LDP sent a 25-year-old
junior figure in the party, Maxim Travkin, in place of
Mitrofanov. As expected, Zhirinovsky was nowhere to be seen.
Other guests sighted by the pool included: Yevgeny Primakov,
head of the Foreign Intelligence Service; Boris Nemtsov, governor
in Nizhny Novgorod; the priest Gleb Yakunin, a pro-Yelsin deputy
in the Duma; Aleksander Yakovlev, the new head of Ostankino state
television; Yelena Bonner; anti-Yeltsin Duma member Sergei
Baburin; Vitaly Tretyakov, chief editor of Nezavisimaya Gazeta;
former Moscow Mayor Gavril Popov; Yeltsin's national security
advisor, Yuri Baturin.
Among those NOT seen by the pool were invitees Yeltsin,
Viktor Chernomyrdin and First Deputy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar.
Following Spaso reception, motorcade drove northward 30
minutes to a Russian guest house where Yeltsin received Clinton
for dinner. Pool was held phoneless outside gates. One press-
handling agent said the Russians denied White House requests to
install hard-wired phone lines for Clinton and the press. The
agent said, They wouldn't let us drop one line. He said the
president relied while at the guest house on Roadrunner, the
black step van that accompanies the president and provides secure
uplinks to Imarsat and military satellites.
Stay tuned for the next pool report from inside the guest
house that will have some Clinton and Yeltsin quotes. From what I
overheard from TV folk, Yeltsin said that the day was spent
mostly on discussions of economic questions.
Albright, Cox Newspapers Moscow Bureau.
JAN-15-1994 13:43
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.002
January 13, 1994
Pool Report #32
MOSCOW
This report covers the president's two meetings with Yeltsin, a
(subfreezing) walk around the kremlin, a bit of spin from
Yeltsin's spokeman, shopping at two shops, and a walk through Red
Square.
The president drove though the Kremlin gate at 9:10. After
initial greeting (seen by other pool), the went to their one-on-
one talks in the Green Room, one of the three formal meetings
rooms in the palace connected to each other in a row.
Entering from opposite sides, Yelstin had a big, big smile as
they shook hands and sat down. Clinton accompanied by strobe
Talbott and interpreter. At little chit-chat. Clinton said in
response to a question, "I believe that we have a clear
opportunity to work together to build a new framework of security
for Europe based on free political systems, free economic systems
and nations that respect one another. And President Yeltsin has
been trying to do that here and he deserves the support of the
United states."
Yelstin said something that sounded like, "We are going to engage
in a joint enterprise in the interest of security and peace."
That meeting was followed by a walking tour of part of the
Kremlin past stakeout that had to wait 90 minutes in the 17
degree (f) temperatures for the photo op. 20 minute walk. Both
Clinton and Yeltsin were hatless, but wore their smiles.
Then they went into their expanded bilateral, held in the ornate
St. Catherine's Hall. The US side included Christopher, Bensten,
Talbott, Lake, Pickering, Summers. Russian side included PM
Chernomyrdin, Forn Min, Kozyrev and other top officials. They
were seated around a donut shaped table.
After taking their places, Yeltsin and Clinton fumbled for a
moment with earphones which they thought would be used for
translations. Someone told Yeltsin that they wouldn't be used and
there would be consecutive translation.
Yeltsin, seeking Clinton still trying to figure it out, waved
his hand and said "no, Bill (Beel), no, no." $0 we know they are
on a first name basis.
As we were being sent away, Yeltsin began by saying, "I'd like
to express my satisfaction at the outcome of the first round of
the one-on-one talks. We have discussed the current situation in
Russia after the elections to the federal assembly and
ratification of the new constitution, the economic situation, and
we also discussed the situation in the United States as seen by
the US president. We also discussed a number of other issued
related to bilateral relations."
While those talks were going on, Yeltsin's spokesman Vyacheslav
Kostikov held a brief, ad hoc briefing. The main point he seemed
to want to make is that the U.S. and Russia are equal partners,
as opposed to Russia being in a position where it has to plead
for American help. He made a remark, paraphrased here, about
after the elections Russia is now in the ranks of major
constitutional democracies. He made the point that Russia is more
and more a leading power and that the US now realizes that
without Russia it can't solve any of the major problems in
Europe.
He said that in the morning session, Yeltsin and Clinton
discussed the political situation in Russia, Clinton talked about
the relationship in the U.S. between the President and Congress,
and some mention of NATO and Partnership for Peace. Kostikov
expressed a view that P4P is an interesting concept but that it
remains a rather vaguely defined. He said that Yeltsin and
JAN-15-1994 13:45
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502
P.003
Clinton agreed that no new dividing line should be drawn through
Europe.
Clinton left the Kremlin at 2 pm, about an hour later than
scheduled. His 1:30pm meeting with Patriarch Aleksel II was
cancelled because of illness.
so it was press the flesh time. Clinton's motorcade stopped a
few blocks from the Kremlin, at a shopping street off Lubyanskaya
sq., home of the old KGB building. It was crowed with shoppers,
which turned into something of an enthusiastic mob scene when he
got out of his car. He went into a bread shop and a fish/meat
shop on Bolshaya Cherkasskaya, off Nikolsky St (spellings as
given). After the cheering and shoving of crowds on the street
who swarmed around his limo, Clinton went into a bread shop where
were waiting in line for bread and seemed largely unmoved by the
arrival of this American customer.
AFter walking around shaking hands, he went to the lady behind
the counter to ask for a loaf of bread. Dark or light, she wanted
to know. "Dark,' the president requested. She replied what
sounded like, "I would be better if you take the white bread, its
fresher. When brought one of each, he took the dark. He seemed
to have some rubles in his pocket to pay, but we were ushered
out.
In response to a pool question about Russian aid, Clinton said
he had given Yeltsin a kind of map showing where the aid has
gone, apparently by regions (oblasts). "WE talked about what we
could do to speed up the aid," Clinton said.
"All these folks working hard need to know that in the end they
will be rewarded," he said.
One woman remarked, "the Russian president never came here, but
the American President did."
From there, Clinton went a couple of door further and into a
store selling fish, meat (and Ultra slim Fast, according to a
sign behind the counter.) One man, who apparently saw the
president on the street and raced into the store ahead of him,
said to Clinton, "You look like John F. Kennedy."
After chit-chat with others, Clinton remarked "I've just
finished a meeting with your president talking about how we can
work together to make life better for the working people of your
country."
To one of the customers, Clinton said, "I want us to be friends.
We'll work together.'
A woman said, I guess in response, "I wish you success." said
Clinton, "We'll work hard."
One woman apparently said she was from siberia, which brought a
response from Clinton about work on US-Russian joint energy
ventures for siberia.
Clinton got back into the Limo, and drove a little further down
the street to the edge of Red Square. This time when he got out
he had a grey fur hat on. He headed over to Kazansky Cathedral,
where bellringers in the tower chimed the bells to mark his
arrival and later his departure. He remarked briefly on the
history of the church -- originally built in the 1600s, destroyed
in stalin era, newely rebuilt and rededicated--as he stood for
photo with Russian Orthodox priest (which perhaps sends the same
kind of message as the photo he wasn't able todo with the
Patriarch). Clinton made remarks that he had specifically
requested to go see the cathedral after hearing about his history
and its rebuilding. "It was very moving inside, the Christmas
season is still going on."
We didn't get into the Church, but he said afterwards that "the
priest took me to the side where people can pray for their
relatives." (You heard at the backgrounder that he lit a candle
to his mother). It was evident when he came out that it was an
emotional stop.
1-15-1994 13:46
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
- 3 ..
36502 P.004
(four iver
The he stood waving for a Kodak moment with the domes of St.
Basil's in the background. He did a brisk walk across Red square,
accompanied by Amb. Pickering.
A senior spinner who was trailing behind said that the morning
sessions had gone very well. "Their personal chemistry 18
excellent." He noted that the first sessions, the one on one, ran
about 30 minutes over schedule and the bigger session ran over by
50 minutes.
Atlas, Chicago Tribune
JAN-15-1994 13:46
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.005
January 14, 1994
Pool Report #39
Clinton arrived at the Ostankino TV Station at about 3:05 pm
for his debut Russian electronic town hall. The building is a
1960s era boxy thing, sort of a dingier version of the Department
of Transportation Bldg in Washington. On the third floor, next to
the entrance to the TV studio, a Jazz band with a red grand piano
was playing Moondance. The audience chosen for the event was
full of academics from Moscow state University, students,
political leaders and journalists. A broadcaster came out 10
minutes before Clinton appeared to ask the audience to ask to
have a microphone passed to them, rather than going to the center
of the room to bunching around a standing mike. We ask you not
to repeat the errors of the former Supreme Soviet and crowd the
mike," he joked. He instructed: Don't engage in a polemic with
the President. Among the government officials in the group were
aides to Andrei Kozyrev, foreign minister; Gavriil Popov, former
Moscow mayor, was present as well. The audience gave polite
applause to Hillary Clinton, who was ushered in just before
Clinton appeared, and sat in the fourth row. As you saw from the
broadcast, the audience was generally polite, though a few
students looked a bit bored as it ran on. AFterwards, some
audience members said they were impressed with the way Clinton
handled himself. Yuri Zinchenko, a member of the Moscow State
psychology faculty, said Clinton was very open. It is a great
difference from our own president. Zinchenko said he supported
Yeltsin more or less by default, because of a lack of any more
attractive leader. Maxim Woznyak, a medical student at MSU, said:
"I think I can believe him. He said he didn't think Clinton had
a perfect grasp of the intricacies of Russian politics, but
ventured that his advice to Russians was worth some attention
nonetheless. "He gave a good impression," said another young
student, a woman. liked him. He was very lively. She said
she had some reservations about him, but couldn't express them
because of her poor command of foreign languages. After chatting
with the crowd for about 10 minutes after the show, Clinton
headed off for a brief interview with Tom Brokaw.
The whole session is transcribed.
Paul Richter, LA Times
JAN-15-1994 13:50
MINSH STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.008
POOL REPORT # 37
TRILATERAL TREATY SIGNING
Clinton greeted Yeltsin by saying "Hello, Boris''
and shaking hands as they entered the opulent St. Catherine's
room in the Kremlin prior to the signing ceremony. They entered
the room from opposite doors accompanied by their entourages. As
Clinton walked to his seat, a pooler asked if this was a good
day.
"Good day'' affirmed the POTUS.
"How'd you like your dacha last night?, he was
asked.
"Nice humble little place," Clinton said.
Yeltsin began a statement this way: "We have got
together this day to put the last dot to the last problem of the
Cold War. We are gicing a great boost to the global nuclear
disarmament. We are cementing and consolidating the global non-
proliferation regime. And we are startin to use the peaecful
dividend of nuclear disarmament.'
Then your pool was kicked out until the ceremony 20
minutes later.
Before hitting that however, a note on St.
Catherines room, which is fit for Versailles. It is named after
Catherine I, wife of Tsar Peter the Great. She was captured by
Turks, but he bought her freedom and bestowed a religious order
for her enshrined in this room. Twelve giant squares mark the
walls, each ringed in red and gold borders, each crowned by what
appear to be diamond-encrusted medallions featuring Christ
holding a cross, but in fact represent Catherine. The medallions
were framed by a sash with the order's slogan: For Love and
Fatherland.
This room, which guards present said had remained
unchanged throughout the godless Soviet era, is so ornate that
being in it is like being inside a Christmas gift. Gilt trim
abounds. Giant slabs of white and green marble grace the walls.
Silver and gold chandeliers hang from the ceiling, stand on glass
pedastals, extend from the walls. The parquet floor featured an
elaborate diamond pattern. The doors featured elaborate carvings
of what seemed solid gold.
Clinton and Yeltsin faced each other across an oval
table of blond wood, open in the middle. Six sectins of mineral
water and Coke were placed around it. The arm chairs were of the
same blond wood (ash?) with beige cushions.
After a brief private talk, the leaders let the
press into the adjoining GREEN Room, which features wallls,
ceiling and carpet in shades of green patterns. Equally opulent,
with gilt everywhere, blinding chandeliers, etc
Clinton sat to Yeltsin's right, Kravchuk to his
left, the trio at a table where they signed the documents
committing the Ukraine to abolish its nuclear weapons.
After signing, the three stood, shook hands and
applauded themselves. They went in front of the table and took a
few questions.
Asked 1f Ukraine would lose authority along with its
weapons, Clinton said "of course not In the end this is a
question the Urkaine has to answer for itself My opinion is the
Ukraine will increase its authority," because by this act it has
increased the security of the United States and Russia.
Asked what timetable would be met for destruction of
the weapons, Clinton ducked, saying they had agreed that some
details would not be made public, but adding "I am completely
comfortable with the agreement."
Kravchuk was asked what Ukraine gets out of this
deal. He said "greater security," consistency in its policy,
compensation, and normal relations with other nations.
Clinton led Yeltsin and Kravchuk in a photogenic
threeway handshake at the end.
Rankin-Knight-Ridder
MINSH STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.009
POOL REPORT #36
Another View of the Tomb
January 14. 1994
More details of the wreath-laying as seen from the headon
position:
Pre-dawn gloom broken by 15 klieg lihgts. The red brick wall of
the Kremlin that Clinton faced as he stood before the wreath and
tomb was snow-covered. Above the wall loomed the ochre and white
wall of the Arsenal, which was lighted moments before Clinton
arrived. The treacherous ice on the dark-red stone walk was
spread with Kitty Litter-like material several times before
Clinton arrived, scattered about by a classic babushka, head
kerchief and all. A young woman swept water off the adjacent walk
with a giant squeegee.
The porphyry tomb is draped with a sculpted metal flag on a staff
and topped with a helmet. In a shallow pit in front of the tomb
is a five-point star from which blazes an eternal flame. In front
of the flame is the inscription which translates: "Your name is
unknown, but your glorious deeds are immortal."
To reach the tomb, Clinton and party walked through a grove of
birch and other trees and then past the block monuments,
glittering with frost under the flodlights. The "hero cities," in
the order they were passed by Clinton are: Smolensk, Murmansk,
Tula, Brest Fortress, Novorossisk, Kerch, Odessa, Sebastopol,
Volgograd, Minsk, Kiev, Leningrad.
The tomb is also a spot that brides and grooms visit on their
wedding day. why? "I don't know, just tradition," said an embassy
translator who said she, too, had made the trek when she was
married.
Clinton's overcoat was double-breasted. When he stepped in front
of the wreath, the ribbon he momentarily adjusted read "President
of the United States.' The wreath, a post-ceremony inspection
showed, was of red and white carnation with a few orange-red rose
buds and a lot of fir greenery as background.
As Clinton departed the garden, he stopped briefly to thank the
three-man crew that marched ahead of him with the wreath and two
officers.
Cragg Hines
Houston Chronicle
JAN-15-1994 13:52
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.010
Pool Report #35 Tomb of the Unknown
Friday, Jan. 14, 1994
President Clinton, hatless and wearing a long dark overcoat,
visited the black and red granite Tomb of the Unknown Soldier near
Red Square and adjacent to the Kremlin wall shortly after 8 a.m.
Friday. It was dark. The president's party included U.S. Ambassador
Thomas Pickering, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Treasury
Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, Marine officer Leo Mercado, the
president's military aide, Russian Foreign Minister Andrei V.
Kozyrev, and Russian Gen. Lt. Nikolayavich Smirnov, commandant of
the Moscow military garrison.
The president and his party walked into the north end of Alexander
Garden and along the Kremlin wall with the wall to their right,
following three goose-stepping Russian soldiers, two of whom were
bearing a wreath. The group walked solemnly between two rows of
Russian soldiers dressed in battleship-gray great coats standing
at attention and holding ceremonial rifles with glistening fixed
bayonets. An adjacent band played the Shuman March.
Clinton and the group then turned to right, mounted several steps
and stood before the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the eternal
flame that billowed atop a black granite slab. Two soldiers,
accompanied by Clinton, placed the wreath on a stand slightly to
the right of the tomb and the flame. Clinton stood alone before
the wreath for about 10 seconds with his head bowed and his hands
clasped at his waist before returning to the group. The band then
played the Star Spangled Banner and the Russian national anthem.
Military officers from both countries saluted during the two
anthems.
Clinton briefly spoke through a translator with Gen. Lt. Smirnov
for several moments after the ceremony before shaking hands and
leaving with his party to drive into the Kremlin for his last
bi-lateral with Yeltsin. The memorial commemorates Soviet losses
during what is locally described as the Great Fatherland War from
1941 to 1945. Completed in 1967, the memorial contains the remains
of soldiers who died in the defense of Moscow in 1941 when Soviet
resistance and winter repelled Nazi invaders from the outskirts of
Moscow. Earth from cities awarded the designation Hero city'' for
their roles during World War II is contained in a series of stone
blocks adjacent to the memorial.
The inscription on the memorial reads: Your name is unknown but
your deed is eternal.
Stewart Powell -- Hearst Newspapers
Walter Shapiro -- Esquire
JAN-14-1994 15:57
MINSK PRESS OFFICE
36503 P.001/001
Pool #43
Minsk, Belarus
1-15-93
3:20pm
Clinton at Victory Square
Clinton arrived at Victory Square, the monument to victims of
World War II, in the center of Minsk at 2:20 pr. in a 32-vehicle
motorcade led by eight motorcycle police. The monument is a
plinth to Russians who liberated Belarus and has an eternal flame
in front. The square W88 lined with more soldiers than citizens
until just before Clinton arrived but many more people were held
more than a block away so they couldn't see him. A banner across
the square said in English "We warmly welcome the President of
the United States of America".
As CLinton arrived, 2 military band played a funeral dirge and
Clinton walked behind two soldiers carrying a large wreath with
white roses. Clinton looked solemn and walked with measured step
beside Shuskevich and Kebich. The soldiers placed the wreath
against the foot of the monument. Clinton bent over and
rearranged blue white and red ribbons on the wreath.
The band played the Star Spangled and the Belarus National anthem
and Clinton began working the crowd, bareheaded and no gloves.
Shushkevich told his friend that he wished he could get a
reaction like Clinton did. so many people pressed forward that
the Secret Service agents told a state Dept guy to get on the PA
from the President's limo and tell them not to panic and not to
push, over and over again. Clinton shook around 200 hands and
seemed delighted at the response. Asked about his reception he
said to the pool, "Amazing; it's great".
Dee Dee Myers said ON BACKGROUND that the Communists did not want
Clinton to go to the Kuropaty Memorial and the compromise was
that Clinton would go at the end of his visit instead of at the
start of his visit. Photograohers worried that the delay might
make the light too bad for good pictures.
As Clinton got into his motorcade to go to the national academy
of sciences several in the crowd called, "God Bless You" in
English. Clinton said "Thank you" and waved a US and Belarus
flag. People lined the street all the way to his speech site,
several blocks, and waved and cheered. They even cheered the
press.
Anne McFeatters, Scripps Howard
Bob Cohn, Newsweek
JAN-15-1994 14:53
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.022
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
TRILATERAL STATEMENT BY
THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
Presidents Clinton, Yeltsin and Kravchuk met in Moscow on
January 14. The three Presidents reiterated that they will deal
with one another as full and equal partners and that relations
among their countries must be conducted on the basis of respect
for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
each nation.
The three Presidents agreed on the importance of developing
mutually beneficial, comprehensive and cooperative economic
relations. In this connection, they welcomed the intention of
the United States to provide assistance to Ukraine and Russia to
support the creation of effective market economies.
The three Presidents reviewed the progress that has been made in
reducing nuclear forces. Deactivation of strategic forces is
already well underway in the United States, Russia and Ukraine.
The Presidents welcomed the ongoing deactivation of RS-18s
(SS-19s) and RS-22s (SS-24s) on Ukrainian territory by having
their warheads removed.
The Presidents look forward to the entry into force of the
START I Treaty, including the Lisbon Protocol and associated
documents, and President Kravchuk reiterated his commitment that
Ukraine accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-
nuclear-weapon state in the shortest possible time. Presidents
Clinton and Yeltsin noted that entry into force of START I will
allow them to seek early ratification of START II. The
Presidents discussed, in this regard, steps their countries would
take to resolve certain nuclear weapons questions.
The Presidents emphasized the importance of ensuring the safety
and security of nuclear weapons pending their dismantlement.
The Presidents recognize the importance of compensation to
Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus for the value of the highly-
enriched uranium in nuclear warheads located on their
territories. Arrangements have been worked out to provide fair
and timely compensation to Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus as the
nuclear warheads on their territory are transferred to Russia for
dismantling.
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin expressed satisfaction with the
completion of the highly-enriched uranium contract, which was
signed by appropriate authorities of the United States and
Russia. By converting weapons-grade uranium into uranium which
can only be used for peaceful purposes, the highly-enriched
uranium agreement is a major step forward in fulfilling the
countries' mutual non-proliferation objectives.
JAN-15-1994 14:54
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.023
2
The three Presidents decided on simultaneous actions on transfer
of nuclear warheads from Ukraine and delivery of compensation to
Ukraine in the form of fuel assemblies for nuclear power
stations.
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin informed President Kravchuk that
the United States and Russia are prepared to provide security
assurances to Ukraine. In particular, once the START I Treaty
enters into force and Ukraine becomes a non-nuclear-weapon state
party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United
States and Russia will:
-- Reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the
principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the
independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of the
CSCE member states and recognize that border changes can be
made only by peaceful and consensual means; and reaffirm
their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, and that none of their weapons will ever be
used except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations;
-- Reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the
principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic
coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the
exercise by another CSCE participating state of the rights
inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of
any kind;
-- Reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate UN Security
Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-
nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT, if Ukraine should
become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a
threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used; and
-- Reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to
use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state
party to the NPT, except in the case of an attack on
themselves, their territories or dependent territories,
their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in
association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin informed President Kravchuk that
consultations have been held with the United Kingdom, the third
depositary state of the NPT, and the United Kingdom is prepared
to offer the same security assurances to Ukraine once it becomes
a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT.
President Clinton reaffirmed the United States commitment to
provide technical and financial assistance for the safe and
secure dismantling of nuclear forces and storage of fissile
materials. The United States has agreed under the Nunn-Lugar
program to provide Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus with
nearly USD 800 million in such assistance, including a minimum of
USD 175 million to Ukraine. The United States Congress has
authorized additional Nunn-Lugar funds for this program, and the
United States will work intensively with Russia, Ukraine,
JAN-15-1994 14:56
MINEK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.024
3
Kazakhstan and Belarus to expand assistance for this important
purpose. The United States will also work to promote rapid
implementation of the assistance agreements that are already in
place.
For the United States of America:
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
For Ukraine:
LEONID KRAVCHUK
For the Russian Federation:
BORIS YELTSIN
36502 P.025
ANNEX TO THE JANUARY 14 TRILATERAL STATEMENT BY
THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
The three Presidents decided that, to begin the process of
compensation for Ukraine, Russia will provide to Ukraine within
ten months fuel assemblies for nuclear power stations containing
100 tons of low-enriched uranium. By the same date, at least 200
nuclear warheads from RS-18 (SS-19) and RS-22 (SS-24) missiles
will be transferred from Ukraine to Russia for dismantling.
Ukrainian representatives will monitor the dismantling of these
warheads. The United States will provide USD 60 million as an
advance payment to Russia, to be deducted from payments due to
Russia under the highly-enriched uranium contract. These funds
would be available to help cover expenses for the transportation
and dismantling of strategic warheads and the production of fuel
assemblies.
All nuclear warheads will be transferred from the territory of
Ukraine to Russia for the purpose of their subsequent dismantling
in the shortest possible time. Russia will provide compensation
in the form of supplies of fuel assemblies to Ukraine for the
needs of its nuclear power industry within the same time period.
Ukraine will ensure the elimination of all nuclear weapons,
including strategic offensive arms, located on its territory in
accordance with the relevant agreements and during the seven-year
period as provided by the START I Treaty and within the context
of the Verkhova Rada Statement on the non-nuclear status of
Ukraine. All SS-24s on the territory of Ukraine will be
deactivated within ten months by having their warheads removed.
Pursuant to agreements reached between Russia and Ukraine in
1993, Russia will provide for the servicing and ensure the safety
of nuclear warheads and Ukraine will cooperate in providing
conditions for Russia to carry out these operations.
Russia and the United States will promote the elaboration and
adoption by the IAEA of an agreement placing all nuclear
activities of Ukraine under IAEA safeguards, which will allow the
unimpeded export of fuel assemblies from Russia to Ukraine for
Ukraine's nuclear power industry.
# # #
JAN-15-1994 14:57
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.026
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Moscow, Russia)
For Immediate Release
TRILATERAL STATEMENT AND ANNEX: SUMMARY
The Trilateral Statement and Annex signed by Presidents Yeltsin,
Kravchuk and Clinton represent a significant victory for all
three countries. They culminate a trilateral process begun last
summer -- at U.S. initiative -- to assist Russia and Ukraine in
resolving the complex questions regarding nuclear weapons located
on Ukrainian territory.
The Statement and Annex provide for transfer of all nuclear
weapons in Ukraine to Russia for dismantlement; specify prompt
compensation by Russia to Ukraine for the highly-enriched uranium
(HEU) in transferred nuclear weapons; preview security assurances
the U.S., Russia and United Kingdom will provide Ukraine on its
accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear
weapons state; and reaffirm U.S. commitment to assist the safe
and secure dismantlement of nuclear forces.
The Presidents look forward to early entry-into-force of START I,
including the Lisbon Protocol and associated documents, which
commit Ukraine to accede to the NPT in the shortest possible time
and eliminate all nuclear arms on its territory.
The Presidents note that arrangements have been worked out to
provide Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus with fair and timely
compensation for the value of the HEU in nuclear weapons on their
territory. For its part, Ukraine will receive compensation
simultaneously with the transfer of weapons to Russia.
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin informed President Kravchuk of the
security assurances the U.S., Russia and United Kingdom (the NPT
depositary states) will provide Ukraine once START I enters into
force and Ukraine joints the NPT. These include commitments: to
respect Ukraine's independence and sovereignty and refrain from
the threat or use of force against it; to refrain from economic
coercion; to seek UN Security Council assistance if Ukraine
should be the object of a threat involving nuclear weapons; and
not to use nuclear weapons against it.
President Clinton reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to assist the
safe and secure dismantlement of nuclear forces. The U.S. has to
date agreed to provide almost 800 million dollars in Nunn-Lugar
funds for projects in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus.
Additional funds have been authorized by Congress.
JAN-15-1994 14:58
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.027
The Annex records the three President's decision to take certain
steps within ten months. These include: provision to Ukraine of
fuel assemblies containing 100 tons of low-enriched uranium (to
begin the process of compensation) ; transfer of at least 200
warheads from SS-19 and SS-24 missiles for dismantlement; and an
advance payment of 60 million dollars to Russia against the HEU
contract to help defer costs of transporting and disassembling
warheads and to produce fuel assemblies.
In the context of eliminating all strategic arms on its territory
within the seven-year period specified in START I and the Lisbon
documents, Ukraine has agreed to deactivate all SS-24s on its
territory by having their warheads removed.
# # #
Selected Regional Distribution of the Vancouver Initiatives for Russia
Humanitarian and Health Assistance
Private Sector Development
10
Democracy Corps
Energy and Environment
Officer Resettlement
$
Trade and Investment
1
Security Assistance
0611
06111
Murmansk
St. Petersburg
BONS
61
Magadan
Kaliningrad
0611
BONS
Petropaviovsk-
Arkhangel'sk
ONE
Kamchatskiy
Vorkuta
BON
605
ns
Yakutsk
Smolensk
BONESI
Komi
Russia
0617
Moscow
*
Sakhalin
BONES
Oblast
610
Tula
Nizhnly Novgorod
Tyumen'
Oblast
611
8612
BONES
Rostov
Saratov
Yekaterinburg
BONE
Khabarovsk
Occupted by the
610$
Soviet Union in 1945.
administered by Russia,
Tomsk
claimed by Jepen.
blass
610$
ONL
0611
Volgograd
Novosibirsk.
Stavropol'
ONL
Chita
Biroblian
Irkutsk
(Yevrey AO)
061
(Jewish AOI
Barnaul
56113
N
Vladivostok
Kabardino-
Balkaria
0
800 Kilometers
0
800 Miles
Boundery representation is not necessarily authoritative.
730738 (R00635) 1-04
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 14, 1994
SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION GROUP
President Clinton today named Michael Gillette as the first
Director of the Support Implementation Group (SIG), a group
established by the G-7 countries to improve the implementation of
multilateral support efforts for Russia. Mr. Gillette, 56, is a
graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and a Rhodes
Scholar. He has a long and distinguished record of public
service in the U.S. military, government and in the World Bank.
The SIG grew out of discussions between Presidents Clinton and
Yeltsin at the April 1993 Vancouver Summit. There, the two
leaders identified the need to establish a mechanism to ensure
more timely disbursement of external support for Russian reform.
After the Vancouver Summit, the U.S. took the lead in working
with its G-7 partners and proposed the creation of the SIG.
The establishment of the SIG was endorsed by the G-7 Heads of
State in July at the Tokyo Economic Summit. The group held its
inaugural session in Moscow in September 1993 and has met seven
times since then. Senior economic counselors of the G-7
Embassies in Moscow make up the permanent membership of the SIG.
Representatives of the IMP and World Bank, based in Moscow, have
also participated in SIG meetings.
The Russian Government has established a committee, under the
supervision of Finance Minister Fedorov, to ensure effective
cooperation with the SIG. This cooperative effort has already
yielded practical results, allowing the SIG to document some of
the principal obstacles to the flow of external support.
JAN-13-1994 17:59
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.001
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Prague, Czech Republic)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
AND PRESIDENT VACLAV HAVEL OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC
First Courtyard
Prague Castle
Prague, Czech Republic
6:50 P.M. (L)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much. First, I
want to express my thanks to President Havel for his warm
welcome. I'm coming back to Prague only for the second time in
my life. I was here 24 years ago in this same week, in a very
different role in life.
I have been deeply impressed by the progress made by
the Czech Republic, and was deeply impressed by the meeting I had
today with the President and the Prime Minister and with other
leaders of the government. I reaffirmed the fact that the
security of this Republic, and of the nations of Central and
Eastern Europe are important to the security of the United States
and to Europe and to the Atlantic Alliance; that the Partnership
For Peace is the beginning of a genuine security relationship
which can lead to full membership in NATO; and that we must also
be mindful of the economic dimension of security. For it is
difficult for nations to pursue good policies and to reflect
democratic values unless they can also offer the hope of success
to the people within their borders who work hard, obey the law
and try to contribute to the welfare of society.
so we talked about these things, and I look forward
to talking tomorrow with all the leaders who will be here
together in perhaps somewhat more specific terms about what we
can do to further both these objectives. But I am very
encouraged by this meeting tonight, and I thank President Havel
for his support for the Partnership For Peace.
Q
(Asked in Czech.)
THE PRESIDENT: That issue has not been resolved, so
since it was not discussed one way or the other, I suppose it iss
theoretically possible. NATO 1s a security alliance in which all
the members undertake to assume certain responsibilities for the
welfare of the entire group. One of the things I want to
emphasize about the Partnership For Peace is a security
relationship that will permit immediately the military commanders
of NATO to begin to work with the military leaders of each
country involved in the Partnership, to look at joint training,
to look at joint exercises, to deal with the whole range of
issues which will help to move toward membership.
Q
President Havel, sir, can you tell us how
concerned are you about the rise of ultranationalists and
communists in the parliamentary elections in Russia? Does that
cast a cloud over this region?
PRESIDENT HAVEL: (Answers in Czech.)
END
6:53 P.M. (L)
JAN-13-1994 17:53
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.002
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office o: the Press Secretary
(MOSCOW, Russia)
For Immediate Release
January 13. 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT CLINTON
AND PRESIDENT YELTSIN
IN OFFICIAL GREETING CEREMONY
St. George's Hall
The Kremlin
MOSCOW. Russia
9:16 A.M. (L)
PRESIDENT YELTSIN: Mr. President of the United
states of America, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you as a
most honored guest of the Russian Federation. You begin this
day's official business in the famous and legendary Georgian Room
of the Grand Kremlin Palace, which has names of some of Russia's
best sons inscribed on its walls. And I believe that this is a
good omen for the coming discussions that we're going to have.
I very well remember the first meeting that we had
in Vancouver where we laid the foundations for U.S. -Russia
partnership and also for our personal rapport and friendship.
And I believe that we have every reason to think that the comine
discussions will be even more profound, more practical and more
sweeping in nature.
= also believe that you will take back from your
visit to Russia a very good memory. And I'm sure that as you
meet people here, they will also remember you very well and your
stay here. so, Mr. President, welcome to Russia. Welcome to
MOSCOW.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you. Well. Mr. President.
I am delighted to see you again and deeply honored to be in this
magnificent hall, which is a great testimony to the rich history,
the leadership and the greatness of your nation -- the greatness
that has been demonstrated again by the remarkable changes over
which you have presided in the last two years.
I have just come from a set of historic meetings
that we'll have a chance to talk about, meetings which make it
clear that Russia and the United states must work together to
build a new future for Europe on which a new future for our
entire world depends.
I believe that together we can work to lead a new
security for Europe based on democratic values, free economies,
the respect for nations for one another. We will be discussing
the specific things we can do to keep the economic reform going
in Russia and to help the Russian people to realize the benefits
of the courageous changes that have been going on: to use the
Partnership For Peace to develop mutual security all across
Europe and for the first time in all of history to have a Europe
that is not divided by an artificial line between peoples; and to
work toward the historic agreement that you and I will sign with
President Kravchuk on Friday to make the world a safer place with
fewer nuclear weapons.
These are the ways in which. under your leadership,
your nation is defining its greatness. And I am very pleased to
be here to work on these things with you. (Applause.)
END
9:21 A.M. (L)
TOTAL P.002
JAN-13-1994 18:00
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.002
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Prague, Czech Republic)
For Immediate Release
January 12, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN PHOTO OPPORTUNITY WITH PRESIDENT KOVAC OF SLOVAKIA
Library
U.S. Ambassador's Residence
Prague, Czech Republic
11:06 A.M. (L)
Q
President Clinton, what's been the reception so
far to what you have brought to these nations?
THE PRESIDENT: So far, so good.
Q
No objections, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: We've had three different
conversations, of course, and this will be the fourth. And each
of them, although leaders can characterize them for themselves,
but I have been very pleased so far.
Q
Have they raised security issues with you, that
they are worried that if there should be some kind of resurgence
in Russia that they feel protected, or are they still worried
about this?
THE PRESIDENT: NO one has said that they expect
something like that in the near future. What no one knows is
whether the future of Europe will be like its past or if it will
be different.
2
Are you saying that all have accepted the
Partnership so far?
THE PRESIDENT: You'll have to ask them when we do
the press conference.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
11:07 A.M. (L)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Geneva, Switzerland)
For Immediate Release
January 16, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT CLINTON
AND PRESIDENT ASSAD OF SYRIA IN PHOTO OPPORTUNITY
Intercontinental Hotel
Geneva, Switzerland
10:15 A.M. (L)
Q
President Clinton, are you going to talk about
terrorist issues at this meeting today?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: We'll have a statement later
when we finish. We just met. We haven't started the meeting
yet.
Q
Are you happy to be here and can you tell us
what you expect from the meeting, sir?
PRESIDENT ASSAD: I'm delighted to be meeting with
President Clinton and his assistants. We are at the table not to
think about expectations but to do the work.
Q
Like what?
Q
What kind of work?
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
10:16 A.M. (L)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 19, 1994
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
President Clinton will meet with King Hussein of Jordan on
January 21. They will be discussing the Middle East peace process
in addition to bilateral and other regional issues. The King is
seeing the President while on a private visit to the United States.
# # #
JAN-15-1994 21:18
35509 P.002
THE WHITE HOUSE
office of the Press Secretary
(Minsk, Belarus)
Embargoed For/Release
Until Saturday, January 15, 1994
At 10:06 A.M. EST
RADIO ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION
The Kremlin
MOSCOW, Russia
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today I'm speaking to
you from Moscow, where I'm completing a series of meetings with
President Boris Yeltsin and other Russian reformers. My visit
here comes near the end of a week of European meetings designed
to increase American security and American prosperity by working
to make Europe more united through shared democratic values and
institutions, free trading market economies, and defense
cooperation.
Despite the challenges we face at home from health
care reform to fighting crime, to retraining our work force and
creating more jobs, we still must remain engaged in world
affairs. That's the only way we can spur worldwide economic
growth and open foreign markets, SO that we 8an boost our exports
and create new American jobs. We also have to exert leadership
in world affairs to protect our nation, and keep small problems
today from growing into dangerous crises tomorrow.
No part of the world is more important to us than
Europe. Our people fought two world wars in this century to
protect Europe's democracies. Today, Europe remains at the heart
of our security and is also our most valuable partner in trade
and investment.
Now, Europe stands at a key moment -- the Cold War
is over. Western Europe no longer fears invasion. And we no
longer live in the shadow of nuclear annihilation. The Soviet
Union has given way to.a dozen new independent and largely
democratic states from Central Asia to the Baltic countries.
Yet despite these advances for freedom; we still
need to work with our transatlantic partners to build a new
security. Many nations of the former Soviet bloc are fighting
economic hardship that could threaten their new democracies. In
many of these countries militant nationalists are fanning the
flames of ancient, ethnic and religious hatreds. And we still
have to finish the work of reducing the Cold war nuclear
stockpiles. We can't afford to ignore these challenges.
Our country tried turning our back on Europe after
World War I. The result was a global depression, the rise of
fascism and another world war. After World War II we acted more
wisely. We stood firm against communist expansion. We founded
NATO. We created new institutions to help expand global trade.
We helped turned Western Europe's warring neighbors into solid
allies. The result has been one of the most peaceful and
prosperous times in all history.
One key to our new security is helping Europe's
former communist states succeed themselves in building democratic
governments, market economies and peaceful militaries. Our best
security investment today is to support these practices of
JAN-15-1994 21:21
35509 P.001
- 2 -
freedom in Europe's eastern half in places such as Poland,
Ukraine and Russia. That was my top goal on this trip.
In Brussels, I met with European leaders about ways
to strengthen all our nations by expanding trade and economic
growth. I also attended a summit to adapt NATO, history's
greatest military alliance, to this new era. Our NATO partners
approved my proposal for a Partnership For Peace, a partnership
which invites Europe's eastern nations to participate in military
cooperation with NATO's forces.
In Prague I met with the leaders of the Czech
Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia. These countries have
been at the forefront of communism's collapse and democracy's
rebirth. As I met with such famous democratic heroes, as
President Lech Walesa of Poland and President Vaclav Havel of the
Czech Republic, I assured them that the security of their
countries is important to our security, and I outlined new ways
to help their economic reform succeed.
Then I flew to Kiev in the Ukraine. I met with
Ukraine's President Kravchuk to nail down an agreement to
eliminate over 1,800 nuclear warheads that were left in Ukraine
when the Soviet Union broke apart. Most of those warheads have
been targeted at the United States. And their elimination will
make all of us safer, not only from nuclear accidents but from
nuclear terrorism.
And now I'm in MOSCOW -- the weather's cold, but our
work has brought us to a new season of partnership, warm
partnership with Russia's reformers. President Yeltsin and I
reached a series of agreements to expand our trade ties, protect
human rights, and reduce the threat of nuclear accidents of
proliferation.
One of the experiences I enjoyed most here in Moscow
was speaking to an audience of Russians, many of them young
people. In many ways their concerns reminded me of those voiced
by our own young people, especially as they spoke about their
educations and their careers, their hopes and their fears about
the future. But their comments also suggested that their hopes
for a new Russia, despite all the problems that they have today
-- a new Russia, proud and free -- outweigh their fears. I tried
to convince them that their peaceful transition to a more open
society is important not only to them but to all the rest of us
in the world as well. And I urged them to stay the course of
economic. and political reform.
In the end, the next generation is what this entire
trip is about the young people in America, the young people in
Europe and throughout the rest of the world. The kind of efforts
we're pursuing this week, the kind of efforts that will increase
democracy, provide for military cooperation instead of conflict
and provide for more open markets for more jobs for our people
and other people. These are the things which will make our young
people's future more promising, more prosperous and more secure.
Thanks for listening.
END
JAN-16-1994 16:57
35509
P.001
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Geneva, Switzerland)
BACKGROUND BRIEFING
BY
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL
January 16, 1994
The Intercontinental Hotel
Geneva, Switzerland
5:12 P.M. (L)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Due to popular
demand, I will start out with a little bit of perspective. You
didn't hear me say that. I will keep it very brief, because we
want to have a chance to sort of go with your questions.
I think what is significant from the standpoint of
people like us that have been involved in this process for a long
time is that there are a number of elements in President Assad's
statement that he has simply not said before. The commitment to
the end of the conflict stated as explicitly as it was; the
commitment to peace with Israel, stated explicitly; and the use
of the phrase "normal peaceful relations" all represent the use
of language and terminology that has not been used before. And,
obviously, many of you who have been involved in reporting on
this issue for a long time know that words take on a certain
meaning, especially if they're used or they're not used. And so,
from that standpoint, I think we have seen new ground broken, at
least in terms of the terminology. And I find that, I think, to
be important.
You want to add anything?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Just for the
record, I'm told by the timekeepers that the meeting lasted for
four hours and 30 minutes -- or four hours and 26 minutes --
followed by a 50-minute one-on-one, with just President Clinton,
President. Assad and their interpreters.
O
Fifteen or fifty?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Five, zero - 50
minutes. And the President was very pleased that his stamina
outlasted the stamina both of his Secretary of state and his
National security Advisor. (Laughter.)
Q
Did the President or the discussions talk
specifically about what "normal peaceful relations" meant? was
there a discussion of trade, open borders, diplomatic relations?
Any indication from Assad that he was willing in principle to
sign a peace treaty? Anything specific?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm not sure that
he talked about seeds of peace, but I'll let my colleague answer
the rest. (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, as the
President said, he wasn't going to get into the details of the
exchanges that we have had. And so we're not going to go beyond
what he said in that regard, either.
Q
You are saying that for the first time, Assad
has used the phrase "normal meaningful relationship" --
JAN-16-1994 18:59
35509 P.002
- 2 -
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Peaceful
Q
Peaceful, right. Now, the President doesn't
want to give us the details. We're asking you, did Assad give
the President any of the specific details that you well know
Israel insists on -- its definition of meaningful peace? Did he
tell the President specifically what that kind of normal
relationship meant in his mind?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: He certainly
conveyed to us that he -- to use language that he used out there
-- understands the requirements of peace, understands the broad
elements of peace, and I really don't want to take it farther
than that.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: But I would just
emphasize in terms of what he said publicly, that he said that he
was ready to respond to the requirements.
Q
What about -- the President said that he raised
some specific concerns relating to terrorism. Did he get a
commitment from Assad that Assad would do something about those
American concerns and a commitment in return that they would be
dropped from the terrorism list? Was there anything -- was that
specifically discussed?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: well, no, not that
specifically, because, in fact, what I think you may have heard
them say is that this is clearly an area of difference between
us. And there is no meeting of the minds on that, but there was
a recognition that the way to try to deal with something like
this that is a difference in our relations and it is an
impediment to the development of good relations is, in fact, to
develop a mechanism that would allow us to fcllow up and see if
we could overcome those differences.
O
-- President Assad was pretty inaudible here.
I'd like to check something. Did he say, "I'm ready for normal
relations," or did he only imply he would be ready once -- Syrian
conditions for global peace are fulfilled?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I believe if you
look at his statement -- and there should be copies of it -- he
talked about his -- want you could call his vision of peace,
which included "normal peaceful relations" were the words he
used. There were two other elements that I would draw your
attention to if you didn't hear clearly the statement, which was
that he talked about ending the Arab-Israeli conflict and he
talked about a comprehensive peace with Israel.
C
Are there any mechanisms set up like the one
that you set up for the bilateral relations? Are there any
mechanisms now that you expect to develop for dealing with the
definition of "normal peaceful relations"? Is there anything
different about the way that that process is going to be
conducted?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: you're going to
have, beginning within a week's time, a more flexible format for
the negotiations. You're going to have heads of delegations
meeting in an environment that, by definition, is going to be
less structured, less rigid than you had before. This is one of
the things that was agreed in December.
And, obviously, in that kind of a context, they will
be able to explore everything. They'll have more of an
opportunity to probe ideas, to try out ideas and not be in a
position where they have to present only what would amount to a
kind of set peace presentation. so I think that that will allow
them to get not only at the issue that you're raising, but
obviously to the other issues as well.
MORE
JAN-16-1994 19:00
35509 P.003
- 3 -
Я
As you know, one of the problems has been who
goes, first PLO or -- and he talks about comprehensive and that
he doesn't want any separate peace. NOW, it's been to his
advantage in the past to try to talk -- separate peace. And he
has not encouraged the separate peace of the PLO and the
Israelis. Did he make any pledges that he would encourage or at
least -- that he'd stop encouraging the 10 groups in Damascus who
have been opposing that, that he would support 1t? He did not
say a single word in support of the PLO. As a matter of fact, he
seemed to still be rather tough on the fact that there shall be
no separate deals.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think the one
thing he said very clearly again to us is that even though they
didn't favor the Israeli-PLO agreement, the way it was done in
particular they had made it very clear that they would not oppose
it, and they have stuck to that position of not opposing it.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just add one
thing there. I don't know whether you noticed that the GCC
states met with Syria and Egypt and Damascus a few days ago, and
they issued a joint communique which included a Syrian signature
on that communique which endorsed the Israel-PLO agreement as a
first step towards a comprehensive solution. That is a new
position on the Syrian part.
Q
Did he tell the President that he saw that as a
first step, that the PLO thing was a first step?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can't say that he
did not say it that way. He has made it clear that he sees what
has gone on between the Israelis and the Palestinians as
something that represents what is to be done in the interim
period.
Q
In the past, the Syrian position has been that
there should be -- still is, apparently -- that there should not
be final peace agreements with any of the parties until Syria,
too, is ready to do it? That's what Syria has meant historically
by a comprehensive peace. President Clinton today said he
understood there could not be a lasting peace without Syria.
Does syria still object to others signing final agreements until
Syria, too, is ready? And what's the United States' position on
that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me do the
United states' position on it first, then I'll tell you what we
heard. Our position has been, as you heard the President say,
one, that we favor a comprehensive peace settlement, because we
do see that as being something that is more likely to endure. At
the same time, we think progress should be made where it can be
made. And we would obviously like to see that progress codified
in some way. And so, our position is, in the end you want a
comprehensive peace settlement, but you want to produce progress
wherever it can be produced and in whatever form in which it can
be produced, and we see that contributing to moving towards that
ultimate objective.
We did not hear from him today anything that was
specific on what you said. In other words, he did not make the
statement you said, but I can't tell you that that reflects one
thing or another, he didn't describe things in that terminology.
Q
I'd just like to follow up on Saul's question.
Okay, so Syria is still saying that it is not going to oppose
this. what about the Palestinian elements that are opposing it?
Are the Syrians telling you they're going to rein those elements
in? Are they making any more commitments on that score than they
have in the past? And did you say to them, we think you need to
do more to make sure that this agreement gets all the support it
needs between Israel and the PLO?
JAN-16-1994 19:02
35509 P.004
- 4 -
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have had many
discussions prior to today in which we've emphasized the
importance of implementation of the Israel-Palestinian
Declaration of Principles, and that the sooner it gets
implemented the better it's going to be from our standpoint in
terms of promoting the process as a whole, consistent with what I
was saying before about making progress wherever you can, that
that actually contributes to achieving a comprehensive peace
settlement. So we've made that point many times before. We've
said that those groups that oppose it are really not working
towards, in our view, towards the objective of a comprehensive
peace settlement.
We did not have a discussion, again, specifically
that went beyond that today. We had -- while the meeting was,
itself, four hours and 26 minutes -- is that what you said -- the
fact is we covered an awful lot of ground. We spent a lot of
time talking about the peace process. We spent a lot of time
talking about some of the bilateral issues. we spent a lot of
time talking about other parts of the region. And we didn't get
into all of -- at least into some of these areas at least from
that perspective.
So I can't say, in answer to your question, that on
that particular issue we heard anything particularly differently,
but we also didn't have an extended discussion precisely on that
point.
Q
-- on Pan Am 103, please? Terrorists and Pan
Am 103. Do you want it in writing?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We got the
question. It's a problem of -- getting the answer is a little
more complicated. (Laughter.)
Q
Repeat the question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Pan AM 103 did come
up and the President made very clear that this was a very serious
issue for the United States and it was absolutely essential that
Libya, Gadhafi give up those two people who were charged with
doing it, and that that was an absolute requirement of the United
states.
Q
When Assad had a chance to really state what he
meant by normal peaceful relations, he dodged it. Why did he do
that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: well, it's a
question of definition whether he dodged your question. I
thought he actually came at it the back way. But the words that
I write down that I thought were interesting was that he ended up
by saying, yes, I will respond to the requirements. And so I
think that he has broken new ground today in the way that he
talked about his vision of peace, an honorable peace in which he
referred to his role directly as making peace with Israel. I
believe that is the first time he has done that. And he talked
about a vision of normal peaceful relations with Israel.
So to expect him to go beyond that at his point I
think is perhaps unrealistic. He, in the past, has been
extremely reluctant to do any of those things, spell any of those
things out. The fact that he did so today I think 1s an
important first step. Obviously, this process is going to
continue and the negotiations will continue, and hopefully his
vision of peace will become fuller and clearer to you all as we
go along.
X The big question is, which comes first? Does
Assad get specific, or the Syrians get specific about the kind of
peace? Do the Israelis get specific about how much withdrawal?
MORE
JAN-16-1994 19:03
35509 P.005
- 5 -
You say it was unrealistic for Assad to be any more specific.
What would you as the U.S. as the honest broker expect now? Do
you expect Israel to be specific in the negotiations about
withdrawal? What is the next step that you think should be taken
in breaking that deadlock?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think you ought
to look at it from a couple of different levels. One, the
question that Wolf asked of my colleague was, did he try to dodge
it, and my colleague's response is, he talked about meeting the
requirements of peace.
He also, you may recall, didn't just talk about
peace with Israel for the first time, he also referred to it as a
strategic choice, that Syria had made a strategic choice for
peace with Israel. And I think he obviously 1s involved in a
negotiation just as the Israelis on their side are involved in
the negotiation. They will be making judgments, the two of them,
when they resume those talks about how they want to try to get it
-- cracking the nut of these complex of issues of withdrawal, of
peace and of security. And they' 11 be in a different negotiating
format which allows them more flexibility, we believe, to try out
ideas. so that's the next step.
Q Yes, but you're satisfied -- the U.S.
apparently thinks that that is as much as you could expect at
this point from Assad to make what you consider to be a major new
statement, that it would be unrealistic to expect specificity.
I'm asking you if you think it is now realistic for Israel to be
specific about the kind of withdrawal it should engage in?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think that --
obviously when you're involved, each side is going to have to
determine how best to approach the negotiations. They'll make
their judgment about what the other side is saying, both in terms
of its content and in terms of its level of specificity. And I
would suspect that in that light, judgments will be made that
reflect what they think is equivalent to a parallel.
α
What is the practical significance then for the
process of these statements that you think is so significant?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think the
practical significance --
Q
Repeat the question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The question? The
question was, what's the practical significance of these
statements that we think are so significant? All I was doing was
repeating the question. I didn't even give an answer. Do you
want to give the answer? (Laughter.)
Q
How about you guys take a break?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: How about us guys
take a break? That's possible. We have to move on. The
practical significance is that clearly, many in Israel for a long
time have wanted to hear President Assad and the Syrians say
certain things about peace with Israel. They've heard abstract
statements about peace, but they've rarely, if ever, heard --
α
But that's --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, strategic
choice for peace with Israel? Is that not qualitatively
different than something that they've heard before? Well, and
the use of normal peaceful --
Q
No, we're beating up Barry, not you guys.
(Laughter.)
JAN-16-1994 19:05
35509 P.006
- 6 -
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The use of normal
peaceful relations? what you're doing is you're -- there is an
Israeli public that has looked at Syria and wanted to know what
kinds of intentions Syria had vis a vis Israel with regard to
peace. Not having heard certain statements before, like, for
example, strategic choice for peace with Israel, normal peaceful
relations. I would assume that those are the kinds of statements
in conjunction with the language on ending the Arab-Israeli
conflict. I would assume that those kinds of statements take
things to a new level, at least in terms of what the Israelis
have heard from the Syrians and they'll make their own judgments
about what to make of it.
Q
Did your discussions with the Israelis before
this --
Q
-- choreography now expect a statement by
Israel that is something new?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let's do the
follow-up, and I heard your question.
Q
Did your discussions with the Israelis before
the meeting today lead you to believe that they would find this
significant in terms of public opinion and their strategy and
attitude towards further negotiations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would just refer
you to the front page of the International Herald Tribune
yesterday, an article by Clyde Haberman in which I think the
headline is what the Israelis are waiting to hear is the word
"normal."
Q
what are the Syrians waiting to hear from
Israel? Without reading The Herald Tribune. (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We were asked about
the practical impact. There is going to be a negotiation at
heads of delegation level in a matter of days or the beginning of
next week, and this creates the environment in which they will be
able to sit down and begin their negotiations again.
Bear in mind, though, there has not been a Syrian-
Israeli negotiation since last August -- September. And the
practical impact of this is to kick those negotiations off in a
much more positive environment.
Q
What I'm asking is, is there now in this
choreography a statement with magic words that will come out of
Israel?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's something --
There is an art -- that I have to adhere to, so I'm going to try
to do it and then my colleague will correct it because I,
undoubtedly will not get it right.
There are some administration officials who will be
going down from here to brief Prime Minister Rabin. And
obviously that is part of the preparation, as my colleague was
saying, for how you create an environment to give the
negotiations that will begin in a more flexible format more of a
push.
Q When do they start -- these streamlined talks?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We haven't made a
final determination, but it will probably be either the end of
this week or the beginning of next.
Q
what kind of message do you think what happened
here today will send to the Palestinians? Those talks have been
stalled, the Israel1-PLO talks, over the border issues and the
MORE
JAN-16-1994 19:06
35509 P.007
- 7 -
size of Jericho. Do you think this will send an important
message to them?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I would hope
that it would send them a message of general encouragement that,
in fact, the process along with the resumption of negotiations on
this track and some of the other tracks that there is an
environment that is likely to make it more likely to make
progress; and that's the sort of thing that perhaps should be
encouraging to them.
Q
What's the mood music of this meeting? What
was the chemistry between Assad and Clinton?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think it was -- I
think they had a positive meeting. The discussions, I think,
were characterized by -- I think they themselves said it -- a
good atmosphere and there was real openness. I think there was
an interest, as the President said, in creating an element of
trust and confidence that will make it possible to move things
forward. That doesn't mean the disagreements necessarily
disappear, obviously, but it means that you're creating a context
in which you're trying to deal with those agreements in a way
that we think will be productive from the standpoint of peace.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just add one
thing. I think it is accurate to characterize the President as
fully engaged with President Assad, and that there was also a
common sense of the historic moment that both of them had about
his being a year, as both of them said, in which breakthroughs in
the peace process can be achieved.
Q
If Syria now shares the U.S. goals in the peace
process of a truly comprehensive peace and normal relations, what
were their goals before?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, one has not
-- to begin with, one has never heard them talk about normal
peaceful relations as a goal before. so, I mean, they obviously
are explaining in greater detail what some of their goals for the
process are. Comprehensive peace is something that has been
their goal for a long time -- that's the way they described it.
But they have not used this kind of a terminology to talk abut
heir vision of peace, and their vision is which would provide
for, as President Assad said, normal, peaceful relations, a
genuine peace -- language where he also talked about, in a sense,
they fought with honor; now they need to make peace with honor
and negotiate with honor.
Q
How do the new bilateral talks work? And as
good negotiators, did you supply the Syrians with a kind of a
timetable to solve those bilateral questions?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, we have just --
the two foreign ministers will work out the shape of this
mechanism and also the timing of when it will get underway.
I would say -- unless we're told otherwise -- since
a couple of these officials do have to move on quickly, how about
we take two more questions and that's it.
Q
You were talking before about the magic word in
the international Herald Tribune, but the word there isn't
"normal peaceful relations," it's normalization. And that is the
word that Assad balked at using. Would you care to address that
issue?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think the
question highlights that in the Middle East there is a tendency
to dissect every word that is used. And in doing that, when a
word appears that you haven't seen before that gets to the heart
of something like normalization, I think that's important.
That's what we're noting. The words "normal peaceful relations"
been
conveyed
before.
JAN-16-1394 19:03
35509 P.008
- 8 -
Q
But you wouldn't argue that it's the same,
would you?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I mean, obviously,
I think our view of normal peaceful relations would be the same
as normalization. We would not draw a distinction between those
two terms.
Q
Did Assad respond on Pan Am 103? Did he say
anything --
Q
We've had, over the last two years, with every
start of the new round of peace talks, almost every time we've
had peace talks we've had more and more violence in south
Lebanon. And that's hardly conducive for peace talks and for
pushing them forward. Has south Lebanon come up in this summit
and what have they decided to do to rein in all the various
parties there?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: South Lebenon, per
se, did not come up. Lebanon as a whole did come up. The issue
of Taif did come up. But south Lebanon did not.
I think that was two questions.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
5:41 P.M. (L)
JAN-15-1994 14:46
MINER STAFF ADVANCE
36502
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Moscow, Russia)
BACKGROUND BRIEFING
BY
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL
January 14, 1994
The Radisson Hotel
Moscow, Russia
12:12 A.M. (L)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The dinner took
place at a dacha. We agreed it was southeast of Moscow, about a
half-an-hour motorcade ride -- Novo Ogaryevo.
This, by the way, for history buffs, is the dacha
where the former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev held the
Union Treaty talks shortly before the collapse of the Soviet
Union.
I'll start with just some very general statements,
no details at all, on the substance of the evening. One reason,
of course, that I'm not going to go into substance is because it
was a very candid and freewheeling exchange.
Q That's why we'd like to get it --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I know, I know,
Helen. And the other is because many of the points of substance
will be touched upon in public events and documents that will be
released tomorrow.
There was a continuation of the discussion that
began between the two Presidents this morning in their one-on-
one talk about the interaction between Russian politics and
international politics. President Yeltsin shared with President
Clinton and the others -- and I'll come to the guest list in just
a second -- some further thoughts on the prospects for the new
Parliament and how he and the government intend to work with the
new Parliament.
As was the case this morning, he was clearly very
aware of the difficulties, the complexities that face the
reformers in the Parliament and that face the government. But he
also evinced considerable confidence and optimism about the
ability of the Executive Branch to work with the new Legislative
Branch. And there was a good deal of conversation about how some
of the jockeying for different positions in the Parliament is
turning out and what that's likely to mean.
But the overall tone of it was certainly one of
confidence on President Yeltsin's part both about the ability of
the reform program to stand up in the legislature and the ability
of the Executive Branch to work with the legislature.
There was a discussion of a number of foreign policy
issues, particularly European and Eurasian security issues. This
was in part in the context of some further discussion of
Partnership For Peace.
The Defense Minister, General Grachev, was at the
dinner. He participated in that part of the discussion. There
was some talk about U.S.-Russian military-to-military contacts.
JAN-15-1994 14:47
MINSK STAFF ADVANCE
36502 P.017
- 2 -
Defense Minister Grachev talked about how much he appreciated the
relationship that he had developed with Secretary of Defense
Aspin. He referred to the meeting that he had with Mr. Aspin in
Garmisch back in June, I believe, talked about inaugurating a
direct telephone link between the Defense Ministry here in Russia
and the Pentagon last week -- on Wednesday of last week. And
President Yeltsin expressed a desire to broaden contacts of that
kind not only in the military-to-military area, but more
generally between the two governments.
The issue of the Middle East came up a little bit,
and particularly with regard to Russia's desire to coordinate its
policy interests with those of the United states throughout the
region.
The two Presidents also talked rather briefly at the
beginning of the discussion about the plans for tomorrow. One
reason that that was fairly brief was that it had pretty well all
been arranged in advance. There was some talk about how the
trilateral meeting would go procedurally. There was virtually no
discussion at the dinner of the substance of the trilateral
meeting because that we believe is well in hand, although there
has been ongoing work during the course of the day at the working
level of the government on conforming the three-language text for
the agreement that will be signed in the trilateral meeting.
Let me go to color, of which actually there is quite
a bit. It was a fairly musical evening, and musically eclectic.
There was a string quartet playing in the anteroom of this very
elegant dacha when we arrived. That continued until we sat down
for dinner. About half way through the dinner -- and I do have
the menu if anyone is interested --
Q I am.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That will take up
all my briefing time because it looks to be about 24 courses, or
at least 24 dishes. (Laughter.) About half way through,
President Yeltsin presented President Clinton with a gift which
is a small Gzhel blue porcelain figurine of President Clinton
with his hand upraised waving to a crowd, signifying his stature
as a politician, and his other hand carrying a saxophone. The
figurine is probably five inches high. That turned the
conversation to the saxophone; there just happened to be a
saxophone on the premises.
Q Oh, God.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I know, I know. DO
you want this or not?
Q Yes. Yes. (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay.
Q You buried the lead. (Laughter.)
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We always save the
best for the kicker -- In any event, there was what I thought was
a fairly great moment where the President was standing at his
place with the saxophone, kind of tuning up and playing a few
bars. And the pianist who was there with the quartet in the
other room sort of picked up the melody line and began jamming
with him back and forth between the room where the dinner was
held and the anteroom where the string quartet was waiting. so
President Clinton suggested that the dinner party adjourn to the
other room. And he then played two numbers: Summertime and My
Funny -- in C Minor, by the way, He's specified that it be in C
Minor.
Q
Does he know anything else? (Laughter.)
MORE
- 3 -
or
What was the other one?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: My Funny Valentine.
Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, by the way, turned to
one of the Americans present when President Clinton started
playing Summertime and said, "I recognize that. That's
Summertime."
The menu was very long indeed. It ranges from fresh
caviar through pickled mushrooms. It says duck in red wine
sauce, but instead of duck in red wine stuff we were served --
this is true -- lip of moose. (Laughter.) Lip of moose. That's
not a chocolate dessert, that's -- (laughter.)
&
How was it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It was -- umm -- it
was good. (Laughter.) It was unusual. And stuffed carp. There
was also a suckling pig -- or actually, two suckling pigs served,
and that prompted some conversation from the President on
Razorback hogs -- (laughter) -- the state beast. Only symbolic
and social and very much in the spirit of the event.
The guest list on the Russian side was President
Yeltsin, of course; Defense Minister Grachev; Foreign Minister
Kozyrev; Mr. Ilyshin, who is a senior advisor to President
Yeltsin; the First Deputy Prime Minister oleg Soskovets; and
Prime Minister Chernomyrdin.
On the American side, it was Tony Lake, Warren
Christopher, Lloyd Bentsen, the President, and Tom Pickering.
Have I beaten you into submission here?
Q You said that Mr. Yeltsin told the President
he's broadening his contacts with Russian political figures --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.
X
Is he, indeed? And could you give some
description of the breadth of these new contacts and why?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm sorry, the
contacts of --
O with various Russian figures. And why is the
President doing this?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, Barry, in
fact, there was some discussion at the beginning of the evening
about the reception at Spaso House, which President Clinton had
enjoyed for many reasons. And one reason he enjoyed it was
because it gave him a chance to meet quite a wide sampling of
deputies to the new Parliament. And he said that he was looking
forward to both personally getting to know some of them in the
future and that he was sure that other American officials, and
particularly members of the Congress, would want to have
extensive contact. And the Russian side of the table seemed to
think that that was a good idea.
We have said all along, of course, that what we're
supporting is a process of reform and we're looking for every
manifestation of that. And we think that the creation of a
Parliament is, itself, a manifestation of reform. Both the
Executive and the Legislative Branches of the U.S. government are
going to seek very broad contacts with the Parliament, and I
think that was in evidence tonight.
Let me just quickly glance -- oh, yes, I'm sorry.
There were a couple --
06502
- 4 -
O
Any toasts?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There were just
very -- there were no formal toasts at all. In fact, there was
practically no formal diplomatic discourse at all during the
course of the evening.
Q
But there was vodka, I assume, or wine?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There was vodka,
there was wine and there was lots of mineral water.
The President mentioned that the First Lady and
Chelsea are going to be arriving fairly shortly. That prompted
President Yeltsin to say that he had arranged for his
grandchildren -- I'm sorry, I don't have the names and ages, but
they're sort of in the nine-to-13 range --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Boris and I think
there's another girl --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Katarina, maybe?
Katarina? He's arranged for his grandchildren to accompany
Chelsea Clinton to the circus tomorrow.
Q
Were any women present at this dinner?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: As it happens, no.
Q
As it always happens.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I feel responsible
for so much here. (Laughter.)
or
How long did the dinner last altogether?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: About three hours.
I think we got out there maybe 7:50 p.m., and broke up promptly
at 11:00 p.m.
9 What was the President's gift to Yeltsin? You
told us about his gift to Clinton.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't think there
was a gift to Yeltsin.
2 Gift to Yeltsin.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I heard the
question. There was no formal presentation of gifts. This was
kind of a souvenir that President Yeltsin gave to President
Clinton.
Q As they talked about cooperation in foreign
policy, were there any -- during the discussion, were there any
points of diversion or differences on foreign policy that you can
--
Q Bosnia?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, I would say
that there are not only some differences, but there was also some
discussion of the healthiness that there. would be differences
and, of course, the inevitability of it, and satisfaction that
both points in common and points of divergence could be discussed
in an atmosphere of the kind that prevailed.
2 Where were the differences? Bosnia?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm not going to go
into that. Yes, there was indeed some discussion of the former
Yugoslavia.
- 5 -
Q
You mentioned that General Grachev discussed
the Partnership For Peace NATO proposal. what was his reaction,
and what was Yeltin's reaction to the initiative?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The Defense
Minister did not speak so much about Partnership For Peace per se
as the value he found in military to military cooperation with
the United States.
President Yeltsin -- I think you were briefed
earlier today from this podium, that President Yeltsin's response
on the subject of Partnership For Peace during the one-on-one
this morning was positive, and there was more positive comment
from him during the course of the dinner. And he mentioned that
he had said to the press during the course of the day -- and I
honestly don't know whether it was the international press or the
Russian press -- that the Russian government supported the
initiative.
Я
Did the two Presidents agree to announce their
detargeting deal tomorrow?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There was no
discussion of that at all.
Q
When is the communique going to be issued? And
is this telephone link a hot line, too, or is it already in --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, it's already in
effect and it's already been used. I wouldn't call it a hot
line. It's a direct telephone link between the two Ministries of
Defense.
or
Did the question of how to deal with
Zhirinovsky and his forces in the Parliament come up?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No.
Q Did President Clinton offer any advice or --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Certainly not.
There was some discussion of the Liberal Democratic Party and Mr.
Zhirinovsky during the one-on-one this morning, but not much of
that per se. It was more on some developments during the course
of the day. As you all know, I'm sure, the new Parliament is
forming itself now, people are jockeying for positions. And
there was some discussion of that.
Q
-- Yeltsin had invited the Clintons to all stay
over at the Kremlin. Did the President give his response?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Do you have
anything on that, Dee Dee, on whether the Clintons will be
staying over in the Kremlin on Friday?
MS. MYERS: Yes, he will, tomorrow night.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Dee Dee says it's
okay for me to confirm that that, in fact, will happen.
Or Will?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Will, affirmative.
Q
Tomorrow night?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Tomorrow night.
Right, Dee Dee?
MS. MYERS: The President and family.
MORE
- 6 -
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: President Clinton
and family.
Q When do we get the communique?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I honestly don't
know the timing of the release of the documents.
or What is the significance of staying over at the
Kremlin? I mean, how unusual is that?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm sure the White
House has background information on this. I do recall that
President Nixon, I think, stayed at the Kremlin on at least one
occasion.
MS. MYERS: In '72, I think.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: A long time ago.
It was thought to be both a significant gesture and a very
friendly one, and obviously an exciting possibility. So the
First Family jumped at the chance.
Q
Did they speak about the very strong chance
that Kravchuk will again be unable to keep his promise to give up
nukes?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, quite the
contrary. I think there was a shared sense that this deal --
Q This time they'll do it?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: As I say, there was
very little discussion. There was a very little felt need for
much discussion on the trilateral except for a couple of
procedural points.
Thanks very much.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
12:30 A.M. (L_)
JAN-10-1994 15:47
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.001
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 10, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT INTERVENTION FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL SUMMIT
NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary
General, and distinguished leaders. I am deeply honored to
represent my nation at the North Atlantic Council this morning,
as eight previous Presidents have done before me.
Each of us came here for the same compelling reason:
the security of the North Atlantic region is vital to the
security of the United States. The founders of this Alliance
created the greatest military alliance in history. It was a bold
undertaking. I think all of us know that we have come together
this week because history calls upon us to be equally bold once
again in the aftermath of the cold War. Now we no longer fear
attack from a common enemy. But if our common adversary has
vanished, we know our common dangers have not.
with the Cold war over, we must confront the
destabilizing consequences of the unfreezing of history which the
end of the Cold War has wrought.
The threat to us now is not of advancing armies so
much as of creeping instability. The best strategy against this
threat is to integrate the former communist states into our
fabric of liberal democracy, economic prosperity and military
cooperation. For our security in this generation will be shaped
by whether reform in these nations succeeds in the face' of their
own very significant economic frustration, ethnic tensions, and
intolerant nationalism.
The size of the reactionary vote in Russia's recent
election reminds again of the strength of democracy's opponents.
The ongoing slaughter in Bosnia tallies the price when those
opponents prevail. If we don't meet our new challenge, then most
assuredly, we will once again, someday down the road, face our
old challenges again. If democracy in the East fails, then
violence and disruption from the East will once again harm us and
other democracies.
I believe our generation's stewardship of this grand
Alliance, therefore, will most critically be judged by whether we
succeed in integrating the nations to our east within the compass
of Western security and Western values. For we've been granted
an opportunity without precedent: We really have the chance to
recast European security on historic new principles: the pursuit
of economic and political freedom. And I would argue to you that
we must work hard to succeed now, for this opportunity may not
come to us again.
In effect, the world wonders now whether we have the
foresight and the courage our predecessors had to act on our
long-term interests. I'm confident that the steel in this
Alliance has not rusted. Our nations have proved that by joining
together in the common effort in the Gulf War. We proved it anew
this past year by working together, after seven long years of
effort, in a spirit of compromise and harmony to reach a new GATT
agreement. And now we must do it once again.
MORE
JAN-10-1994 15:48
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.002
- 2 -
To seize the great opportunity before us I have
proposed that we forge what we have all decided to call the
Partnership For Peace, opened to all the former communist states
of the Warsaw Pact, along with other non-NATO states. The
membership of the Partnership will plan and train and exercise
together and work together on missions of common concern. They
should be invited to work directly with NATO both here and in the
Coordination Cell in Mons.
The Partnership will prepare the NATO Alliance to
undertake new tasks that the times impose upon us. The Combined
Joint Task Force Headquarters we are creating will let us act
both effectively and with dispatch in helping to make and keep
the peace, and in helping to head off some of the terrible
problems we are now trying to solve today. We must also ready
this Alliance to meet new threats, notably from weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them.
Building on NATO's creation of the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council two years ago, the Partnership For Peace sets
in motion a process that leads to the enlargement of NATO. We
began this Alliance with 12 members; today there are 16, and each
one has strengthened the Alliance. Indeed, our treaty always
looked to the addition of new members who shared the Alliance's
purposes and who could enlarge its orbit of democratic security.
Thus, in leading us toward the addition of these Eastern states,
the Partnership For Peace does not change NATO's original vision,
it realizes that vision.
so let us say here to the people in Europe's East,
we share with you a common destiny and we are committed to your
success. The democratic community has grown, and now it is time
to begin welcoming these newcomers to our naighborhood.
As President Mitterrand said so eloquently, some of
the newcomers want to be members of NATO right away, and some
have expressed reservations about this concept of the Partnership
For Peace. Some have asked me in my own country, well, is this
just the best you can do? Is this sort of splitting the
difference between doing nothing and full membership at least for
the Visegrad states? And to that, let me answer at least for my
part an emphatic no, for many of the same reasons President
Mitterrand has already outlined.
Why should we now draw a new line through Europe
just a little further east? why should we now do something which
could foreclose the best possible future for Europe? The best
possible future would be a democratic Russia committed to the
security of all of its European neighbors. The best possible
future would be a democratic Ukraine, a democratic government in
every one of the newly-independent states of the former Soviet
Union, all committed to market cooperation, to common security
and to democratic ideals. We should not foreclose that
possibility.
The Partnership For Peace, I would argue, gives us
the best of both worlds. It enables us to prepare and to work
toward the enlargement of NATO when other countries are capable
of fulfilling their NATO responsibilities. It enables us to do
it in a way that gives us the time to reach out to Russia and to
these other nations of the former Soviet Union, which have been
almost ignored through this entire debate by people around the
world, in a way that leaves open the possibility of a future for
Europe that totally breaks from the destructive past we have
known.
so I say to you, I do not view this as some sort of
half-hearted compromise. In substance, this is a good idea. It
is the right thing to do at this moment in history. It leaves
open the best possible future for Europe, and leaves us the means
to settle for a future that is not the best but is much better
MORE
JAN-10-1994 15:47
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.001
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 10, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT INTERVENTION FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL SUMMIT
NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary
General, and distinguished leaders. I am deeply honored to
represent my nation at the North Atlantic Council this morning,
as eight previous Presidents have done before me.
Each of us came here for the same compelling reason:
the security of the North Atlantic region is vital to the
security of the United States. The founders of this Alliance
created the greatest military alliance in history. It was a bold
undertaking. I think all of us know that we have come together
this week because history calls upon us to be equally bold once
again in the aftermath of the cold War. Now we no longer fear
attack from a common enemy. But if our common adversary has
vanished, we know our common dangers have not.
with the Cold War over, we must confront the
destabilizing consequences of the unfreezing of history which the
end of the Cold War has wrought.
The threat to us now is not of advancing armies so
much as of creeping instability. The best strategy against this
threat is to integrate the former communist states into our
fabric of liberal democracy, economic prosperity and military
cooperation. For our security in this generation will be shaped
by whether reform in these nations succeeds in the face' of their
own very significant economic frustration, ethnic tensions, and
intolerant nationalism.
The size of the reactionary vote in Russia's recent
election reminds again of the strength of democracy S opponents.
The ongoing slaughter in Bosnia tallies the price when those
opponents prevail. If we don't meet our new challenge, then most
assuredly, we will once again, someday down the road, face our
old challenges again. If democracy in the East fails, then
violence and disruption from the East will once again harm us and
other democracies.
I believe our generation's stewardship of this grand
Alliance, therefore, will most critically be judged by whether we
succeed in integrating the nations to our east within the compass
of Western security and Western values. For we've been granted
an opportunity without precedent: We really have the chance to
recast European security on historic new principles: the pursuit
of economic and political freedom. And I would argue to you that
we must work hard to succeed now, for this opportunity may not
come to us again.
In effect, the world wonders now whether we have the
foresight and the courage our predecessors had to act on our
long-term interests. I'm confident that the steel in this
Alliance has not rusted. Our nations have proved that by joining
together in the common effort in the Gulf War. We proved it anew
this past year by working together, after seven long years of
effort, in a spirit of compromise and harmony to reach a new GATT
agreement. And now we must do it once again.
MORE
JAN-10-1994 15:50
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.003
- 3 -
than the past. And I would argue that is the course that we all
ought to pursue.
I think we have to be clear in doing it about
certain assumptions and consequences. First, if we move forward
in this manner, we must reaffirm the bonds of our own alliance.
America pledges its efforts in that common purpose. I pledge to
maintain roughly 100, troops in Europe, consistent with the
expressed wishes of our allies. The people of Europe can count
on America to maintain this commitment.
second, we have to recognize that this new security
challenge requires a range of responses different from the ones
of the past. That is why our administration has broken with
previous American administrations in going beyond what others
have done to support European efforts to advance their own
security and interests. All of you have received our support in
moving in ways beyond NATO.
We supported the Maastricht Treaty. We support the
commitment of the European Union to a Common Foreign and Security
Policy. We support your efforts to refurbish the Western
European Union so that it will assume a more vigorous role in
keeping Europe secure.
Consistent with that goal, we have proposed making
NATO assets available to WEU operations in which NATO itself is
not involved. While NATO must remain the linchpin of our
security, all these efforts will show our people and our
legislatures a renewed purpose in European institutions and a
better balance of responsibilities within the transatlantic
community.
Finally, in developing the Partnership For Peace,
each of us must willingly assume the burdens to make that
succeed. This must not be a gesture. It is a forum -- it is not
just a forum. This Partnership For Peace is also a military and
security initiative, consistent with what NATO was established to
achieve. There must be a somber appreciation that expanding our
membership will mean extending commitments that must be supported
by military strategies and postures. Adding new members entails
not only hard decisions, but hard resources. Today those
resources are not great, but nonetheless, as the Secretary
General told me in the meeting this morning, they must be
forthcoming in order for this to be taken seriously by our allies.
and our friends who will immediately subscribe to the
Partnership.
Let me also, in response to something that President
Mitterrand said and that is on all of our minds, the problem in
Bosnia, say that when we talk about making hard decisions, we
must be prepared to make them. And tonight I have been asked to
talk a little bit about the work I have been doing with Russia
and what I believe we all should be doing to support democracy
and economic reform there. But I'd like to make two points about
Bosnia.
First, I want to reaffirm that the United States
remains ready to help NATO implement a viable settlement in
Bosnia voluntarily reached by the parties. We would, of course,
have to seek the support of our Congress in this, but let me say
I think we can get it if such an operation would clearly be under
NATO command, that the means of carrying out the mission be
equivalent to its purposes, and that these purposes be clear in
scope and in time.
Second, I welcome the reassertion by the Alliance in
this declaration of our warning against the strangulation of
Sarajevo and the safe areas. But if we are going to reassert
this warning it cannot be seen as mere rhetoric. Those who
attack Sarajevo must understand that we are serious. If we leave
the sentence in the Declaration we have to mean it.
MORE
JAN-10-1994 15:51
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.004
- 4 -
Those of us gathered here must understand that,
therefore, if the situation does not improve, the Alliance must
be prepared to act. what is at stake is not just the safety of
the people in Sarajevo and any possibility of bringing this
terrible conflict to an end, but the credibility of the Alliance
itself. And that, make no mistake about it, will have great
ramifications in the future in other contexts.
Therefore, in voting for this language, I expect the
North Atlantic Council to take action when necessary. And I
think if anyone here does not agree with that, you shouldn't vote
for language. I think it is the appropriate language, but we
have to be clear when we put something like this in the
Declaration.
Let me say finally that I ran across the following
quotation by a distinguished and now deceased American political
writer, Walter Lippman. Three days after the North Atlantic
Treaty was signed Lippman wrote this, prophetically: "The pact
will be remembered long after the conditions that have provoked
it are no longer the main business of mankind. For the treaty
recognizes and proclaims a community of interest which is much
older than the conflict with the Soviet Union, and come what may,
will survive it."
Well, this meeting will prove him right. The Soviet
Union is gone, but our community of interest endures. And now it
is up to us to build a new security for a new future for the
Atlantic people in the 21st century.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
END
TOTAL
JAN-10-1994 15:50
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.003
- 3 -
than the past. And I would argue that is the course that we all
ought to pursue.
I think we have to be clear in doing it about
certain assumptions and consequences. First, if we move forward
in this manner, we must reaffirm the bonds of our own alliance.
America pledges its efforts in that common purpose. I pledge to
maintain roughly 100,000 troops in Europe, consistent with the
expressed wishes of our allies. The people of Europe can count
on America to maintain this commitment.
Second, we have to recognize that this new security
challenge requires a range of responses different from the ones
of the past. That is why our administration has broken with
previous American administrations in going beyond what others
have done to support European efforts to advance their own
security and interests. All of you have received our support in
moving in ways beyond NATO.
We supported the Maastricht Treaty. We support the
commitment of the European Union to a Common Foreign and Security
Policy. We support your efforts to refurbish the Western
European Union so that it will assume a more vigorous role in
keeping Europe secure.
Consistent with that goal, we have proposed making
NATO assets available to WEU operations in which NATO itself is
not involved. While NATO must remain the linchpin of our
security, all these efforts will show our people and our
legislatures a renewed purpose in European institutions and a
better balance of responsibilities within the transatlantic
community.
Finally, in developing the Partnership For Peace,
each of us must willingly assume the burdens to make that
succeed. This must not be a gesture. It is a forum -- it is not
just a forum. This Partnership For Peace is also a military and
security initiative, consistent with what NATO was established to
achieve. There must be a somber appreciation that expanding our
membership will mean extending commitments that must be supported
by military strategies and postures. Adding new members entails
not only hard decisions, but hard resources. Today those
resources are not great, but nonetheless, as the Secretary
General told me in the meeting this morning, they must be
forthcoming in order for this to be taken seriously by our allies.
and our friends who will immediately subscribe to the
Partnership.
Let me also, in response to something that President
Mitterrand said and that is on all of our minds, the problem in
Bosnia, say that when we talk about making hard decisions, we
must be prepared to make them. And tonight I have been asked to
talk a little bit about the work I have been doing with Russia
and what I believe we all should be doing to support democracy
and economic reform there. But I'd like to make two points about
Bosnia.
First, I want to reaffirm that the United States
remains ready to help NATO implement a viable settlement in
Bosnia voluntarily reached by the parties. We would, of course,
have to seek the support of our Congress in this, but let me say
I think we can get it if such an operation would clearly be under
NATO command, that the means of carrying out the mission be
equivalent to its purposes, and that these purposes be clear in
scope and in time.
Second, I welcome the reassertion by the Alliance in
this declaration of our warning against the strangulation of
Sarajevo and the safe areas. But if we are going to reassert
this warning it cannot be seen as mere rhetoric. Those who
attack Sarajevo must understand that we are serious. If we leave
the sentence in the Declaration we have to mean it.
MORE
JAN-14-1994 16:23
MINSK PRESS OFFICE
36503 P.001/005
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Minsk, Belarus)
For Immediate Release
January 15, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE FUTURE LEADERS OF BELARUS
Academy of Sciences
Minsk, Belarus
3:17 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Sergei
Gaponenko, the President of the National Academy of Sciences; and
to my friend, Chairman Shushkevich; ladies and gentlemen. Thank
you all for coming here. I hope the translation is working well.
(Laughter.) Does the laughing mean yes or no? (Laughter.) Yes,
I think.
I'm delighted to be here at your National Academy of
Sciences, with many representatives of my government and
representatives of yours. But most of all, I'm glad to see so
many young people here, because it is your future I wish to talk
about today.
I want to thank Chairman Shushkevich for inviting me
and for suggesting that I meet with you. The Chairman is a
leader of real courage, in recording the terrible toll of
Chernobyl and in leading your nation's reforms. And I'm
delighted to be with him here today.
I wanted to come to Belarus because I am impressed
with much of what you have done and because I believe you can
and will do even more. Your generation has been given an
opportunity to build a strong and free nation. While you face
hard times today, you have much with which to build a better
future. You stand at the crossroads of continents. You have a
highly educated people and great institutions of higher learning.
You have good, strong high technology industries. Above all, you
have reclaimed your freedom and your destiny is now in your own
hands.
And so now you must decide what to do with your
nation and your future. You are, I assure you, not alone Yn
facing that question. For this is a time of profound change all
across the world. Nations everywhere face the challenge of
shaping their future am12 all the technological, economic and
political changes sweeping the globe.
Nations everywhere must now grapple with the
question of how to compete in a global economy; how to reward and
support hard-working families and their children; how to make
their governments more effective and more responsive; how to
address social problems such a unemployment and inequality and
crime; how to combine cultural and spiritual traditions with the
demands of modern life; how to define, indeed, a nation's
security and greatness in a modern era in which money and
information and technological changes fly across the globe in a
millisecond -- in which we will be judged, I believe, more on
whether we can develop the full capacities of every man and woman
within each nation's border than on whether we can tell other
people beyond our borders what to do and how they must live.
I have not come here to tell you what I think the
solutions should be to these questions for your nation and your
future. That is for you alone to decide. But I do come here as
a friend and supporter of the democratic and economic reforms you
JAN-14-1994 16:24
MINSK PRESS OFFICE
36503 P.002.005
- 2 -
are beginning in your nation. I've come to show my support for
those reforms and for your determination to build a better and
safer and stronger future - for your nation and for this entire
region.
The work of reform before you today also has a
larger significance. For what you do here might encourage other
nations facing the same challenges. It can help to build a
broader Europe that is no longer divided, but integrated --
integrated by democratic governments, market economies and
peaceful coexistence and respect for national borders.
If we can accomplish this kind of integration all
across Europe, east and west, then we can make both Europe and
America safer and more prosperous. This nation, which lost one
in four of its citizens in the second world war, must surely know
better than any other on the face of the earth the terrible price
Europeans have paid for their constant divisions -- not only in
the two world wars of the 20th century, but indeed throughout the
entire history of nations in Europe.
Now for the first time we have a chance to build a
Europe without divisions where all countries respect each other's
borders, all countries observe democratic traditions of majority
rule and individual and minority rights. All countries trade
freely with each other and help each other to achieve the true
measure of greatness developing the capacities of their people.
Today I want to speak briefly about three
opportunities I see before you: the renewal of your economy, the
reform of your political system, and your work to define a new
security for a new era.
First, let me say a word about economic transition.
of course you inherited an economic system imposed from above.
And it has left you with, frankly, a mixed legacy. On the one
hand, clearly it helped to rebuild Belarus from the ruins of
World War II. But that same centrally-planned system is ill-
suited for the fast-changing global economy.
That is clear everywhere. Everywhere in the world
and every in every continent the people that are doing well are
people who live in economies where investment and a well-trained
work force make it possible for people to produce high-quality
goods and services which they sell to each other and beyond their
borders.
So now you must face the challenge of taking what is
best about your economy, your highly-skilled people and your
advanced industries and adapting it to the rigors of this new
global competition. It 18 a hard transition. Almost every place
which has sought to do 1t has faced, as you have, among other
things, very steep inflation something you faced in this
summer's increases in the prices of meat and butter.
Many people are struggling to get by as a result of
this inflation. In a cruel way, inflation hurts the people
economies should reward the most, those who simply get up and go
to work every day obeying the law and trying to make their
contribution.
But there is cause for hope because, as you
privatize more of your economy, as more of it works in a market
system, people will have reason to invest more and generate more
economic growth. The government's plan to privatize 20 percent
of state property this year is, I believe, a step in the right
direction.
The United states wishes to support this kind of
change. Since you became independent, we have provided over 5150
million in food, medicine and other forms of assistance. During
this trip I announced additional steps to assist your movement to'
MORE
JAN-14-1994 16:26
MINSK PRESS OFFICE
36503 P.003/005
- 3 -
a market economy: The establishment of a business center here in
your nation to help to coordinate business efforts both within
the country and with other businesses not only in my country but
around the world; a new regional enterprise fund to help to start
new businesses, which will include Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova;
and a U.S.-Belarus Investment Treaty to encourage more private
trade and investment between our two countries.
Ultimately your economic success will depend upon
your own efforts. But you must have good neighbors who wish to
be good partners. The United States wants to be one of those.
And I believe there is no reason that Belarus be left behind in
this march to a global economy. I urge you to press ahead with
these economic reforms; to dc it in a sensible and a clear-
headed a way as possible; to learn from the experience of other
nations because I believe that it is the key to a better future.
You also face the challenge of political transition.
Just as modern economies need the benefit of every individual's
productive capacity, modern nations need the benefit, indeed
cannot do well without the benefit of the diverse and informed
views of all of their people. The world does not work very well
from the top down anymore It requires the active engagement of
all individuals.
When voices are silenced by authoritarianism, by
closed political systems or, as in the case with too many
democracies today, by the apathy of citizens themselves who stay
home and stay out of political dialogue, then wisdom is lost,
debate becomes more hollow, challenges are avoided instead of
being faced, and in the end, tyrants find it easier to grab or to
hold on to power. We know where that low road leads. It leads
to economic stagnation and social intolerance.
You have learned from your own hard history that
there is a better way. I applaud your democratic reforms. I
hope you will follow through with the commitments that have been
made to hold new elections in March of this year. I hope you
will press ahead with plans to craft a new constitution. I hope
you will, in short, create a foundation for your economic renewal
by protecting and promoting the political and human rights of
your people, without which, over the long run, it will be very
difficult to have a strong economy.
One of the most encouraging signs of your economic
renewal is the political ferment that is bubbling up from your
people. You have new political movements such as the Belarusian
Popular Front. I was pleased to meet some of their members early
today. You have environment groups which forms after the
Chernobyl disaster. Such groups along with free labor unions,
business associations and others can help to create a culture of
participation, of debate, of personal investment in your nation's
future. These private associations are important, just almost as
important as the right to vcte in the elections. It requires
both a participation in the decisions of who will represent you
at the state and who will be able to organize privately to make
life more satisfactory and they'll give views a wider range.
Finally, let me say a word about your efforts to
build a new nation that defines its strength and greatness in new
ways. There is no better example than your determination to live
as a nuclear-free state. since I became the President of the
United states, I have been determined to work with the other
nuclear nations, and especially with Russia, to try to help the
other republics of the former Soviet Union become nuclear-free;
and we have gone a long way to finance that. Belarus led the
way, and you deserve the credit and thanks of citizens all over
the world.
Seventy-six nuclear weapons were here when the
Soviet Union dissolved. As a new nation, one of your first
decisions was to do away with them. It would have been easier to
MORE
JAN-14-1994 16:28
MINSK PRESS OFFICE
36503 P.004.005
- 4 -
look backward and say, well, these 76 weapons somehow make us a
great nation; they make us stronger, we will keep them, we will
use them and rattle them around as threats if people don't help
us or do what we want them to do. But you made a braver and a
better choice -- to live nuclear-free.
I am sure that your tragic experience with Chernobyl
helped to shape that choice. But I also imagine that many, many
of you had a clear understanding that these weapons, powerful and
intimidating though they might be, offer you little in the way of
real security. Real security lies in the integration with your
neighbors -- their political and economic values and respect for
their borders.
so you freely chose to eliminate these weapons. You
became the first of the newly-independent states of the former
Soviet Union to ratify the START Treaty and to accede to the
nonproliferation treaty. That is part of why I was so pleased to
welcome Chairman shushkevich to Washington last July, early in my
administration. I wanted to express my admiration for the
courage and the vision that he and that all of you have
demonstrated by making the choice to be nuclear-free.
We are committed to helping you to prove to all the
people of the world that that was the right choice, that you were
building a new and a better security. We are helping you to
remove these weapons safely and security technical advice. You
suffered through one nuclear tragedy. We are determined to see
that you do not endure another.
Today I informed the Chairman that the United States
will make additional funds available to Belarus for this purpose
which will bring the total we have provided over the last two
years in '93 and '94 to $100 million.
As you move away from the weapons of the old
security, we want to help you to build a new security by helping
you to be a part of a new and democratic Europe.
Earlier this week I joined our NATO allies in
creating the Partnership For Peace. The Partnership For Peace
invites all of the nations of the former Soviet Union and the
former Warsaw Pact and all other non-NATO nations in Europe, all
of them together to join with NATO in a partnership that will
permit us together to provide for the common security. It will
permit non-NATO members to do military planning and training and
exercises with NATO members as long as they promise to respect
the sovereignty, the independence and the existing territorial
boundaries of all of the nations which participate.
I hope Belarus will give careful consideration to
this partnership. It is a part of our strategy to try to have a
Europe that is undivided for the first time in its history, that
uses the prospect of military ocoperation genuinely to ensure the
peace instead of simply to prepare for war.
You are a new nation with a long history. During
this century you have endured as much or more hardship as any
people we have ever known. And now you face difficult and
challenging political and economic transitions. They are so
challenging that they can even be disorienting. And if you move
to elections, which I hope and pray that you will, you will find
that when people are in trouble they sometimes vote their
frustrations as well as their hopes. That is still true in the
United States, and we've been working at it for 200 years now.
But there is no substitute for putting the people of
the nation in the driver's seat. over the long -- (applause) --
and we must be aware of this, no matter how sophisticated a
people are, no matter how much information is available to
decision-makers. There 16 BO much going on in this world today,
economically, politically, culturally. The changes are so
MORE
JAN-14-1994 16:29
MINSK PRESS OFFICE
36503 P.005/005
- 5 -
sweeping there is no way that one group of people, sitting atop a
society, can make decisions which suffice to guarantee the best
possible life for all of the people who live in that society.
Therefore, I believe that free political systems and
free economic systems also happen to be good economics for the
world in which we are living and the world which we will live in
the 21st century for the foreseeable future. You face
possibilities that are as sweeping as your land. The new freedom
you are building has many difficulties, but it can also work
miracles. It can make your cities thrive, it can help your land
to blossom. Most important of all, it can give the wonderful
children that I was shaking hands with just a few moments ago
real hope.
END
3 35 PM
JAN-10-1994 19:29
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.003
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 10, 1994
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
The Conrad Hotel
Brussels, Belgium
6:42 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen,
I came to Europe to help strengthen European integration, to
create a new security for the United States and its Atlantic
partners, based on the idea that we have a real chance to
integrate rather than to divide Europe, both East and West; an
integration based on shared democracies, market economies, and
defense cooperation.
Today we have taken two giant steps toward greater
security for the United States, for Europe and the world. First,
this afternoon I joined our NATO allies in signing the documents
that create the Partnership For Peace. The United States
proposed this Partnership to lay the foundation for intensive
cooperation among the armed forces of our NATO members, all
former Warsaw Pact states, and other non NATO European states who
wish to join the Partnership.
By providing for the practical integration and
cooperation of these diverse military forces, the Partnership For
Peace will lead to the enlargement of NATO membership and will
support our efforts to integrate Europe.
I'm also pleased to announce that on Friday the
United states will sign with Ukraine and Russia an agreement
which commits Ukraine to eliminate nuclear weapons from its
territory. These include 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles
and some 1,500 warheads targeted at the United States. This is a
hopeful and historic breakthrough that enhances the security of
all three parties and every other nation as well.
When I came into office, I said that one of my
highest priorities was combating the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The issue of
nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union was the most important
nonproliferation challenge facing the world. with the Soviet
Union dissolved, four countries were left with nuclear weapons:
Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. I have sought to ensure
that the break-up of the Soviet Union does not result in the
birth of new nuclear states which could raise the chances for
nuclear accident, nuclear terrorism or nuclear proliferation.
In just one year, after an intensive diplomatic
effort by the United States, both Kazakhstan and Belarus agreed
to acceed to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and to join the
ranks of nonnuclear nations. Much credit for these actions goes
to President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan -- whom I will be welcoming
to Washington in February -- and Chairman Shushkevich of Belarus,
whom I will meet in Minsk later this week, as well as to the
people and parliaments of those two countries.
My administration has been working with the
governments of Ukraine and Russia to address Ukraine's security
concerns so that it could follow suit. The trilateral accord we
will sign will lead to the complete removal of nuclear weapons
from Ukraine.
MORE
JAN-10-1994 19:31
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.004
- 2 -
I want to congratulate both President Yeltsin and
President Kravchuk of Ukraine for their statesmanship in
negotiating this accord with us. I want to commend President
Kravchuk and to thank him for his leadership. I look forward to
consulting with him personally during the brief stop at Borispol
Airport in Kiev on Wednesday evening. President Kravchuk will
later join President Yeltsin and me in Moscow on Friday to
finalize the agreement in a trilateral meeting.
This agreement opens a new era in our relationship
with Ukraine, an important country at the center of Europe -- a
country, I might add, which was mentioned frequently during our
meetings today. We expect to expand our cooperation with Ukraine
especially in the economic area. We look forward to Ukraine's
playing an important role in efforts to move toward the
integration of a broader Europe.
Today, I spent the day at NATO Headquarters, one of
the pillars of our security in the post-World War II era.
Throughout that era, our security was defined by the stability of
Europe's division. But with the two breakthroughs for peace
announced today, we can begin to imagine as well as to define a
new security for the post-Cold War era founded not on Europe's
division, but instead on its integration.
Throughout the 20th century, now drawing to a close,
Europe has seen far too much bloodshed based on these divisions.
But with strong democracies, strong market economies, strong
bonds of defense cooperation and this strong step to combat
nuclear weapons proliferation, we can make the next century far
more secure for all of our people by building a united Europe.
Q
Mr. President, there is some who have suggested
that even this Partnership For Peace is going to be too much of
an exacerbation to the nationalist tendencies in Russia. And
today Mr. Zhirinovsky said that if NATO troops are ever stationed
near the borders of Russia, it's a mistake, it's finished for
NATO and/or other forces who have supported this organization;
it's the beginning of a third world war if the NATO or other
forces are along those borders. HOW do you respond to that and
to the concerns that there are people in Russia who will not even
take this step kindly?
THE PRESIDENT: My response to that is his, thank
goodness, is not the governing voice in Russia, and that we have
offered to the Russians, to all the states of the former Soviet
Union and to all the Eastern European countries which were in the
Warsaw Pact the opportunity to participate in this Partnership
For Peace.
The reason I wanted the Partnership For Peace rather
than nothing, which perhaps Mr. Zhirinovsky would have pre:erred,
or immediate membership, which others would have preferred, is
that I thought it gave us the best chance, first, to develop
substantive military and defense cooperation for these countries;
second, to give nations who wish to be members -- full members of
NATO the chance to develop the capacity to assume their
responsibilities; and third, to give us the chance, most
importantly of all, to create a Europe that really is integrated,
that is based on unity and not some dividing line that at least
is further east than the Cold War dividing line was.
so I simply -- I disagree with the position that
he's taken, but that is not the position that govern Russia,
thank goodness.
Q
DO you think, just to follow, that Russia would
be joining the Partnership For Peace?
THE PRESIDENT: They are certainly welcome to do 50.
We've issued --
JAN-10-1994 19:29
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.003
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 10, 1994
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
The Conrad Hotel
Brussels, Belgium
6:42 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen,
I came to Europe to help strengthen European integration, to
create a new security for the United States and its Atlantic
partners, based on the idea that we have a real chance to
integrate rather than to divide Europe, both East and West; an
integration based on shared democracies, market economies, and
defense cooperation.
Today we have taken two giant steps toward greater
security for the United States, for Europe and the world. First,
this afternoon I joined our NATO allies in signing the documents
that create the Partnership For Peace. The United States
proposed this Partnership to lay the foundation for intensive
cooperation among the armed forces of our NATO members, all
former Warsaw Pact states, and other non_NATO European states who
wish to join the Partnership.
By providing for the practical integration and
cooperation of these diverse military forces, the Partnership For
Peace will lead to the enlargement of NATO membership and will
support our efforts to integrate Europe.
I'm also pleased to announce that on Friday the
United states will sign with Ukraine and Russia an agreement
which commits Ukraine to eliminate nuclear weapons from its
territory. These include 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles
and some 1,500 warheads targeted at the United States. This is a
hopeful and historic breakthrough that enhances the security of
all three parties and every other nation as well.
When I came into office, I said that one of my
highest priorities was combating the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The issue of
nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union was the most important
nonproliferation challenge facing the world. with the Soviet
Union dissolved, four countries were left with nuclear weapons:
Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. I have sought to ensure
that the break-up of the Soviet Union does not result in the
birth of new nuclear states which could raise the chances for
nuclear accident, nuclear terrorism or nuclear proliferation.
In just one year, after an intensive diplomatic
effort by the United states, both Kazakhstan and Belarus agreed
to acceed to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and to join the
ranks of nonnuclear nations. Much credit for these actions goes
to President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan -- whom I will be welcoming
to Washington in February -- and Chairman Shushkevich of Belarus,
whom I will meet in Minsk later this week, as well as to the
people and parliaments of those two countries.
My administration has been working with the
governments of Ukraine and Russia to address Ukraine's security
concerns so that it could follow suit. The trilateral accord we
will sign will lead to the complete removal of nuclear weapons
from Ukraine.
MORE
JAN-10-1994 19:32
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.005
- 3 -
Q
Could that happen in the next few days?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that all the nations to whom
the welcome mat has been put out may want to take some -- some
may want to take more time than others to think about it. But we
certainly expect to have some sort of continuing defense
cooperation with Russia, and they are certainly welcome to be a
part of this.
2
On the subject of Bosnia, earlier today you
said that NATO would be reasserting its warning against the
strangulation of Sarajevo. You said if we're going to reassert
this warning, it cannot be seen as mere rhetoric. Yet, NATO has
done nothing in Bosnia really. what changed today after your
meeting?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me point out, NATO has
done everything that the United Nations has asked it to do. NATO
-- with our allies, we have conducted the longest airlift in
history to bring supplies to the people of Bosnia. We have
supported working with our allies' operations in the Adriatic and
other operations designed to support the embargo. We have
supported the no-fly zone. We have done everything the United
Nations has asked us to do.
What we are going to discuss tonight in greater
detail -- let me say, I don't want to say any -- I'll be glad to
talk about my comment today, but I do want to tell you we're
going to have more discussions about this tonight at dinner.
The point I was trying to make today that Secretary
General Woerner also wanted to make was that if we were going to
restate, in effect, the warning we adopted in August that if
sarajevo were subject to undue and continued shelling in a way
that threatened it significantly -- and there was more shelling
today -- that we would consider having air strikes, that we had
to be prepared to do that. And I can tell you that on behalf of
the United States that if the facts warrant that we would
certainly ask the North Atlantic Council to take it up. That is,
we would ask all of our allies and NATO to consider an
appropriate response. Now, there's still the U.N. to deal with
and other things, but we believe we can -- we should go forward.
The question of what we can do to get a peace in
Bosnia, however, I want to caution you, goes far beyond that.
That is, 1t depends upon the willingness of all the parties to
agree to a reasonable settlement; and what may be appropriate in
dealing with relieving the siege of Sarajevo may or may not
actually hasten an end to the war.
So we'll be discussing that in greater detail.
Q
You're not ready for the air strikes yet, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say, what I want to do
at this meeting this meeting is not about air strikes. This
meeting is about whether we're going to reaffirm our position. I
can just tell you that the United States would be prepared to ask
the North Atlantic Council to consider that if the siege of
Sarajevo continues and the facts warrant it.
Q
You made one of the toughest statements you
ever have made for an international group. What was the response
of the allies? I mean, how did they take it? Did they say they
would go along?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're going to talk about it
tonight. Some did, some have not commented yet. But let me say
today the most important thing and the thing we talked about
today was our agreement on the strategy for reaching out to the
MORE
JAN-10-1994 22:17
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.001
- 4 -
East. Over the long run, that will have a greater significance,
in my judgement, for the future of Europe than whatever is or is
not done with the tragedy in Bosnia at this late date. So we
spent most of our time today fleshing out, dealing with, working
through this whole concept of the Partnership For Peace. And I
was, frankly, very gratified that so many of the leaders of the
other countries believe that it is the right way to go and
understand it's not just a compromise, but it's a vibrant concept
that gives us a chance to build the best possible future for
Europe. That to me was the best thing we were doing.
&
Mr. President, what assurances do you have from
President Kravchuk that he can sell this arms deal to his
Parliament this time? There have been difficulties in the past.
And what are the costs, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say, first of all, that
-- let me deal with the cost first. As you all know -- and then
I'll get to the other point -- you all know how the Nunn-Lugar
funds work. The only cost to the United states taxpayers in this
agreement will be the continuation of the Nunn-Lugar program;
that is the funds that we provide to help people dismantle their
nuclear weapons. What does Ukraine get out of this? They get
security assurances that go with this sort of agreement. That
is, once you become a nonnuclear state, the states that have
nuclear weapons promise not to use them against them ever under
any circumstances. They get various kinds of technical
assistance to carry out this. And they get paid for their highly
enriched uranium; they are compensated. That is a commercial
transaction involving no cost to the American taxpayer. so there
is no cost.
In terms of the assurances, let me say that
President Kravchuk has continued to work on -- progress on
previous agreements he has made. He has shown, I think, great
courage in the last few months in working through this very
difficult and complex set of negotiations with us that has
involved me, the Vice President, the State Department and
everybody else that's appropriate on our side. And we have no
reason to doubt the ability of the President to keep the
commitment that he is prepared to make.
Я Mr. President, now that you have a deal with
Ukraine, what can we anticipate sunday when you meet with Syrian
President Assad? Will there be some sort of dramatic
announcement there, as well?
THE PRESIDENT: I've already got -- we've already
bunched too many stories in one day, haven't we? (Laughter.) I
really can't -- I can't say anymore at this point than you
already know about that. We're going to try to keep the Middle
East peace process going.
Thank you very much.
END
6:56 P.M. (L)
46509 P.005
JAN-10-1994 19:32
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
- 3 -
Q Could that happen in the next few days?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that all the nations to whom
the welcome mat has been put out may want to take some -- some
may want to take more time than others to think about it. But we
certainly expect to have some sort of continuing defense
cooperation with Russia, and they are certainly welcome to be a
part of this.
Q On the subject of Bosnia, earlier today you
said that NATO would be reasserting its warning against the
strangulation of Sarajevo. You said if we're going to reassert
this warning, it cannot be seen as mere rhetoric. Yet, NATO has
done nothing in Bosnia really. what changed today after your
meeting?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me point out, NATO has
done everything that the United Nations has asked it to do. NATO
-- with our allies, we have conducted the longest airlift in
history to bring supplies to the people of Bosnia. We have
supported working with our allies' operations in the Adriatic and
other operations designed to support the embargo. We have
supported the no-fly zone. We have done everything the United
Nations has asked us to do.
What we are going to discuss tonight in greater
detail -- let me say, I don't want to say any -- I'll be glad to
talk about my comment today, but I do want to tell you we're
going to have more discussions about this tonight at dinner.
The point I was trying to make today that Secretary
General Woerner also wanted to make was that if we were going to
restate, in effect, the warning we adopted in August that if
sarajevo were subject to undue and continued shelling in a way
that threatened it significantly -- and there was more shelling
today that we would consider having air strikes, that we had
to be prepared to do that. And I can tell you that on behalf of
the United States that if the facts warrant that we would
certainly ask the North Atlantic Council to take it up. That is,
we would ask all of our allies and NATO to consider an
appropriate response. Now, there's still the U.N. to deal with
and other things, but we believe we can -- we should go forward.
The question of what we can do to get a peace in
Bosnia, however, I want to caution you, goes far beyond that.
That is, it depends upon the willingness of all the parties to
agree to a reasonable settlement; and what may be appropriate in
dealing with relieving the siege of Sarajevo may or may not
actually hasten an end to the war.
So we'll be discussing that in greater detail.
Q You're not ready for the air strikes yet, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say, what I want to do
at this meeting this meeting is not about air strikes. This
meeting is about whether we're going to reaffirm our position. I
can just tell you that the United States would be prepared to ask
the North Atlantic Council to consider that if the siege of
Sarajevo continues and the facts warrant it.
2 You made one of the toughest statements you
ever have made for an international group. What was the response
of the allies? I mean, how did they take it? Did they say they
would go along?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we're going to talk about it
tonight. Some did, some have not commented yet. But let me say
today the most important thing and the thing we talked about
today was our agreement on the strategy for reaching out to the
MORE
JAN-13-1994 18:01
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.003
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Prague, Czech Republic)
For Immediate Release
January 12, 1994
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
WITH VISEGRAD LEADERS
U.S. Ambassador's Residence
Prague, Czech Republic
1:55 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. Welcome to the very beautiful American Embassy.
I have just finished a very productive and enjoyable
working lunch with the leaders of the Visegrad states --
President Vaclav Havel and Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus of the
Czech Republic; President Arpad Goencz and Prime Minister Peter
Boross of Hungary; President Lech Walesa and Prime Minister
Waldemar Pawlak of Poland; and President Michal Kovac and Prime
Minister Vladimir Meciar of Slovakia.
I want to, at the outset, stress my appreciation to
President Havel, Premier Klaus and the Czech people for their
hospitality and contributions to our meeting, and I thank again
all the Visegrad leaders for joining here today.
This region, where the great democratic rebirth of
Europe began five years ago, holds a special place in my own
affections. I first came to this city 24 years ago this week,
and two of my senior national security advisors were born in this
region -- the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of staff General
Shalikashvili, who spent most of his early years in Poland, was
born there; and my U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright who was
born here in Prague.
I told President Havel yesterday that the Czech
Republic is the only nation in the world that has two ambassadors
in the United Nations.
I have come to Europe to help build a new security
for the transatlantic community for the 21st century. During the
Cold War the security of the Western Alliance was defined by the
division of Europe. Our new security must be defined by Europe's
integration, the integration of a broader Europe based on
military cooperation, robust democracies and market economies.
That was my message in Brussels, where I met with our NATO and
European Community allies. And it will be my message as I travel
to Moscow.
I am mindful of an old Polish saying, which I have,
I hope, learned to pronounce properly -- Nits o nas bez nas.
Nothing about us without us. And so I have come to this region
to share my thoughts directly with your leaders and your people.
I believe the United States must make clear to all of you first
that we are committed to helping you continue your work of reform
and renewal in peace. That commitment derives from more than our
shared values and our admiration for your efforts. It also
derives from our own security concerns.
Let me be absolutely clear: The security of your
state is important to the security of the United states.
At today's lunch I discussed three ways in which my
nation is prepared to advance Europe's democratic integration by
MORE
JAN-13-1994 18:02
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 F.004
- 2 -
supporting your region's continued renewal and security. First,
we discussed the Partnership for Peace, the American proposal
NATO has just adopted. The Partnership invites all former Warsaw
Pact and former Soviet states, plus other non-NATO members in
Europe, to join in military cooperation with NATO in training
exercise and operations jointly.
While the Partnership is not NATO membership,
neither is it a permanent holding room. It changes the entire
NATO dialogue so that now the question is no longer whether NATO
will take on new members, but when and how. It leaves the door
open to the best possible outcome for our region, democracy,
markets and security all across a broader Europe, while providing
time and preparation to deal with a lesser outcome.
Second, we discussed ways in which the United States
can help to solidify your democratic and market reforms. I
stressed that I have ordered our programs to give greater
emphasis to helping this region tend to reform's impacts on your
workers and your communities.
I talked about the ways we are working to expand
trade and investment between your region, the rest of Europe and
the United States. I also discussed the steps we are taking to
help the Visegrad region and other parts of Central and Eastern
Europe bolster their new democracies.
We're supporting the development of a thriving civil
society. And in our meeting I announced the creation of the
democracy network, an initiative to bring new resources to grass
roots and independent groups throughout the region. I stressed
our interest in fostering regional cooperation among your
countries, practical things that can advance your integration
into a broader Europe.
Finally, I salute all those leaders here in Prague
today who have worked to build practical regional cooperation and
consensus in Central Europe at this pivotal moment in history. I
congratulate them on having this regional meeting. And I
suggested several ways we can help to support regional
integration, including support for regional infrastructure
projects, like highways and communications networks and air
traffic systems.
I have greatly enjoyed my discussions today here. I
assure you I will follow up on them. The United states will have
a special conference this year on trade and investment in the
countries represented here on what we can do to increase American
investment and to increase the purchase of the products made by
the people who are working hard in all of these thriving
democracies.
I come away convinced that, together, we can place
Central and Eastern Europe at the heart of a new Europe, an
integrated Europe, democratic, prosperous, secure and free. That
is my commitment; I believe it 1s our joint commitment.
Thank you very much, and I'd like now to turn the
microphone over to President Havel.
PRESIDENT HAVEL: Distinguished President, ladies
and gentlemen. We are living in a time of a dramatic searching
for a new order. An order in which no one would be subjugated or
endangered and which would make it possible for all European
people and states to live in an atmosphere of peaceful
cooperation.
our today's meeting in Prague bears witness to the
great importance which the United states and the North Atlantic
Alliance attach to stability, security and peace in Central
Europe, in relation to peace in all of Europe as well as to the
security of the United States.
MORE
JAN-13-1994 18:24
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.001
- 3 -
We welcome the Partnership For Peace project as a
good point of departure in NATO's quest for a new identity of the
Alliance as a true stabilizing core of European security. We
appreciate that it allows individual approaches from the various
countries. At the same time, however, it depends on how
energetically and how quickly the different countries will move
to instill in Partnership For Peace contents meeting their
interests and their possibilities. For our part, we want to do
everything in our power in order that our partnership results in
our full membership in the Alliance. We do not regard
Partnership For Peace as a substitute for that, but rather as a
first step toward NATO.
The reason why we want to join the Alliance is that
we share the values of civilization which it protects, and that
we want to take part in protecting them. We realize that it is
neither possible nor desirable to isolate Russia. However, we
are independent states and we decide ourselves about our
affiliations and our policies.
Ladies and gentlemen, as we agreed in our
conversations with the representatives of the Central European
nations that are represented at this meeting in Prague, our
countries have very similar views on this subject. This is
certainly a gratifying circumstance and it is to the benefit of
us all.
Let me, therefore, conclude by expressing my firm
conviction that this meeting has become an important landmark on
the road toward a new democratic and truly peaceful Europe,
sharing firm and natural ties with the North American continent.
At one time, the city of Yalta went down in history as a symbol
of the division of Europe. I would be happy if today the city of
Prague emerged as a symbol of Europe's standing in alliance.
Thank you.
Q
Mr. President, there are nationalists in Russia
who look at these four countries and other nations that were
under the grip of Moscow and they dream of rebuilding the Soviet
Empire. What will you tell Russian President Boris Yeltsin about
the security needs of these countries and how far it should go in
guaranteeing their territorial integrity and their borders?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I would say that based
on their past statements, he's right and they're wrong. That is,
I think that the Russian position, the position of the present
administration there that they will respect the territorial
boundaries of their neighbors is the proper position.
You know, each nation at critical periods has to
imagine again what its future is going to be. It has to define
itself -- how it will define itself as a nation and how it will
define a standard of greatness. The United states, in very
different ways, is going through such a period today. And Russia
must do that.
In the 21st century can anyone seriously believe
that we will define greatness by whether one country can
physically occupy another, since we all know that wealth and
opportunity will be determined by things other than physical
possession of land mass? I don't think so.
And my urgent task will be to try to continue to
press the path of democracy and reform and America's support for
it in Russia. They are a great people with a great history and a
great future. But the future must be different from the past,
and the way greatness is defined must be different. And that, I
think, is a struggle plainly going on there now that will play
itself out over the next few years. And I'm hoping and will be
working for the best possible impact.
MORE
JAN-13-1994 18:26
PRESS CFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.002
Helen?
Q
Mr. President, it's obvious that the leaders
have accepted something short of what they really wanted. And in
a way they' re being treated as second cousins. They really
wanted security guarantees and you and all the NATO allies have
told them that that's not in the package. In view of --
THE PRESIDENT: Let me just -- I disagree that
they're being treated as second cousins. This is something NATO
has never done before. we will have people out in the next few
days talking about how we're going to begin all kinds of joint
security operations. To say that 16 nations of NATO made a
mistake not to immediately issue security guarantees to some
nations of Europe and not others, without knowing in any way,
shape or form whether the reciprocal obligations could be met by
new members I think is an unfair characterization of the NATO
Alliance.
Q
My question is, in view of the lessons of World
War II, is it conceivable if any of these nations were invaded or
aggressed against that NATO would not come to their aid?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is doubtful; that's
right. I think your reading -- our reading of history is right.
But, frankly, I think none of us believe that -- I can't speak
for the other Presidents except based on our conversations --
that that is imminent. I think -- what I was impressed by from
these leaders is that they very much want to be a part of Europe,
of the Western Alliance, in an economic and social and political,
as well as a military way, and that the broad definition of
security is in that.
of course, there are always concerns that in the
future, the darker past might be recreated, that there could be
an expansionism again. But what we need to do is, again -- what
I'm trying to do is to reach out and enhance the security of
these nations in ways that also permit other nations to enhance
their security and partnership with us, and that does not now
draw a new line of division across Europe. Maybe there will be a
new line drawn some day, and if so, we want to do what we can to
support the security of these nations. But we hope that we are
giving Europe the possibility for the best possible future.
Mr. Blitzer I think had a question for President
Walesa, and then I'd like a question from the foreign press next.
But, Wolf, go ahead.
α
President Walesa, I'm sorry I can't ask you
this question in Polish. But Poland seems to be the least
enthusiastic among the Visegrad countries for the Partnership For
Peace proposals. Is that accurate? And can you describe exactly
how you feel about this proposal and whether Poland will seek
membership in the Partnership For Peace proposal.
PRESIDENT WALESA: I can answer into words:
Sometimes small is beautiful. And we do believe that this is a
step in the right direction. It's been decided by the powers of
the world and we shall try to make good use of this.
Q
What about your next part of your unofficial
program in Prague with President Havel? Did public radio give
you a tape of your saxophone concert -- (laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I think the best part of my
unofficial time in Prague was becoming reacquainted with the city
-- walking across the bridge again after 24 years and seeing the
family I stayed with 24 years ago and just meeting the people. I
was very pleased by the large number of people who came out
yesterday to see me and to say hello. And sAeing the changes
MORE
JAN-13-1994 18:30
PRESS OFC MOSCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.001
- 5 -
here, it was very rewarding and it stiffened my determination to
continue to support these kinds of changes.
Now, I had a lot of fun playing the saxophone. The
President gave me a saxophone with his name inscribed in it, so
it's a gift I will always treasure. The nice thing about the
little music we played last night was that the Czech musicians
with whom I played were so good that they covered up all my
shortcomings. (Laughter.)
Is there another question from the foreign press?
α What is the next American step in the Bosnia
war?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the next thing that we are
doing now is what we are doing with NATO. NATO adopted a new
resolution and our military commanders in Europe now are looking
into the instruction they got from the NATO commanders, which is
to examine what plans can be developed to ensure the rotation of
the troops at Srebrenica and to ensure that the airstrip at Tuzla
is open.
Now, in addition to that, I have been actively
consulting with all the people with whom I have met. I have
asked all the leaders here what further steps that they thought
ought to be taken. Everyone recognizes that the peace prospects
have been diminished now because, for the first time in a good
while, all three parties seem to believe they have something to
gain by fighting. And as long as that circumstance continues
it's going to be difficult for us to convince them through a
political process to stop. But there are some ideas floating
around and I am going to solicit some more.
Q
Mr. President, already there are voices in
Ukraine's Parliament suggesting that President Kravchuk went
beyond his authority in negotiating the agreement to eliminate
nuclear weapons. And even a Foreign Ministry spokesman there
today said there may not be an agreement ready for you and
President Yeltsin and President Kravchuk to sign in MOSCOW on
Friday. Is that your understanding and is this causing concern
about this agreement that you reached this week?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's see what happens in
Kiev. I think -- we have to let President Kravchuk make his own
judgments about what he can and cannot do with his government. I
expect that we will have an agreement and I expect that it will
be honored. And I think, frankly, the more the people in the
Ukrainian Parliament know about it, the better they will feel
about it. I think as the details get out, they'll feel better
about it.
Я There appears to be some difference of opinion
even within your own staff about President Kravchuk's ability to
order these changes, whether he can do it be executive order,
whether the Rada or Parliament has to vote on it. What is your
understanding of that, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: We'll talk about it in Kiev and
beyond. Let's watch it unfold and see.
Я
Mr. President, I had planned to ask the
question that Mark asked. But let me ask you -- the reformers in
Russia seem to have had trouble building coalitions to offset the
rise of the nationalist forces. What kind of advice will you be
giving Mr. Yeltsin and other reform leaders about how to go about
offsetting the threat of Mr. zirinovsky?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think first of all, perhaps
in the last election they learned a good lesson, which is that
the forces of reform need to find ways to work together and to
speak if not with one voice, at least with a common message.
MORE
JAN-13-1994 10:-4
PRESS OFC MOBCOW RUSSIA
30509 P.001
- 6 -
And I expect there to be some rough spots along the
way. I mean, after all, this is a rather new experience for them
and they'll have to figure out exactly how the forces are going
to be organized within the new Parliament, and then they'll have
to work out their relationship with the President. But even
those of us that have been at it for 200 years still have
difficulties from time to time. But I'm looking forward to
meeting with a number of those leaders in the reform effort and
getting to know them and getting some feel for where they are and
where they're going. But I'm still basically quite hopeful.
Thank you very much.
END
2:19 P.M> (L)
JAN-11-1994 20:31
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.009,024
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN MEETING WITH AMERICAN BUSINESS COMMUNITY
Conrad Hotel
Brussels, Belgium
8:06 A.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you,
Jim, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. I got here in time
to hear the last several moments of the Secretary of State's
remarks and all that stuff where he was bragging on me, and it
reminded me of Clinton's fourth law of politics, which is
whenever possible, be preceded on the platform by someone you've
appointed to an important position. (Laughter.)
Nonetheless, we did have a good day yesterday -- the
United states did -- and I think the Atlantic Alliance did. I
came here to Europe hoping that together we might begin to
realize the full promise of the end of the Cold War --
recognizing clearly that this is a difficult economic time in
Europe; there are still profound difficulties in the United
States; and that 1s having an impact on the politics of Europe
and of the United States and of what we might do.
Nonetheless, it seemed to me that the time had come
to try to define, here on the verge of the 21st century, what the
elements of a new security in Europe and in the United States
should be in the aftermath of the Cold War -- one premised not on
the division of Europe, but on the possibility of its
integration, its political integration around democracies; its
economic integration around market economics; and its defense
integration around mutual defense cooperation.
Yesterday when the NATO Alliance adopted the concept
of the Partnership For Peace, we did what I believe history will
record as a very important thing. We opened up the possibility
of expanded NATO membership to nations to our East, not only all
the former Warsaw Pact countries, but also other non-NATO members
in Europe, all who wish to begin to work on joint planning and
operations with us and to work toward being able to assume the
full responsibilities of membership. But we did it in a way by
opening up the possibility to everyone and making no decisions
now. We did it in a way that did not have the United states and
NATO prematurely drawing another line in Europe to divide it in a
different way, but instead gave us a chance to work for the best
possible future for Europe -- one that includes not only the
countries of Eastern Burope, but also countries that were part of
the former Soviet Union and, indeed, Russia itself. so we have
made, I think, a very good besinning in the right way.
We also are going to have today the first summit
with the European Union after the ra-ification of the Maastricht
Treaty to begin to talk about what we an do together to rebuild
the rate of economic growth and opportunity here and throughout
the world.
Our firms -- our American firms -- are deeply woven
into the fabric of Europe's economies. Over 60 percent of all
the overseas profits of American companies come from Europe. We
have $225 billion American dollars invested hera, employing
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:33
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.010/024
- 2 -
nearly three million Western Europeans alone. And back home,
trade with Europe generated $120 billion worth or exports and
about two and a half million jobs in 1993. We all know you
know better than I -- that this continent favors -- excuse me --
faces high unemployment and very sluggish growth rates. We also
see that in Japan. And even though in our country the
unemployment rate is coming down, we see in every advanced
economy great difficulty today in creating jobs and generating
higher incomes even when people are working harder and working
smarter.
The renewal of the Atlantic economies is critical to
the future of America and, I would argue, critical to the future
of our Alliance. For in a democracy, as we have seen time and
time again in votes at home, in votes in Europe and in votes in
Russia, when people feel that they are anchored and stable and
secure, when they believe they will be rewarded for their work,
when they believe that the future will be better than the past,
they vote in a certain way. When they are in economic and
emotional freefall, when they feel disoriented, when they don't
know whether the future will be better than the past, they often
vote in another way and in ways that, indeed, make their futures
more difficult and life for all peoples more difficult.
When I became President, it seemed to me that my
first order of business ought to be to put our own economic house
in order. And so we worked hard to reverse the exploding
deficits of the last 12 years, to begin to invest in our own
people, to try to do it in a way that would keep interest rates
low and inflation low and turn the tide of private investment in
the United states. We have begun to do that. Last year more new,
jobs came into our economy than in the previous four years.
Millions of Americans refinanced their homes and businesses.
Consumer confidence at the end of the year rose to its highest
level in many years, and people began to believe that they could
pay their debts and control their lives. In November,
delinquencies on home mortgage payments in America reached a 19-
year low. so we are beginning to believe that we have some
discipline, some control of our own destiny.
We also had to make a tough decision in America last
year as a people. And that is whether we could grow internally
or whether we could continue to grow by reaching out to compete
and win in a global economy and helping our friends and neighbors
to grow. That debate was, I suppose, captured more clearly for
the people of our nation and the people of the world in the
congressional debate over NAFTA than in any other thing.
But the issue was bigger and, in some ways, simpler
than that. It seems to me clearly that there is no way in a
global economy for a wealthy country to grow wealthier -- to
generate more jobs and to raise incomes -- unless there are more
customers for its goods and services, and customers beyond its
own national borders; and that the United states can ill afford
to be in the vanguard of those running away from that idea and,
instead, should be in the vanguard of those promoting it. That's
really what the NAFTA vote was all about.
To be sure, those who voted against NAFTA were
responding to very legitimate pressures and very real fears.
While workers all over the world believe now that they are too
fungible, relatively unimportant to people who control their jobs
and their lives; and that in the flash of an eye, their jobs and
their livelihoods could be taken away by someone who could move
money, information across the globe in a millisecond and, indeed,
who could move management and technology across the globe in a
short amount of time.
And so it is going to be a continuing challenge for
us to keep Americans outward looking, committed to open trade and
more open markets and still, at the same time, to make our
working people more secure in the sense not that they will be
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:31
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.009/024
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN MEETING WITH AMERICAN BUSINESS COMMUNITY
Conrad Hotel
Brussels, Belgium
8:06 A.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you,
Jim, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. I got here in time
to hear the last several moments of the Secretary of State's
remarks and all that stuff where he was bragging on me, and it
reminded me of Clinton's fourth law of politics, which is
whenever possible, be preceded on the platform by someone you've
appointed to an important position. (Laughter.)
Nonetheless, we did have a good day yesterday -- the
United states did -- and I think the Atlantic Alliance did. I
came here to Europe hoping that together we might begin to
realize the full promise of the end of the Cold War --
recognizing clearly that this is a difficult economic time in
Europe; there are still profound difficulties in the United
States; and that is having an impact on the politics of Europe
and of the United States and of what we might do.
Nonetheless, it seemed to me that the time had come
to try to define, here on the verge of the 21st century, what the
elements of a new security in Europe and in the United states
should be in the aftermath of the Cold War -- one premised not on
the division of Europe, but on the possibility of its
integration, its political integration around democracies; its
economic integration around market economics; and its defense
integration around mutual defense cooperation.
Yesterday when the NATO Alliance adopted the concept
of the Partnership For Peace, we did what I believe history will
record as a very important thing. We opened up the possibility
of expanded NATO membership to nations to our East, not only all
the former Warsaw Pact countries, but also other non-NATO members
in Europe, all who wish to begin to work on joint planning and
operations with us and to work toward being able to assume the
full responsibilities of membership. But we did it in a way by
opening up the possibility to everyone and making no decisions
now. We did it in a way that did not have the United states and
NATO prematurely drawing another line in Europe to divide it in a
different way, but instead gave us a chance to work for the best
possible future for Europe -- one that includes not only the
countries of Eastern Europe, but also countries that were part of
the former Soviet Union and, indeed, Russia itself. so we have
made, I think, a very good beginning in the right way.
We also are going to have today the first summit
with the European Union after the ra-ification of the Maastricht
Treaty to begin to talk about what we an do together to rebuild
the rate of economic growth and opportunity here and throughout
the world.
Our firms -- our American firms -- are deeply woven
into the fabric of Europe's economies. Over 60 percent of all
the overseas profits of American companies come from Europe. We
have $225 billion American dollars invested here, employing
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:35
PRAGUE CZECH FRESS OFC
32 509 P.011.024
- 3 -
able to hold the job they have, because they won't -- the average
American will now change jobs seven or eight times in a lifetime
-- but they must know that they are employable; that they will
have their basic health care needs and the needs of their
families taken care of; and that they will have a chance to make
the changes that will dominate at least the foreseeable decades
of the 21st century changes that are friendly, not hostile, to
them. And that is our challenge as we begin the next session of
Congress in 1994.
But because of the NAFTA agreement and because of
the meeting that we had in Washington State with the leaders of
the Asian-Pacific region, there was a new energy given to the
prospect of successfully concluding the GATT Round. And after
seven years of frustration and progress, we were able to do that.
I was not fully satisfied with the Round. It was obviously not
perfect from any nation's point of view, and there are clearly
many things that still have to be done. But there is no doubt in
my mind that it was in the interest of the United States to
conclude the GATT Round successfully that it will lead to the
creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in our nation alone and
millions worldwide by the end of the decade. (Applause.)
One person believed that. (Laughter.)
And I think now we have to ask ourselves where we go
beyond GATT. There are several issues, of course, that we need
to take up with our European friends and with others around the
globe. And we will take them up.
We also have to deal with the structural challenges
facing our economies, the economies of the advanced nations. In
March we're going to have a jobs conference in the United States.
We have a lot to learn from some European countries about
training and retraining of the work force. They have something
to learn, perhaps, from us in flexibility of the work force and
mobility of the work force, and the creation of an
entrepreneurial environment that will enable unemployment to be
driven down to lower levels.
But it is clear that together, along with our
friends in Japan, we all have to learn something about how to
make technological and other changes that are going on, lead not
only to higher productivity but the ability of working people to
be rewarded for that productivity and the ability of nations to
create more employment within their national borders.
Beyond that, let me emphasize that when I leave here
today after the European Union Summit, I am going on to Prague to
meet with the leaders of the Visegrad countries. And it seems to
me that it is folly to believe that we can integrate Europe
through NATO or just on the basis of affinity for democracies,
unless we are also committed to the economic integration of all
of Europe and to reaching out to our East.
I will be urging the leaders of the European Union
today to work with the United States to further reduce trade
barriers and increase trade and investment to our East. Today I
say to all of you, I hope that you are representing companies
that as a result of the activities taking place in these few days
will take another and harder look about your prospects in Central
and Eastern Europe and beyond, because without private
investment, we cannot hope to have private economic development.
oh, I know we have a lot to do in Russia. I know we
have a lot to do in the other states of the former Soviet Union
and still some work to do in Eastern Europe. And we are doing
that. I am going onto Russia after I leave Prague. But in the
end, private investment and the development of successful private
sectors will determine the future of European integration
economically. And without it, I don't believe we can hope to
sustain the military and political ties that we are building up.
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:36
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.012/024
- 4 -
So I ask you to do that. The United States
government has worked hard to eliminate outdated export controls
and to support American companies in Europe. We hope that in
turn you will feel embolden to make more investments further East
and to do what you can to improve our prospects to generate
higher levels of trade and investment across national borders in
ways that benefit people everywhere. For in the end, governments
do not create wealth, people like you do.
Soon, your efforts will be sending goods back and
forth through the channel. Your capital already is building
bonds of commerce and culture across the Atlantic. You are in
many ways the pioneers of the new Europe we are trying to ensure.
Just by instinct, you will want the kind of integration that we
have to work for around the political conference tables. Your
determination to enter new markets is a hallmark of the American
spirit and can help make the 21st century an American century a
well.
I hope you will do that. I assure you that we will
work hard to do our part.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
8:20 A.M. (L)
JAN-11-1994 20:35
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.011/024
- 3 -
able to hold the job they have, because they won't -- the average
American will now change jobs seven or eight times in a lifetime
-- but they must know that they are employable; that they will
have their basic health care needs and the needs of their
families taken care of; and that they will have a chance to make
the changes that will dominate at least the foreseeable decades
of the 21st century changes that are friendly, not hostile, to
them. And that is our challenge as we begin the next session of
Congress in 1994.
But because of the NAFTA agreement and because of
the meeting that we had in Washington State with the leaders of
the Asian-Pacific region, there was a new energy given to the
prospect of successfully concluding the GATT Round. And after
seven years of frustration and progress, we were able to do that.
I was not fully satisfied with the Round. It was obviously not
perfect from any nation's point of view, and there are clearly
many things that still have to be done. But there is no doubt in
my mind that it was in the interest of the United States to
conclude the GATT Round successfully that it will lead to the
creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in our nation alone and
millions worldwide by the end of the decade. (Applause.)
One person believed that. (Laughter.)
And I think now we have to ask ourselves where we go
beyond GATT. There are several issues, of course, that we need
to take up with our European friends and with others around the
globe. And we will take them up.
We also have to deal with the structural challenges
facing our economies, the economies of the advanced nations. In
March we're going to have a jobs conference in the United States.
We have a lot to learn from some European countries about
training and retraining of the work force. They have something
to learn, perhaps, from us in flexibility of the work force and
mobility of the work force, and the creation of an
entrepreneurial environment that will enable unemployment to be
driven down to lower levels.
But it is clear that together, along with our
friends in Japan, we all have to learn something about how to
make technological and other changes that are going on, lead not
only to higher productivity but the ability of working people to
be rewarded for that productivity and the ability of nations to
create more employment within their national borders.
Beyond that, let me emphasize that when I leave here
today after the European Union Summit, I am going on to Prague to
meet with the leaders of the Visegrad countries. And it seems to
me that it is folly to believe that we can integrate Europe
through NATO or just on the basis of affinity for democracies,
unless we are also committed to the economic integration of all
of Europe and to reaching out to our East.
I will be urging the leaders of the European Union
today to work with the United States to further reduce trade
barriers and increase trade and investment to our East. Today I
say to all of you, I hope that you are representing companies
that as a result of the activities taking place in these few days
will take another and harder look about your prospects in Central
and Eastern Europe and beyond, because without private
investment, we cannot hope to have private economic development.
oh, I know we have a lot to do in Russia. I know we
have a lot to do in the other states of the former Soviet Union
and still some work to do in Eastern Europe. And we are doing
that. I am going onto Russia after I leave Prague. But in the
end, private investment and the development of successful private
sectors will determine the future of European integration
economically. And without it, I don't believe we can hope to
sustain the military and political ties that we are building up.
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:37
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
is
509
P.013/024
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT
Joseph Luns Theatre
NATO Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
10:50 A.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. As all of you know,
this historic summit meeting of the North Atlantic Council was my
first NATO meeting. I'm glad we were able to accomplish as much
as we did here. I'm convinced that history will record this
meeting as a major step in building a new security for the
transatlantic community.
I'm very pleased that our NATO allies approved our
proposal for the Partnership For Peace. I believe it will help
our Alliance to meet Europe's new challenges, and I'm pleased by
the response the Partnership has already generated from nations
who have contacted us and said they are interested in being a
part of it.
Ultimately, the Partnership will lead to the
enlargement of NATO and help us to build a security based not on
Europe's divisions, but on the potential of its integration. I
look forward to working with NATO leaders in the coming months to
prepare for exercises with the states that join the Partnership
and to work on the next steps towards NATO's enlargement.
Today NATO also took dramatic steps to prepare for
its new post-Cold War missions by calling for the creation of
combined Joint task forces. These task forces will make NATO's
military structures more flexible and will prepare the Alliance
for nontraditional missions. They will also help us to put the
Partnership For Peace into action by serving as the vehicle for
Eastern militaries to operate with NATO forces -- something that
General Joulwan will begin to prepare for immediately.
I'm pleased that during this summit NATO began to
address the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. The agreement that the United States will sign with
Ukraine and Russia this Friday will also make a major
contribution to reducing that threat.
With the end of the Cold War we no longer face the
threat of confrontation between nuclear powers, but we do face
continuing conflicts, including the reality of the murderous
conflict in Bosnia. At this meeting we discussed candidly and at
some length, NATO's policy towards Bosnia. We reaffirmed our
commitment to respond to the strangulation of Sarajevo, and to
help to implement an enforceable peace agreement if one is
reached by all the parties.
I want to discuss this with some precision, if I
might. The United States last evening in our discussions took a
very strong position that we ought to reaffirm our air warning,
that 18, the possibility of the use of air power, to relieve the
strangulation or in retaliation for the strangulation of
Sarajevo, but that the language ought to be left in our policy
if, and only if, we were prepared to follow through. And I made
it clear that for our part, we were prepared to follow through
and, therefore, we supported leaving the language in. But along
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:39
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.014/024
- 2 PO
with the secretary General, I urged our allies not to leave it in
unless we were prepared to follow through, on the theory that we
should not say things that we do notiintend to do.
In addition to that, I supported the United Kingdom
and France and their call for plans to ensure that we can
complete the bloc rotation of troops to Srebrenica, so that that
can take place, the exchange of the Canadians for the Dutch
forces, and to explore how Tuzla airstrip might be opened. Now,
either of these activities could require the use of NATO,
including United States air power. We also had a continuing
commitment to and the opportunity to use air power to protect the
United Nations troops there if that is needed for close air
support.
Now, these are the actions which have been taken.
In other words, we have reaffirmed our position of last August,
which is an important thing to have done in light of the recent
shelling of sarajevo. We have instructed our military command to
come up with plans to see what can be done to ensure the rotation
of the troops in Srebrenica and the opening of the Tuzla
airstrip. And those plans, as has been said by the Secretary
General, can include the use of air power.
Let me just mention one or two other things. While
the WEU and other European international bodies would play an
important role in meeting the security challenges in Europe in
the coming years, I still believe that NATO remains the linchpin
of our mutual security. And so, as we finish this summit, I want
to say a special word of thanks to Secretary General Woerner for
his remarkable leadership. I have had the opportunity now to
meet and work with many leaders around the world. He is a
genuine statesman. He understands what is at stake here. He has
a vision of the future, and he leads this Alliance with great
vision and discipline. And I thank him for that.
I also want to thank the other NATO leaders for
their hospitality, and especially the Prime Minister of Belgium
and the people of Belgium and Brussels for their hospitality to
us. I believe this was a very successful meeting. They had
accomplished everything that I hoped, and I think as the years go
by we will be glad that it occurred.
2
Could you please tell us whether or not there
was unanimous belief by the NATO allies that these air strikes
could go forward, or is there something that still needs to be
done before you can actually commit to movement?
THE PRESIDENT: There was unanimous -- and I want to
be very clear on this -- there was unanimous support for the
policy as it is written. Everybody voted for it. In order to
trigger the air strikes, what must happen? I want to emphasize
two things. One is, whether they occur or not depends upon the
behavior of the Bosnian Serbs from this moment forward.
Secondly, based on that behavior, our military personnel will
take this issue back to the NAC in our absence, and we will deal
with it. And, of course, we will consult with the U.N. if it is
something that involves the use of air power other than to give
support to the U.N. forces as already approved.
So that is what I think -- at that point, we'll deal
with the facts. Some of us, I think it's clear, were stronger
than others about the appropriateness of it under the
circumstances that we now know about or could imagine. But I
think the accurate thing is, there was unanimous support for the
policy, which means everybody who voted for it recognized that
air power might well be used.
What happens now depends upon the behavior of the
combatants, principally the Bosnian Serbs, and what the military
commanders come back and recommend.
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:40
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.015/024
- 3 -
Q
When you get to Prague, in light of this
meeting and in light of your own feelings, will you be in a
position to tell us at least some of the Visegrad leaders that
they are in fact on a fast track toward membership in NATO?
THE PRESIDENT: I think I'll be in a position to
tell them, number one, the purpose of the Partnership For Peace
18 to open the possibility of NATO's enlargement as well as to
give all the former Warsaw Pact countries and other non-NATO
nations in Europe the chance to cooperate with us militarily;
that NATO is an alliance with mutual responsibilities as well as
the security guarantee. And we are clearly serious about
pursuing this, including ultimate membership, as evidenced by the
fact that the Secretary General said in his closing remarks -- I
don't know what he said here in the press conference because I
didn't hear it -- he said in his closing remarks that General
Joulwan would immediately contact the military leaders of these
countries, including the Visegrad countries, to talk about how we
could begin planning for mutual operations in training and
exercise.
So I think that they will clearly understand that
this is a very serious proposal that opens the possibility of
membership, not one that limits it.
Q
Mr. President, the Secretary General said in
his remarks that the instrument is there regarding Bosnia and
other threats, but he's not sure that the will is there. Now,
you just mentioned unanimity. It was a unanimous vote, as we
understand it, last August for the same policy, yet many attacks
have taken place in Sarajevo and have been unanswered by NATO.
so, first, do you think that there is a greater will now, do you
sense a greater determination despite the misgivings of those
peacekeepers on the ground? And secondly, is there a lower
threshold, do you think, given this language that the British and
the French, we understand, proposed on Tuzla and Srebrenica? Is
there a lower threshold to use air power in those instances than
for the wider air attacks regarding Sarajevo?
THE PRESIDENT: I would answer -- make two points in
response to your question. One is, I don't know that the
threshold is lower, but there are more instances in which air
power can be used now under the NATO policy. That is, clearly,
the policy asks our military command to explain how we can
guarantee the troop rotation in srebrenica and how we can open
the airstrip at Tuzla, including the use of air power. so there
are clearly more opportunities for it.
Secondly, is there still a difference of opinion
about whether and how quickly we should use air power especially
to relieve a shelling of Sarajevo? I think on today's facts
there are clearly some differences among the allies. And let me
just mention one consideration. Those countries that have troops
there are understandably concerned about the danger to their
troops -- if we use air power are they more likely to be
retaliated against? On the other hand, I think they're closer to
being willing to use it than they were in August because a lot of
them are very sensitive to the fact that their troops seem to be
in more danger now than they were in August, and that their
casualties are increasing.
So do I think we are closer to real unanimity than
we were in August? I do. Would they all vote the same in a
given fact situation? I don't know. That's why I think it
depends largely on what the Bosnian Serbs do.
Q Given the fact that there 1s still some
difference of opinion, doesn't this come close to failing your
own test from your intervention, that why threaten if you're not
going to have the will to --
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:42
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
D2 509 P.016/024
- 4 -
THE PRESIDENT: But I believe, based on what several
of them said to me privately -- I believe based on what several
of them said to me privately, they are more prepared to deal with
this than they were in August. That is, Secretary General
Woerner and I both said, let us not put this language back in
unless we mean it. Let us clearly understand that we must mean
it if we put it in this time. And they voted unanimously to put
it in. And afterward several of them came to me privately and
said, of course, we have reservations about what happens to our
troops, but we have reservations about what happens to our troops
under the status quo, and we are prepared to go forward with
this.
Q
Concerning Bosnia, can we say today that you
and President Mitterrand are on the same wave length; do you
agree, no more bones of contention?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I've been a little surprised
by the press reports that indicate to the contrary. I strongly
supported President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Majors'
amendment adding to Tuzla and Srebrenica to the resolution. I
did not support substituting Tuzla and Srebrenica for the general
commitment to use air power to relieve the siege of sarajevo, for
a very important reason. I think that it will be very hard for
the U.N. mission to succeed -- that is, keep in mind what the
U.N. mission is doing, by the way, folks. We have the longest
airlift in history there. We are trying to enforce the embargo.
We are trying to enforce the no-fly zone. In other words, we are
trying to contain the combat and the loss and trying to keep open
humanitarian aid, hoping that we can all do something to convince
all three sides that they have a real interest in stopping
killing each other and taking whatever agreement they can get
now.
Now, I believe if Sarajevo is destroyed and cannot
function as a center for all kinds of activities, it will be very
difficult for the U.N. mission to succeed. The French and the
British have troops on the ground there. They naturally have
more reservation about the use of air power in response to the
shelling of Sarajevo than nations that may not have troops on the
ground there. I understand that. They agreed with my position
and I strongly agreed with theirs. I do not believe there is a
difference of opinion between us on this policy now.
Q The Ukrainian opposition is now saying that
President Kravchuk does not have the authority to go ahead and
sign an agreement, and there's also some sign from some Ukrainian
officials who are saying that a final -- the terms of a final
agreement are yet to be determined. How sure are you at this
point that this deal will not fall apart?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I believe President Kravchuk
will honor the deal. They've already started to dismantle the
missiles. And I think that the other thing that's very important
to emphasize here is that this agreement guarantees compensation
for Ukraine for their highly enriched uranium, something they
have wanted and demanded. And so I think, as the details of it
become known in the Rada, there will be more support for it.
Let me just try to give you an American analogy
here, if I might. It's not an exact analogy, but when President
Bush signed the original NAFTA treaty -- or when I -- we approved
the side agreements with NAFTA, we didn't know at the time
whether everybody in Congress would think it was a wonderful idea
or ratify it or try to derail it. But we went through with it
and, eventually, the United States stood firm behind it.
Executives often have to sell to their legislative branches what
they know is in the national interest of their country.
This agreement, reached by President Kravchuk I
think was reached with the full understanding in his mind that he
would have to sell it, but that it contained advantages for
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:44
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
se =00
- 5 -
Ukraine far more than had previously been recognized. And I
think as they know more about the details and the facts, that he
will prevail there. And I expect the agreement to stand up.
Because it's clearly in the interest of the country. They get
far more than they give up on this.
0
Have you spoken with President Yeltsin about
Bosnia and does he agree with what you describe as a new resolve
to deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: No, we have not had this discussion.
But last August when all this came up, the Russians knew that
what we were doing was taking a position with regard to the use
of air power that was clearly tied to behavior by the Bosnian
Serbs. And at the time, and I think still, no one considered
that the United Nations mission could proceed and could function
if Sarajevo were completely destroyed. No one believed that. So
I don't believe that anything that happened today, once fully
understood -- I'll be glad to -- I'm sure we'll have the chance
to talk about it in some detail -- I don't believe that anything
that happened today will undermine the understandings that we
have with the Russians.
Thank you very much.
Q
-- (inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: -- I don't want to say that. What
I'm trying to tell you is, that that's why I said it was not an
exact analogy. what I'm saying is that any time an executive
makes a deal in any country in the world with a legislative
branch, there are going to be people in the legislative branch
who don't agree with it or who just don't know if they can agree
with it until they know what the facts of it are. That's the
only point I'm trying to make. I am not making any judgment
about how the Ukrainian government works, but simply that this
always happens. This shouldn't surprise anybody. This always
happens. Every decision every executive makes is going to be
second-guessed by people of the legislature. It's almost the way
the system's set up.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
11:09 A.M. (L)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 6, 1994
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
IN FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH
Pabst Theater
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
11:51 A.M. CST
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, ladies and
gentlemen. Thank you so much for your welcome. And thank you,
Secretary Aspin, Dr. Bowman.
Over the past 14 months, Wisconsin gave the Clinton
administration three very fine presents. The first was voting for us
in November of 1992. (Applause.) I'll never forget that rally in
Madison, incidentally. The second and third were lending us Donna
Shalala and Les Aspin. (Applause.) Les has made a lasting
contribution to our nation's security not just as Secretary of
Defense, but in serving this state in Congress for two decades --
where, as he mentioned, we became close, personal friends. And on
this occasion, I want to ask all of you to join me in thanking Les
Aspin for his tremendous public service. (Applause.)
I'm delighted to be here in Milwaukee with your
congressional delegation and your other excellent public leaders. I
want to acknowledge Governor Thompson. I want to especially
acknowledge my warm and close friends and allies, working partners
Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Russ Feingold. We've worked very hard
together to help get this country on the right track again and create
more jobs and bring interest rates down and get the economy moving.
I want to acknowledge my friend, the dean of your House delegation,
David Obey -- a long-time friend and partner. And also Tom Barrett,
Peter Barca, Gerald Kleczka, Thomas Petri; and also the local and
state officials, Mayor John Norquist and Attorney General James
Doyle, Speaker Walter Kunicki and County Executive Thomas Ament,
Sheriff Richard Artison and others.
As you know, and as has already been mentioned, the
President had planned to be here today and was looking forward to it,
but had to go early this morning to Arkansas instead because his
mother, Virginia Kelley, passed away in the wee hours of the morning.
The President, when we spoke this morning, asked me to express his
deep regret at not being able to join you, and I'm sure that you join
me this morning in expressing our deep condolences to the President
and his family as they confront the sad loss.
The President came to this very theater 15 months ago
during the campaign when he was a candidate and came at a critical
moment. As I look at this beautiful hall and this wonderful
audience, I can see why he was so eager to come back and see you
again. And I know that he was especially eager to come here today
and join in celebrating the victory of the 1994 Rose Bowl Champions,
the University of Wisconsin Badgers. (Applause.) It was a wonderful
game. And may I say that I watched it with my family, including my
mother, who has been spending some time with us the last couple of
weeks, who attended law school at the University of Wisconsin.
(Applause.) So I claimed honorary Badgerhood on that occasion.
And, boy, if you could have seen Donna Shalala the next
day -- (laughter) -- walking -- was she a sight? When the two of
them walked into the Cabinet Room and Donna was talking about the
football program and the game and everything, it was a great, great
day.
MORE
- 2 -
SECRETARY ASPIN: -- taller than anybody in the room.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: She was taller than anybody in the
room that day. (Applause.) That's a pretty good line, Les.
(Laughter and applause.) It's true, too.
When the President was here 15 months ago, on that
October day he spoke about America's need for a strong pro-democracy
national security policy. In two days, President Clinton will leave
for Europe for a series of meetings designed to advance that goal.
He will go to Brussels to stress the importance of our economic and
security ties with NATO and Europe. He will go to Prague and stress
our strong commitment to the new democracies in Poland, Hungary, the
Czech republic and Slovakia. He will visit Moscow and stress our
support for Democratic reforms there and elsewhere. And he will
visit Minsk in Belarus and stress the importance of the progress that
state and others are making to dismantle nuclear weapons.
Before he left our shores to talk with foreign leaders,
the President wanted to come and talk with you about why this trip is
important to the American people. And the President has now asked me
to share his views directly with you today because at this point in
history, all of Europe stands at a turning point with deep
implications for our own security and prosperity.
That's why the President and I and why the President has
insisted that our administration focus so much on Europe,
particularly Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. At the
President's request, my first trip abroad as Vice President was to
Poland. There are at least a couple of people here who traveled with
me on that occasion. While there I had extensive meetings with
President Walesa and shared prayer and communion with him at morning
mass in his private chapel.
I just recently visited Hungary last month and met with
the new leadership in Budapest. In addition, at the President's
request, I enjoyed a lengthy one-on-one meeting during the same visit
to Europe with President Kravchuk of Ukraine. And may I say that
since taking office, the President and I have met with almost all of
the leaders of virtually every Central and Eastern European nation
and many of the leaders of the former Soviet republics as well
because President Clinton feels so strongly about the importance of
our nation's role in contributing to the positive change which is
taking place and must continue to take place.
We live at a time of astounding changes. After a half-
century of standing firm against Soviet aggression in the Cold War,
suddenly the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is gone. After
decades of praying for reconciliation between black and white in
South Africa and between Arab and Jew in the Middle East, suddenly we
witness handshakes of hope that rivet the world. After decades of
dreaming and working for the freedom of captive nations -- as I know
many of you have with all your hearts suddenly those states are
free, and new democracies have blossomed across Europe. And the
President has told me that one of the things he is most looking
forward to is meeting again with some of those democratic heroes,
such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa.
At the same time, some of the world's changes hold great
danger for us, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and the degradation of the global environment. And we
face the changes of a new global economy, changes that offer us many
new opportunities but that also can be unsettling for our jobs and
our communities. In the face of all these changes, some Americans
would prefer that we stay out of the world's squabbles and focus only
on our challenges here at home. Europe is facing even harder
economic challenges: double-digit unemployment and very sluggish
MORE
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 6, 1994
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
IN FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH
Pabst Theater
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
11:51 A.M. CST
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, ladies and
gentlemen. Thank you so much for your welcome. And thank you,
Secretary Aspin, Dr. Bowman.
Over the past 14 months, Wisconsin gave the Clinton
administration three very fine presents. The first was voting for us
in November of 1992. (Applause.) I'll never forget that rally in
Madison, incidentally. The second and third were lending us Donna
Shalala and Les Aspin. (Applause.) Les has made a lasting
contribution to our nation's security not just as Secretary of
Defense, but in serving this state in Congress for two decades --
where, as he mentioned, we became close, personal friends. And on
this occasion, I want to ask all of you to join me in thanking Les
Aspin for his tremendous public service. (Applause.)
I'm delighted to be here in Milwaukee with your
congressional delegation and your other excellent public leaders. I
want to acknowledge Governor Thompson. I want to especially
acknowledge my warm and close friends and allies, working partners
Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Russ Feingold. We've worked very hard
together to help get this country on the right track again and create
more jobs and bring interest rates down and get the economy moving.
I want to acknowledge my friend, the dean of your House delegation,
David Obey -- a long-time friend and partner. And also Tom Barrett,
Peter Barca, Gerald Kleczka, Thomas Petri; and also the local and
state officials, Mayor John Norquist and Attorney General James
Doyle, Speaker Walter Kunicki and County Executive Thomas Ament,
Sheriff Richard Artison and others.
As you know, and as has already been mentioned, the
President had planned to be here today and was looking forward to it,
but had to go early this morning to Arkansas instead because his
mother, Virginia Kelley, passed away in the wee hours of the morning.
The President, when we spoke this morning, asked me to express his
deep regret at not being able to join you, and I'm sure that you join
me this morning in expressing our deep condolences to the President
and his family as they confront the sad loss.
The President came to this very theater 15 months ago
during the campaign when he was a candidate and came at a critical
moment. As I look at this beautiful hall and this wonderful
audience, I can see why he was so eager to come back and see you
again. And I know that he was especially eager to come here today
and join in celebrating the victory of the 1994 Rose Bowl Champions,
the University of Wisconsin Badgers. (Applause.) It was a wonderful
game. And may I say that I watched it with my family, including my
mother, who has been spending some time with us the last couple of
weeks, who attended law school at the University of Wisconsin.
(Applause.) So I claimed honorary Badgerhood on that occasion.
And, boy, if you could have seen Donna Shalala the next
day -- (laughter) -- walking -- was she a sight? When the two of
them walked into the Cabinet Room and Donna was talking about the
football program and the game and everything, it was a great, great
day.
MORE
- 3 -
growth. And many Europeans also might prefer not to get involved
with problems beyond their borders. And the economic transformation
facing Russia and the other former communist states are more daunting
still.
So there is a great temptation in all our nations to
focus only on our own problems. But my message today and the
message of the President's trip is very simply this: In order to
be strong at home, we must engage abroad as well. We must work with
other nations to get the world's economy growing and open foreign
markets if we want to sell more exports. We must engage with other
nations to lock in the end of the Cold War, or else we would simply
end up needing to spend more on defense and less on the domestic
investments that we need. We tried running away from the world after
World War I. What did it bring us? A depression and another
horrible war. But when we helped shape world events after World War
II, what did that bring us? Decades of security and prosperity. And
that is what we must do again.
During the campaign, the President and I said our
foreign policy would be based on economic renewal, strong defenses
and the promotion of democracy overseas. In the past year we have
made progress toward those goals. We began, of course, by putting
our country's economic house back in order; because without a strong
economy, we cannot compete and lead abroad. We passed an economic
package to cut a half a trillion dollars from our deficits, while
investing in education, technology and defense conversion. And,
incidentally, if you can remember it, the projection for next year's
deficit when we took office was $300 billion. The projection now is
way down to $190 billion. The effort is already yielding dividends
not just with a reduced deficit which is so important -- we're
enjoying low inflation and historically low interest rates.
Consumer confidence is up. Housing starts are booming -
- highest number last month in the entire history of the United
States of America. And our nation has created more private sector
jobs in the past 12 months than in the previous four years combined.
And we still have a long way to go. We understand that. And to take
one example, we still need to ensure health care for every American
that can never be taken away. And we're going to do that, with your
help. (Applause.) But we've made a good start. It's been a good
first year.
Well, in any event, after putting our own economic house
in order, we next took major steps to open up foreign markets to U.S.
goods and services so we can boost exports and create more new jobs.
We passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which will lower
tariffs on our exports and create over 200,000 new American jobs. We
expanded our ties with the fast-growing economies of Asia. And just
last month we reached an historic new agreement in the GATT world
trade talks that will create another hundreds of thousands another
set of hundreds of thousands of American jobs and also provide a
boost to the entire world economy so that we can get it moving again.
With these steps and others we're putting the economic
interests of the American people back at the heart of our foreign
policy. We have restored America's leadership on the environment as
well. And this past year we have worked to strengthen our nation's
defenses.
Under Les Aspin's able leadership, we completed a
sweeping review of our military to ensure that we have the forces we
need to respond to the diverse threats of this new era. And when we
were threatened abroad, such as when we learned of that Iraqi plot to
try and assassinate former President Bush, President Clinton used
those military forces to hit back hard, to send a clear, unmistakable
message.
MORE
- 4 -
We also have worked to promote democratic movements
around the world with significantly increased support for reformers
in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and the other new states of the former
Soviet Union who seek to close the door to a communist past and usher
in a democratic future. We lifted sanctions on South Africa as soon
as there was an agreement to end apartheid and hold a nonracial
election. (Applause.) And isn't that a sign of hope in our world?
(Applause.)
And despite intense budget pressures, we substantially
increased funding for programs to support grass roots, democratic
organizing from Central America to Asia to Eastern Europe. The
success of these new democracies, like the ones in Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic and Slovakia is important to our nation and our
security. We must help them succeed. We didn't spend years
supporting solidarity just to lose democracy in Poland. We didn't
celebrate the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia just to see that
birth of freedom die from neglect. We prevailed in the Cold War for
their sake and ours. And now we must prevail for their sake and ours
in building a broader democratic peace throughout Europe.
The steps we have taken this year make America stronger
and safer. I want to take a moment to acknowledge in particular the
service of all the men and women who wear our nation's uniform and
protect us all over the world. As President Clinton has often said,
America's Armed Forces are the best this world has ever known, and we
are determined to make sure they remain just that. (Applause.)
We're going to make certain they remain the best-trained, best-
equipped, best-prepared fighting force on the face of this Earth.
Now, we have done much this past year to make America
more secure. But nothing is more important to our security than our
relations with Europe. With the Cold War over, some may think Europe
doesn't matter as much to our nation as it used to. President
Clinton says, they're wrong. The fact is, Europe remains our most
valuable trading partner, and our military security remains as
interwoven with that of Europe as ever in our history.
Twice in this century, we sent our sons and daughters to
Europe to repel aggression and protect the survival of democracy.
Two world wars left us with a lesson that is understood in every VFW
and American Legion Hall in Wisconsin and across our nation. When
Europe fights, we suffer. When Europe is safe and free, we thrive
here in the United States.
Now, Europe is enjoying a rebirth of freedom. After a
half century of captivity, we've seen the Baltic nations regain their
rightful independence. We've seen great dissident heroes, such as
Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa help throw off communist rule and emerge
as leaders of their people. We've seen Boris Yeltsin and other
courageous democratic reformers in Russia hold elections and write a
constitution in the face of fierce reactionary resistance.
This democratic renaissance is cause for hope. But, of
course, there is also a dark cloud on Europe's horizon. It is the
threat of fiery nationalism, ignited by old resentments, fueled by
economic frustration, fanned by self-serving demagogues. We already
see it burning across the former Yugoslavia. But it smolders in
other states as well, particularly in Europe's East. If we do not
begin building new forms of protection, these embers could flare and
engulf Europe again, just as they have during this century's worst
crises.
President Clinton's goal on this trip is to help build
that protection. It cannot come from new walls topped with barbed
wire. Rather, the protection new states of Europe need today is the
kind all of us carry inside our souls -- the protection that keeps
our darkest nature from spilling out into public life, the sense of
MORE
- 3 -
growth. And many Europeans also might prefer not to get involved
with problems beyond their borders. And the economic transformation
facing Russia and the other former communist states are more daunting
still.
So there is a great temptation in all our nations to
focus only on our own problems. But my message today -- and the
message of the President's trip is very simply this: In order to
be strong at home, we must engage abroad as well. We must work with
other nations to get the world's economy growing and open foreign
markets if we want to sell more exports. We must engage with other
nations to lock in the end of the Cold War, or else we would simply
end up needing to spend more on defense and less on the domestic
investments that we need. We tried running away from the world after
World War I. What did it bring us? A depression and another
horrible war. But when we helped shape world events after World War
II, what did that bring us? Decades of security and prosperity. And
that is what we must do again.
During the campaign, the President and I said our
foreign policy would be based on economic renewal, strong defenses
and the promotion of democracy overseas. In the past year we have
made progress toward those goals. We began, of course, by putting
our country's economic house back in order; because without a strong
economy, we cannot compete and lead abroad. We passed an economic
package to cut a half a trillion dollars from our deficits, while
investing in education, technology and defense conversion. And,
incidentally, if you can remember it, the projection for next year's
deficit when we took office was $300 billion. The projection now is
way down to $190 billion. The effort is already yielding dividends
not just with a reduced deficit which is so important -- we're
enjoying low inflation and historically low interest rates.
Consumer confidence is up. Housing starts are booming -
- highest number last month in the entire history of the United
States of America. And our nation has created more private sector
jobs in the past 12 months than in the previous four years combined.
And we still have a long way to go. We understand that. And to take
one example, we still need to ensure health care for every American
that can never be taken away. And we're going to do that, with your
help. (Applause.) But we've made a good start. It's been a good
first year.
Well, in any event, after putting our own economic house
in order, we next took major steps to open up foreign markets to U.S.
goods and services so we can boost exports and create more new jobs.
We passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which will lower
tariffs on our exports and create over 200,000 new American jobs. We
expanded our ties with the fast-growing economies of Asia. And just
last month we reached an historic new agreement in the GATT world
trade talks that will create another hundreds of thousands -- another
set of hundreds of thousands of American jobs and also provide a
boost to the entire world economy so that we can get it moving again.
With these steps and others we're putting the economic
interests of the American people back at the heart of our foreign
policy. We have restored America's leadership on the environment as
well. And this past year we have worked to strengthen our nation's
defenses.
Under Les Aspin's able leadership, we completed a
sweeping review of our military to ensure that we have the forces we
need to respond to the diverse threats of this new era. And when we
were threatened abroad, such as when we learned of that Iraqi plot to
try and assassinate former President Bush, President Clinton used
those military forces to hit back hard, to send a clear, unmistakable
message.
MORE
- 5 -
tolerance and the habits of the heart that are built up by the
practices of free commerce, open democracy, robust civic life and
respect for differences among individuals and nations.
To those who would ask where in the world such tolerance
can be found, I would say come to Milwaukee. Just look at your city.
Your roots trace back to Poland, Russia, Ukraine, the Baltics, to
Germany, Italy and England, to Africa, Asia and Latin America. You
may be Christian, Jewish or Muslim, and yet you are all one
community. Why? Because you all share the American belief that
there is strength in all our differences; that we can build a
collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities,
that we can be E Pluribus Unum, out of one many. We take that for
granted here in our blessed United States of America. But that idea
is not foreign to Europe. Those very ideas that Jefferson and
Madison wrote into our Declaration of Independence and our
Constitution were European imports, derived from Europe's great age
of reason.
But throughout the former Soviet Union's bloc, those
ideas were strangled by false ideologies and decades of dictatorship.
Now, we have the opportunity to help our cherished values of freedom
take root in places that were homelands to so many of us and our
ancestors. We can help erase the false lines that divided Europe for
too long and heal the scars those divisions left behind. Fostering
the integration of Europe will not only express our highest ideals,
it also will be the best investment we can make in our own security
and prosperity.
President Clinton's first goal on this trip will be to
reinvigorate NATO and help ensure that NATO is prepared to meet the
challenges that I just described. NATO is the greatest military
alliance in all human history. We couldn't have won the Cold War
without it. But now, the Soviet Union it helped deter is gone. It
is time for NATO to address Europe's new security challenges, such as
consolidating democracy's gains among NATO's eastern neighbors and
warding off ethnic conflict.
At the NATO summit in Brussels, the President will
propose that NATO create a Partnership For Peace as a major step
toward the new security Europe needs. The Partnership is a new way
of drawing the former communist states into cooperation with the rest
of Europe. It advances an evolutionary process of formal NATO
enlargement, a step toward adding new members of NATO. (Applause.)
The Partnership For Peace invites Europe's new
democracies to take part right away in military and political
cooperation with NATO members as well as with each other. Those
states that join the partnership can participate in military
planning, exercises and operations. The partnership will help foster
democratic practices that can prepare these states for full NATO
membership. The new NATO must address the concerns of those nations
that lie between Russia and Western Europe, for the security of these
states affects the security of America. Let me say that again: The
security of the states that lie between Western Europe and Russia
affects the security of America. (Applause.) Especially after
Russia's recent elections, those states are naturally concerned about
whether they will again be rendered pieces of a buffer zone, prizes
to be argued over by others.
The Partnership For Peace is designed to offer these
states the confidence that they can integrate into the West rather
than always fear what could happen to their East. The Partnership
For Peace does not divide East and West in a way that could create a
self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation. Instead, it tries
to integrate a broader Europe. On an equal basis, it provides an
open door for all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe as well
as the nations emerging from the former Soviet Union, it invites all
MORE
- 6 -
of them to forge a new relationship with NATO based on a belief that
freedom's boundaries now must recognize not just old history, but
also new behavior.
The Partnership for Peace can build the habits of
cooperation that have been the sinews behind NATO and NATO's formal
security guarantees. We look forward to beginning such cooperation
soon with Poland, the Czech Republic and other former communist
states as we create the foundation for a new and broader Europe.
President Clinton's second goal will be to show our
support for those people and leaders in former Communist states
working to build democracy, and to lay the building blocks of a civil
society: political parties, labor unions, business associations and
a free press. In Prague, he will meet with leaders of the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia -- the Visegrad nations --
nations that are playing such leading roles in Europe's wave of
reform. In Minsk, the President will voice our support for Chairman
Shushkevich and other leaders of Belarus's democratic progress. And
in Moscow, he will meet with President Boris Yeltsin and other
Russian reformers who are steering their nation toward a democratic,
market-based and peaceful future.
The strong support for reactionary candidates in the
recent Russian elections gave all of us cause for concern. We would
be foolish to ignore those results; and it is our duty to condemn the
voices of racism and intolerant nationalism wherever such voices are
heard. (Applause.) But make no mistake about it, there was another
larger message of hope in those Russian elections. An election that
looked doubtful only months before was held in a free and fair
manner. And when they voted, the Russian people ratified a
democratic constitution and elected Russia's first post-Soviet
legislature.
All these can help Russia's reformers move ahead. We
must not lose faith in the process of reform simply because it moves
slowly or encounters setbacks. Changing an entire society is the
work of generations. Along the way, the people of Russia and the
other new states will doubtless make some bad choices, just as we
often have done at times in our own history. Democracy, after all,
doesn't turn us into angels, it simply gives us a way to learn
collectively from our very human trials and errors. As long as these
nations support freedom with protections for ethnic and religious
minorities and political dissent, we have faith that reaction will
give way to reform.
President Clinton's third goal will be to help reduce
the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. (Applause.) When the
Soviet Union dissolved, four states were left with its nuclear
weapons -- Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. One key to our
security is making sure there is only one nuclear successor state to
the Soviet Union. Under the leadership of President Nazarbayev,
Kazakhstan has agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. I was pleased
to be in Alma-Ata last month on the day his parliament ratified the
decision.
We're working with Ukraine to secure a similar
agreement. And one reason the President is going to Minsk is to
congratulate the people of Belarus and the leaders of Belarus for
ratifying the START Treaty and agreeing to live as a nonnuclear
state. In addition, in Brussels, we expect NATO to adopt our
proposal to address the threat posed by nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons as well.
Now, the President's final goal is to support the
dramatic progress toward market reforms throughout the former
communist states and to work for a greater Europe that is more
economically vibrant. Most of Europe, as we all know, is deep in
MORE
- 5 -
tolerance and the habits of the heart that are built up by the
practices of free commerce, open democracy, robust civic life and
respect for differences among individuals and nations.
To those who would ask where in the world such tolerance
can be found, I would say come to Milwaukee. Just look at your city.
Your roots trace back to Poland, Russia, Ukraine, the Baltics, to
Germany, Italy and England, to Africa, Asia and Latin America. You
may be Christian, Jewish or Muslim, and yet you are all one
community. Why? Because you all share the American belief that
there is strength in all our differences; that we can build a
collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities,
that we can be E Pluribus Unum, out of one many. We take that for
granted here in our blessed United States of America. But that idea
is not foreign to Europe. Those very ideas that Jefferson and
Madison wrote into our Declaration of Independence and our
Constitution were European imports, derived from Europe's great age
of reason.
But throughout the former Soviet Union's bloc, those
ideas were strangled by false ideologies and decades of dictatorship.
Now, we have the opportunity to help our cherished values of freedom
take root in places that were homelands to so many of us and our
ancestors. We can help erase the false lines that divided Europe for
too long and heal the scars those divisions left behind. Fostering
the integration of Europe will not only express our highest ideals,
it also will be the best investment we can make in our own security
and prosperity.
President Clinton's first goal on this trip will be to
reinvigorate NATO and help ensure that NATO is prepared to meet the
challenges that I just described. NATO is the greatest military
alliance in all human history. We couldn't have won the Cold War
without it. But now, the Soviet Union it helped deter is gone. It
is time for NATO to address Europe's new security challenges, such as
consolidating democracy's gains among NATO's eastern neighbors and
warding off ethnic conflict.
At the NATO summit in Brussels, the President will
propose that NATO create a Partnership For Peace as a major step
toward the new security Europe needs. The Partnership is a new way
of drawing the former communist states into cooperation with the rest
of Europe. It advances an evolutionary process of formal NATO
enlargement, a step toward adding new members of NATO. (Applause.)
The Partnership For Peace invites Europe's new
democracies to take part right away in military and political
cooperation with NATO members as well as with each other. Those
states that join the partnership can participate in military
planning, exercises and operations. The partnership will help foster
democratic practices that can prepare these states for full NATO
membership. The new NATO must address the concerns of those nations
that lie between Russia and Western Europe, for the security of these
states affects the security of America. Let me say that again: The
security of the states that lie between Western Europe and Russia
affects the security of America. (Applause.) Especially after
Russia's recent elections, those states are naturally concerned about
whether they will again be rendered pieces of a buffer zone, prizes
to be argued over by others.
The Partnership For Peace is designed to offer these
states the confidence that they can integrate into the West rather
than always fear what could happen to their East. The Partnership
For Peace does not divide East and West in a way that could create a
self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation. Instead, it tries
to integrate a broader Europe. On an equal basis, it provides an
open door for all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe as well
as the nations emerging from the former Soviet Union, it invites all
MORE
- 7 -
recession, and if those nations can start growing again we will
benefit from more exports and more jobs here in our own nation.
Equally important, we must help ensure that economic growth reaches
all the way into the former communist states which are making the
hard transition to market economies.
Some of the greatest heros of that flight from communism
are people whose names will we never know the farmer outside of
Sofia working with new pride now that he once again owns the land of
his grandfather; the entrepreneur in Riga running a new business out
of his apartment; the factory worker in St. Petersburg trying to
adapt to the new habits and uncertainties of capitalism.
Freedom's success will depend in large part on their
labors. We need to do all that we can to ensure that their labors
are rewarded. In Brussels, the President will urge Western Europe's
leaders to join our nation in taking steps to make all of our markets
more open to goods from Europe's new democracies. In Prague, Moscow
and Minsk, he will work with the leaders of those new market
democracies to ensure that our economic assistance and trade and
investment efforts are well targeted to provide the greatest possible
support as these nations make the very difficult transitions to
market economies.
Today, the people of the former communist nations are
performing human miracles on a daily basis. Without much at all in
the way of resources or experience, they're turning economic ruin
into working markets. They're replacing gray Orwellian life with the
bright and diverse cultures their people once enjoyed. They're
reviving the religious traditions that communism could not stamp out.
And they're planting strong seedlings of democracy on terrain once
laid bear by dictatorship and devastated by the wild fires of war.
The hard work of political and economic transformation
belongs to the people of the region and they are making heroic
progress, but the stakes for our own nation are enormous. And we
must put our shoulder behind the cause of reform as well. It is in
America's self-interest for those reforms to succeed and endure. If
they do, we will all be more secure. We can prevent another all-
engulfing European war. We can make further progress to dismantle
the world's doomsday weapons. We can continue maintaining our
security with far lower defense budgets. We can create new markets
for our exports and new jobs for our people as these new economies
begin to grow and thrive. That's why we must not sit on the
sidelines. We must continue working to build a broader and freer
Europe.
I think back to the Polish uprising of 1863, in which
the motto of the Polish fighters was, "For your freedom and ours."
(Applause.) They believed in their hearts that their own liberation
would liberate others since they were fighting for a broader
principle of liberty. Today, the fight for freedom in Europe
continues with new hope and high stakes.
The President, as he leaves for these countries, and all
of us who have worked with him, know that the struggle to erase
communism's scars and ensure democracy's success is not their
struggle alone. It must also be our struggle. It is the fight of a
lifetime -- our lifetimes. It is the story of a century -- our
century. President Clinton and I are committed to make it the work
of our nation.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
12:27 P.M. CST
JAN-11-1994 20:45
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS GFC
32 509 F.018/024
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN STATEMENT WITH EU LEADERS
News Conference Theatre
EU Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
12:49 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. We have just
had a very productive meeting, President Delors and Prime
Minister Papandreou and I. As I have said many times in the last
few days, I came to Brussels in the hope of working with the
leaders of Europe to build a broader and more integrated Europe.
At the heart of this new concept of security is the
economic vitality of the relationship between the United states
and the European Union. The EU remains America's most valued
partner in trade and investment. A strong relationship between
us is good for America. It can help to generate more jobs, more
growth, more opportunities for workers and businesses at home as
well as for those here in Europe.
That is one of the reasons that our administration
strongly supported the Maastrict Treaty. We believe a strong and
more unified Europe makes for a more effective economic and
political partner. I think we proved that through our combined
efforts to lead the world to a new GATT agreement in December.
One key to achieving that accord came last spring
when President Delors agreed to join me in focusing on market
access at last year's G-7 summit. I'm committed to deepening our
relationship with the EU through regular meetings at all levels
to continue to address other concerns as we address the market
access concern and as we work together to get a new GATT
agreement.
I have argued in my own country that to advance the
global economy and to advance the interests of American workers
as well, we must compete, not retreat. All advanced economies
dail only generate more jobs and higher incomes when they have
more people beyond their borders to buy their goods and services.
Therefore, we must continue our efforts to expand global growth
and world markets. The GATT agreement will help in that regard.
I am convinced it will create millions of jobs in the global
economy between now and the end of the decade. But we also have
responsibilities, the United States, the EU and others, to
continue our own efforts toward open trade and more global
growth.
In today's meeting, we discussed four ways in which
we can build on the momentum generated by the GATT agreement.
First, we stressed the need to finalize and ratify the agreement.
The agreement itself was an impressive breakthrough, but there
are several areas in which we did not reach full agreement. I
emphasized today our strong desire to resolve our outstanding
differences.
We also agreed that further market access offers
from Japan and from other countries are also needed to meet the
ambitious goals on which we agreed. The U.S. and the EU cannot
alone create the open markets the world needs.
JAN-11-1994 20:46
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.019/024
- 2 -
We think it is clearly time for the other great
economic power, Japan, to join us in this effort to open markets.
Second, we agreed on the importance of putting jobs at the center
of our trade and economic agenda. Today, the nations of the
European Union are facing high and persistent rates of
unemployment and sluggish growth.
In the United States, we have begun to generate more
jobs, but our nation still has a long way to go before our
unemployment is at an acceptable level and before our workers
begin to generate more income when they work harder. The renewal
of each of our economies will benefit all of them. We discussed
some of the innovative ideas contained in the Delors White Paper.
President Delors and Prime Minister Papandreou both made very
thoughtful comments about the kinds of things we could do to
generate more job growth both in Europe and the United States.
And we look forward to pursuing those ideas at the jobs
conference in Washington this spring, and again at the G-7 summit
this July.
Third, we agreed to explore the next generation of
trade issues. I suggested that the successor agenda to the
Uruguay Round should include issues such as the impact of
environmental policies on trade, antitrust and other competition
policies and labor standards -- something that I think we must,
frankly, address.
While we continue to tear down anticompetitive
practices and other barriers to trade, we simply have to assure
that our economic policies also protect the environment and the
well-being of workers. And as we bring others into the orbit of
global trade people who can benefit from the investment and
trading opportunities we offer, we must ensure that their
policies benefit the interest of their workers and our common
interest in enhancing environmental protection throughout the
globe. That is exactly what we tried to do with the North
American Free Trade Agreement. And in the coming months I look
forward to continuing discussions on these issues with our EU
partners.
Finally, we discussed the imperative of helping to
integrate the new market democracies of Europe's Eastern half
into the transatlantic community. Yesterday, NATO took an
historic step in this direction with the Partnership For Peace.
We must match that effort by helping to ensure that our markets
are open to the products of Eastern Europe. Ultimately, the
further integration of Europe can be a future source of jobs and
prosperity for both the United States and Western Europe as these
nations become increasingly productive and, therefore,
increasingly able to serve as consumers in the global economy.
We have already begun to open our markets to these
new democracies. And I have urged that both the United states
and the EU explore additional ways in which we can further open
our markets to the nations to our east. Our trade are a source
of strength, the source of jobs, a source of prosperity.
I look forward to continuing these discussions in
the future. We had a lot of very good specific discussions this
morning on the jobs issue in particular. And we intend to
continue to work together and to make progress together.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT PAPANDREOU: President Clinton, in this
very brief presentation, has covered the issues that we discussed
today. He has done so in a very complete way so I will make two
or three comments and not more. To begin with, we have the
revitalization of transatlantic relations, relations between
Europe, the European Union and the United states of America.
JAN-11-1994 20:43
PRAGLE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.020.024
- 3 -
It 1s very important for President Clinton that
European integration, the great objective of a united Europe, is
very important. Now, the other important issue is an opening
towards Eastern Europe. The wall separating the Bast from the
West have been dismantled. We do not want any further divisions
in Europe. But we should not ignore the dangers that may
confront us on this road.
Russia is involved in a very difficult economic,
political and social reform. And we would like to contribute in
any way we can so that this road will lead to a modern economy,
to a peace policy and to a just society. We hope that that w1ll
be the final outcome of this process.
Now, the third point which is directly linked to
what we have mentioned so far is a Partnership For Peace. We
have to work together for peace. This is a great concept. We
should consider ways of working together in the area of defense
in connection with problems arising due to crises, due to
nationalist fanaticism, due to conflicts in Burope or at the
periphery. Crisis management is a very important objective.
Military cooperation without Eastern European countries being
members of NATO, but cooperation between them and NATO is not a
threat for Russia, but rather an invitation to Russia to
contribute constructively.
I will not embark on the problem of the European
economy. Mr. Delors will speak about this problem. But the
truth is that there are three regions in which we have both
unemployment and recession -- Europe, Japan and the United
states. Now, the United States has started an upswing.
We are faced with a very serious problem in
connection with employment, and we will have to live with this
problem for many years unless we manage to find a radical
solution. It is not the right time to go into the details of
these solutions. Now, this is what I wanted to say at the
present juncture.
so, President Delors.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Questions immediately, because
this is more interesting that what I could add to what Prime
Minister Papandreou has spoken on behalf of the Community.
2 Back to NATO, Mr. President. what makes you
think that the Serbs will take the threat seriously now since
NATO has been the boy crying wolf in the past? And what really
has stiffened everybody's spine now after two years of shelling,
bombing, slaughter?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, keep in mind now the
resolution was directed toward a specific set of circumstances.
They reaffirmed -- NATO reaffirmed the August position that if
Sarajevo was subject to strangulation defined as large-scale
shelling, that air power from NATO could be used as a response to
that. And then, today there were added two conditions that we
asked our military leadership to come up with plans to ensure
that the troop replacement in srebrenica could proceed and to see
whether the airstrip at Tuzla could be opened.
I can only tell you what happened in the meetings.
The Secretary General of NATO and I both said that these steps
should not be called for unless everyone voting in the
affirmative was prepared to see them through. And there was an
explicit discussion of that. so I think that the continued
deterioration of conditions, the frustration of all us that no
peace agreement has been made and that explicit debate should
give this vote the credibility that I believe it deserves.
Q Listening to what you said about growth and
jobs and also defense of the environment and social rights, I'm
JAN-11-1994 20:50
PPAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.021.024
- 4 -
very struck by how similar your language is to the proposals
which President Delors recently put to the European heads of
government. Would you acknowledge that your thinking on these
issues is very largely convergent? And what would you say to
some people who responded in this Union by saying now is no time
to be unduly concerned about workers' rights or the environment,
that this can no priority when we are tackling mass unemployment
priority when we are tackling mass unemployment? It's a debate
we've had here in the Union. I wonder how you would advise
people in that respect here.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think it is fair to
say that President Delors and I share a lot of common ideas.
Prime Minister Papandreou and I have shared some ideas. I've
read some of his thoughts and interviews. I think any person who
seriously studies this issue, who studies income trends in the
United States, who studies job trends in Europe, who studies now
what is happening in Japan, will reach the conclusion that every
wealthy country in the world is having great difficulty creating
jobs and raising incomes, and that there are some common elements
to this malady which have to be addressed.
Now, let me say in response to the two issues you've
raised, first of all, with regard to the environment, I believe
that dealing with the environment creates jobs, doesn't cost jobs
if you do it in the right way. And I think we now have about 20
years of evidence that supports that -- that if you have the
right sort of sensible environmental policy and if you finance it
in the right way, you will create jobs, not cost jobs. Much of
the environmental cleanup that is sensible requires the
development of technologies and the generation of high-wage jobs
which will be virtually exclusively the province of the same
countries that are having trouble creating jobs.
with regard to workers' rights, I would respond in
two ways. First of all, if in order to create jobs we have to
give up all the supports that we have worked hard for over
decades for working families, then we may wind up paying the same
political price and social price. That is, we do not want to see
the collapse of the middle class in Europe or in the United
States. What we want to do is to rebuild and strengthen the
middle class.
If you look at the vote in Russia, if you look at
the recent vote in Poland, you see what happens in democracies
when middle class people feel that the future will be worse than
the present. So if you're going to ask for changes in the system
of support, those changes have to be done in a way that increase
the sense of security that middle class working class families in
all these countries.
Secondly, the issue of worker rights and the issue
of the environment should be seen from our prospective as a
global one. That is, 1f you look at what Ambassador Kantor
negotiated with Mexico in the NAFTA treaty, the first trade
agreement ever to explicitly deal with environmental and labor
issues, we did it because we said, okay, if we're going to open
our borders and trade more and invest more with developing
nations, we want to know that their working people will receive
some of the benefits and a fair share of the benefits of this
trade and investment. Otherwise, they won't have increasing
incomes and they won't be able to buy our products and services.
So I see this whole worker rights issue as more a
function of the global economy and one that will help us to build
up ordinary citizens everywhere, which I think should be our
ultimate objective.
Q Mr. President, back on Bosnia. You mentioned
that this threat of military action is not a new threat. How
long can NATO keep on making these threats without carrying them
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:51
PRAGUE CZECH FRESS OFC
32 509 P.022/024
- 5 -
out, without delivering? At what point does it become, as you
warned about yesterday, an empty threat?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we have two
different issues here. The French and the British proposed the
motion to ask our military planners to come up with a strategy to
ensure the rotation of troops in Srebrenica and to see whether
with the use of air power or some other device we might secure
the opening of the airstrip at Tuzla to continue the U.N.
mission, the humanitarian mission. So we'll await the plan and
see what happens.
On the question of the use of air strikes in
retaliation for the strangulation of Sarajevo, that is largely
going to be a function of the behavior of the people who have
been shelling Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serbs. so we'll just have to
-- part of it depends upon -- when you say how long -- it depends
on what is their behavior? Is the shelling going to abate now,
as it did after August when we adopted the resolution? And then
it basically escalated dramatically only relatively recently. Or
will they continue to do it? And then we'll see if our resolve
is there. My resolve is there. That's all I can tell you. And
I believe the people in that room knew what they were doing when
they voted for this resolution.
It depends in part -- when you say how long, it
depends in part on what will be the conduct from this day forward
of those who have been responsible for shelling Sarajevo.
Q I had a question on Partnership For Peace. And
I'd be grateful if, Mr. President, you could answer, and perhaps
President Delors, too.
with hindsight, I wonder whether you don't think you
missed a trick by making entry into NATO for the former communist
countries of Central and Eastern Europe work on the same track as
entry into the European Union. Would this not have been a more
credible approach for Partnership For Peace?
THE PRESIDENT: I'll be glad to answer that
question, but I think perhaps I should defer to President Delors
since he has a much better sense of how the membership track for
the European Union works and let him answer the question that you
specifically posed, and then I'll also respond. And perhaps
Prime Minister Papandreou will respond.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Back in 1989 already, with the
event that took place then, the Summit of Industrialized Nations
dealt at length with this question: HOW, after the fall of the
Berlin wall and the collapse of communism, could we make it
possible for the countries in question to get back onto the track
of pluralist democracy and open economy? And then, it seemed to
us that immediate entry by the countries in question into the
European Union would be more damaging for them than would be a
period of preparation and adaptation.
We were afraid then that there would be a clash
between the strong and the weak, however much aid we could give
them. so a period of transition was necessary. It was in the
context of the mission that was entrusted to the European
Community and to the Commission that we endeavored to help them
in order to make it possible for them to progress in parallel
along the two tracks that I have indicated today. After four
years of experience and speaking in my personal name, I am ready
to take stock of this aid to which the Community has contributed
a lot.
May I recall that in 1989, the European Union only
represented 25 percent of the external trade of the countries of
Eastern Europe. NOW we represent 60 percent. And so we have
replaced COMICON, and that was absolutely necessary. We have
doubled our imports over three years from these countries. We
JAN-11-1994 20:53
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.023,024
- 6 -
represent 60 percent of total aid, including the aid from the
international financial organizations.
But we cannot replace them. These countries are
responsible countries. They have to learn the workings of an
open economy and democracy. of course, there are claims in our
countries. There are also people that are recommending other
solutions, but I still think that immediate entry to the European
Union would have been very damaging to them, irrespective of what
our leaders would have had to explain to our citizens who are
taxpayers.
For today, we have to take stock of what's happened,
but not do this having in mind the idea that we could substitute
for them. They are responsible for the fates. Some of them have
chosen the "big bang" approach in order to reform their
economies. I deplore this, and I feel that this was one of the
reasons for the return of the former communists and others.
Others have taken a more gradualist approach.
But each country was different. Czechoslovakia was
traditionally an industrial country. Hungary, even out of
communism, had begun experiments in decentralization way back in
1970. So we cannot act in their stead. Today, they have to face
a growing problem of security. The Partnership For Peace is
there to deal with this, but there is also a need for economic
security.
But I'm a pragmatist. I'm open to any solution.
But when I hear some leaders within Europe saying that we should
have acted otherwise, I remain convinced that we did opt for the
right solution. Now, have we always supplied it with the
desirable efficacy? That's another question. It remains open.
But again, with the commissioners responsible, we shall take
stock of all of this.
But we have to be careful. All of the miracle
solutions that have been proposed would not have resolved the
problems, and anyway, we can see this with German unification.
It is not this that in any way has diminished the frustration of
the populations concerned, or filled the psychological gap, or
even made it possible to get onto the ideal road towards
modernization. There are all sorts of problems. Besides, I'm
very respectful of what is happening in Germany. But it is an
experience contrary to the other one. You can see what problems
remain to be resolved.
PRIME MINISTER PAPANDREOU: Just a few words,
because I think President Delors has stated very clearly our
stand. There is a very delicate relationship between deepening
of the European Union and enlargement of the Union. They must go
together in a careful relationship. Otherwise, the Union itself
may not be able to achieve its fundamental goals. so some delays
are necessary, both from the point of view of the countries
petitioning the entry and also from the Union itself. But I
think I've said enough, in view of what President Delors has
already said in such detail.
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to go back to your original
question. What you asked, I think, was since there will be --
since there is sort of a phased-in possibility for additional
membership to the European Union and a phased-in possibility for
membership in NATO, should the criteria and timetables have been
reconciled. I think that's the question you're asking.
I can't give you a yes or no, except to say that I
think it would have been difficult to do that for a couple of
reasons. First of all, NATO and the European Union are
fundamentally different organizations. Membership in NATO means
that each member has a solemn obligation to defend the security
of each other -- any other member from attack. And membership in
NATO includes a guarantee, therefore, coming from the United
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:55
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.024,024
- 7 -
states and from Canada, something that is not the same with the
European Union.
On the other hand, membership in the European Union
now involves a commitment to a level of economic and political
integration that some who may want to be a part of NATO may or
may not want to commit to. So I think as a practical matter, it
would have been very difficult to reconcile these two timetables
since the organizations are different. Some may be more
interested in being in the European Union. I can conceive of
some countries who want to be in the Union who may not want to be
in NATO. Some may wish to be in NATO before they're able to meet
the responsibilities of the European Union.
PRESIDENT DELORS: I would just like to add one
sentence. In my humble opinion, the generation that I belong to
and which holds responsibility at present has two obligations,
and to reconcile these is not easy. On the one hand, we want to
create a political union with the European countries that desire
this, because we think that none of our countries is capable of
coping with these problems and with world responsibilities.
And secondly, given the events that have occurred in
the East, we have another obligation which is equally important;
that is to extend our values of peace, cooperation and mutual
understanding to the wider Europe. Believe me, to combine the
two is no easy task.
And, again, I criticize those who put forth
simplistic solutions in this area. Life is difficult. No one
can prevent such events being conflictual. A little modesty on
the part of those proposing miracle solutions will be necessary.
a Mr. President, Germany recently requested that
the famous Article 5 of the NATO Pact should apply for the
security for the Czech Republic, not a NATO member, in order to
face a threat not been defined yet. Since Greece is a NATO
member, according to the report, many of them are facing a real
threat in her northern border from an expected movement of
Albanian refugees from Kosovo via skopje. If the same article
could apply on that case, keep also into account that European
Union and Western European Union are not guaranteeing the Greek
borders. And I'm taking this opportunity, Mr. President, to ask
directly if America will be in the position to guarantee the
security of Greece from such a threat on a bilateral basis?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Frankly, that's a conversation I
think I ought to have with Prime Minister Papandreou before I
have it in public in some ways. But let me respond in two ways.
First of all, the United States has taken two strong steps to try
to make sure that the dire situation you described does not
occur. We have sent 300 troops to be located in Macedonia -- or
Skopje, as the Prime Minister describes it, as a part of a NATO
effort or a U.N. effort to contain the conflict in Bosnia.
In addition to that, shortly before I became
President but after I was elected President, the previous
administration with my strong support sent a very strong and firm
warning about involving Kosovo in the conflagration in Bosnia.
And we made it very clear that we would have very strong views
about that and a strong reaction to it.
so I think the real issue is, are we trying to
protect the interests of Greece and other nations from being
embroiled in the conflict now in the Balkans. And the answer is
yes, and I think we've taken two strong steps to do that. I
believe we will be successful in doing that.
THE PRESS: Thank you very much.
END
1:19 P.M. (L)
JAN-11-1994 20:45
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS CFC
32 509 F.018/024
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN STATEMENT WITH EU LEADERS
News Conference Theatre
EU Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
12:49 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. We have just
had a very productive meeting, President Delors and Prime
Minister Papandreou and I. As I have said many times in the last
few days, I came to Brussels in the hope of working with the
leaders of Europe to build a broader and more integrated Europe.
At the heart of this new concept of security is the
economic vitality of the relationship between the United states
and the European Union. The EU remains America's most valued
partner in trade and investment. A strong relationship between
us is good for America. It can help to generate more jobs, more
growth, more opportunities for workers and businesses at home as
well as for those here in Europe.
That is one of the reasons that our administration
strongly supported the Maastrict Treaty. We believe a strong and
more unified Europe makes for a more effective economic and
political partner. I think we proved that through our combined
efforts to lead the world to a new GATT agreement in December.
One key to achieving that accord came last spring
when President Delors agreed to join me in focusing on market
access at last year's G-7 summit. I'm committed to deepening our
relationship with the EU through regular meetings at all levels
to continue to address other concerns as we address the market
access concern and as we work together to get a new GATT
agreement.
I have argued in my own country that to advance the
global economy and to advance the interests of American workers
as well, we must compete, not retreat. All advanced economies
dail only generate more jobs and higher incomes when they have
more people beyond their borders to buy their goods and services.
Therefore, we must continue our efforts to expand global growth
and world markets. The GATT agreement will help in that regard.
I am convinced it will create millions of jobs in the global
economy between now and the end of the decade. But we also have
responsibilities, the United States, the EU and others, to
continue our own efforts toward open trade and more global
growth.
In today's meeting, we discussed four ways in which
we can build on the momentum generated by the GATT agreement.
First, we stressed the need to finalize and ratify the agreement.
The agreement itself was an impressive breakthrough, but there
are several areas in which we did not reach full agreement. I
emphasized today our strong desire to resolve our outstanding
differences.
We also agreed that further market access offers
from Japan and from other countries are also needed to meet the
ambitious goals on which we agreed. The U.S. and the EU cannot
alone create the open markets the world needs.
JAN-11-1994 20:46
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.019/024
- 2 -
We think it is clearly time for the other great
economic power, Japan, to join us in this effort to open markets.
Second, we agreed on the importance of putting jobs at the center
of our trade and economic agenda. Today, the nations of the
European Union are facing high and persistent rates of
unemployment and sluggish growth.
In the United States, we have begun to generate more
jobs, but our nation still has a long way to go before our
unemployment is at an acceptable level and before our workers
begin to generate more income when they work harder. The renewal
of each of our economies will benefit all of them. We discussed
some of the innovative ideas contained in the Delors White Paper.
President Delors and Prime Minister Papandreou both made very
thoughtful comments about the kinds of things we could do to
generate more job growth both in Europe and the United States.
And we look forward to pursuing those ideas at the jobs
conference in Washington this spring, and again at the G-7 summit
this July.
Third, we agreed to explore the next generation of
trade issues. I suggested that the successor agenda to the
Uruguay Round should include issues such as the impact of
environmental policies on trade, antitrust and other competition
policies and labor standards -- something that I think we must,
frankly, address.
While we continue to tear down anticompetitive
practices and other barriers to trade, we simply have to assure
that our economic policies also protect the environment and the
well-being of workers. And as we bring others into the orbit of
global trade people who can benefit from the investment and
trading opportunities we offer, we must ensure that their
policies benefit the interest of their workers and our common
interest in enhancing environmental protection throughout the
globe. That is exactly what we tried to do with the North
American Free Trade Agreement. And in the coming months I look
forward to continuing discussions on these issues with our EU
partners.
Finally, we discussed the imperative of helping to
integrate the new market democracies of Europe's Eastern half
into the transatlantic community. Yesterday, NATO took an
historic step in this direction with the Partnership For Peace.
We must match that effort by helping to ensure that our markets
are open to the products of Eastern Europe. Ultimately, the
further integration of Europe can be a future source of jobs and
prosperity for both the United States and Western Europe as these
nations become increasingly productive and, therefore,
increasingly able to serve as consumers in the global economy.
We have already begun to open our markets to these
new democracies. And I have urged that both the United states
and the EU explore additional ways in which we can further open
our markets to the nations to our east. Our trade are a source
of strength, the source of jobs, a source of prosperity.
I look forward to continuing these discussions in
the future. We had a lot of very good specific discussions this
morning on the jobs issue in particular. And we intend to
continue to work together and to make progress together.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT PAPANDREOU: President Clinton, in this
very brief presentation, has covered the issues that we discussed
today. He has done so in a very complete way so I will make two
or three comments and not more. To begin with, we have the
revitalization of transatlantic relations, relations between
Europe, the European Union and the United states of America.
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:43
PRAGLE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.020.024
- 3 -
It is very important for President Clinton that
European integration, the great objective of a united Europe, is
very important. Now, the other important issue is an opening
towards Eastern Europe. The wall separating the Bast from the
West have been dismantled. We do not want any further divisions
in Europe. But we should not ignore the dangers that may
confront us on this road.
Russia is involved in a very difficult economic,
political and social reform. And we would like to contribute in
any way we can so that this road will lead to a modern economy,
to a peace policy and to a just society. We hope that that w1ll
be the final outcome of this process.
NOW, the third point which is directly linked to
what we have mentioned so far is a Partnership For Peace. We
have to work together for peace. This is a great concept. We
should consider ways of working together in the area of defense
in connection with problems arising due to crises, due to
nationalist fanaticism, due to conflicts in Burope or at the
periphery. Crisis management is a very important objective.
Military cooperation without Eastern European countries being
members of NATO, but cooperation between them and NATO is not a
threat for Russia, but rather an invitation to Russia to
contribute constructively.
I will not embark on the problem of the European
economy. Mr. Delors will speak about this problem. But the
truth is that there are three regions in which we have both
unemployment and recession -- Europe, Japan and the United
states. Now, the United States has started an upswing.
We are faced with a very serious problem in
connection with employment, and we will have to live with this
problem for many years unless we manage to find a radical
solution. It is not the right time to go into the details of
these solutions. Now, this is what I wanted to say at the
present juncture.
so, President Delors.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Questions immediately, because
this is more interesting that what I could add to what Prime
Minister Papandreou has spoken on behalf of the Community.
& Back to NATO, Mr. President. what makes you
think that the Serbs will take the threat seriously now since
NATO has been the boy crying wolf in the past? And what really
has stiffened everybody's spine now after two years of shelling,
bombing, slaughter?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, keep in mind now the
resolution was directed toward a specific set of circumstances.
They reaffirmed - -- NATO reaffirmed the August position that if
Sarajevo was subject to strangulation defined as large-scale
shelling, that air power from NATO could be used as a response to
that, And then, today there were added two conditions that we
asked our military leadership to come up with plans to ensure
that the troop replacement in srebrenica could proceed and to see
whether the airstrip at Tuzla could be opened.
I can only tell you what happened in the meetings.
The Secretary General of NATO and I both said that these steps
should not be called for unless everyone voting in the
affirmative was prepared to see them through. And there was an
explicit discussion of that. so I think that the continued
deterioration of conditions, the frustration of all us that no
peace agreement has been made and that explicit debate should
give this vote the credibility that I believe it deserves.
Q
Listening to what you said about growth and
jobs and also defense of the environment and social rights, I'm
JAN-11-1994 20:50
PPAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.021.024
- 4 -
very struck by how similar your language is to the proposals
which President Delors recently put to the European heads of
government. Would you acknowledge that your thinking on these
issues is very largely convergent? And what would you say to
some people who responded in this Union by saying now is no time
to be unduly concerned about workers' rights or the environment,
that this can no priority when we are tackling mass unemployment
priority when we are tackling mass unemployment? It's a debate
we've had here in the Union. I wonder how you would advise
people in that respect here.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think it is fair to
say that President Delors and I share a lot of common ideas.
Prime Minister Papandreou and I have shared some ideas. I've
read some of his thoughts and interviews. I think any person who
seriously studies this issue, who studies income trends in the
United States, who studies job trends in Europe, who studies now
what is happening in Japan, will reach the conclusion that every
wealthy country in the world is having great difficulty creating
jobs and raising incomes, and that there are some common elements
to this malady which have to be addressed.
Now, let me say in response to the two issues you've
raised, first of all, with regard to the environment, I believe
that dealing with the environment creates jobs, doesn't cost jobs
if you do it in the right way. And I think we now have about 20
years of evidence that supports that that if you have the
right sort of sensible environmental policy and if you finance it
in the right way, you will create jobs, not cost jobs. Much of
the environmental cleanup that is sensible requires the
development of technologies and the generation of high-wage jobs
which will be virtually exclusively the province of the same
countries that are having trouble creating jobs.
with regard to workers' rights, I would respond in
two ways. First of all, if in order to create jobs we have to
give up all the supports that we have worked hard for over
decades for working families, then we may wind up paying the same
political price and social price. That is, we do not want to see
the collapse of the middle class in Europe or in the United
States. What we want to do is to rebuild and strengthen the
middle class.
If you look at the vote in Russia, if you look at
the recent vote in Poland, you see what happens in democracies
when middle class people feel that the future will be worse than
the present. so if you're going to ask for changes in the system
of support, those changes have to be done in a way that increase
the sense of security that middle class working class families in
all these countries.
Secondly, the issue of worker rights and the issue
of the environment should be seen from our prospective as a
global one. That 1s, 1f you look at what Ambassador Kantor
negotiated with Mexico in the NAFTA treaty, the first trade
agreement ever to explicitly deal with environmental and labor
issues, we did it because we said, okay, if we're going to open
our borders and trade more and invest more with developing
nations, we want to know that their working people will receive
some of the benefits and a fair share of the benefits of this
trade and investment. Otherwise, they won't have increasing
incomes and they won't be able to buy our products and services.
So I see this whole worker rights issue as more a
function of the global economy and one that will help us to build
up ordinary citizens everywhere, which I think should be our
ultimate objective.
& Mr. President, back on Bosnia. You mentioned
that this threat of military action is not a new threat. How
long can NATO keep on making these threats without carrying them
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:51
PRAGUE CZECH FRESS OFC
32 509 P.022/024
- 5 -
out, without delivering? At what point does it become, as you
warned about yesterday, an empty threat?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we have two
different issues here. The French and the British proposed the
motion to ask our military planners to come up with a strategy to
ensure the rotation of troops in Srebrenica and to see whether
with the use of air power or some other device we might secure
the opening of the airstrip at Tuzla to continue the U.N.
mission, the humanitarian mission. so we'll await the plan and
see what happens.
On the question of the use of air strikes in
retaliation for the strangulation of Sarajevo, that is largely
going to be a function of the behavior of the people who have
been shelling Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serbs. so we'll just have to
-- part of it depends upon -- when you say how long -- it depends
on what is their behavior? Is the shelling going to abate now,
as it did after August when we adopted the resolution? And then
it basically escalated dramatically only relatively recently. Or
will they continue to do it? And then we'll see if our resolve
is there. MY resolve is there. That's all I can tell you. And
I believe the people in that room knew what they were doing when
they voted for this resolution.
It depends in part when you say how long, it
depends in part on what will be the conduct from this day forward
of those who have been responsible for shelling Sarajevo.
Q I had a question on Partnership For Peace. And
I'd be grateful if, Mr. President, you could answer, and perhaps
President Delors, too.
with hindsight, I wonder whether you don't think you
missed a trick by making entry into NATO for the former communist
countries of Central and Eastern Europe work on the same track as
entry into the European Union. Would this not have been a more
credible approach for Partnership For Peace?
THE PRESIDENT: I'll be glad to answer that
question, but I think perhaps I should defer to President Delors
since he has a much better sense of how the membership track for
the European Union works and let him answer the question that you
specifically posed, and then I'll also respond. And perhaps
Prime Minister Papandreou will respond.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Back in 1989 already, with the
event that took place then, the Summit of Industrialized Nations
dealt at length with this question: HOW, after the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, could we make it
possible for the countries in question to get back onto the track
of pluralist democracy and open economy? And then, it seemed to
us that immediate entry by the countries in question into the
European Union would be more damaging for them than would be a
period of preparation and adaptation.
We were afraid then that there would be a clash
between the strong and the weak, however much aid we could give
them. so a period of transition was necessary. It was in the
context of the mission that was entrusted to the European
Community and to the Commission that we endeavored to help them
in order to make it possible for them to progress in parallel
along the two tracks that I have indicated today. After four
years of experience and speaking in my personal name, I am ready
to take stock of this aid to which the Community has contributed
a lot.
May I recall that in 1989, the European Union only
represented 25 percent of the external trade of the countries of
Eastern Europe. NOW we represent 60 percent. And so we have
replaced COMICON, and that was absolutely necessary. We have
doubled our imports over three years from these countries. We
JAN-11-1994 20:53
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.023,024
- 6 -
represent 60 percent of total aid, including the aid from the
international financial organizations.
But we cannot replace them. These countries are
responsible countries. They have to learn the workings of an
open economy and democracy. of course, there are claims in our
countries. There are also people that are recommending other
solutions, but I still think that immediate entry to the European
Union would have been very damaging to them, irrespective of what
our leaders would have had to explain to our citizens who are
taxpayers.
For today, we have to take stock of what's happened,
but not do this having in mind the idea that we could substitute
for them. They are responsible for the fates. Some of them have
chosen the "big bang" approach in order to reform their
economies. I deplore this, and I feel that this was one of the
reasons for the return of the former communists and others.
Others have taken a more gradualist approach.
But each country was different. Czechoslovakia was
traditionally an industrial country. Hungary, even out of
communism, had begun experiments in decentralization way back in
1970. so we cannot act in their stead. Today, they have to face
a growing problem of security. The Partnership For Peace is
there to deal with this, but there is also a need for economic
security.
But I'm a pragmatist. I'm open to any solution.
But when I hear some leaders within Europe saying that we should
have acted otherwise, I remain convinced that we did opt for the
right solution. Now, have we always supplied it with the
desirable efficacy? That's another question. It remains open.
But again, with the commissioners responsible, we shall take
stock of all of this.
But we have to be careful. All of the miracle
solutions that have been proposed would not have resolved the
problems, and anyway, we can see this with German unification.
It is not this that in any way has diminished the frustration of
the populations concerned, or filled the psychological gap, or
even made it possible to get onto the ideal road towards
modernization. There are all sorts of problems. Besides, I'm
very respectful of what is happening in Germany. But it is an
experience contrary to the other one. You can see what problems
remain to be resolved.
PRIME MINISTER PAPANDREOU: Just a few words,
because I think President Delors has stated very clearly our
stand. There is a very delicate relationship between deepening
of the European Union and enlargement of the Union. They must go
together in a careful relationship. Otherwise, the Union itself
may not be able to achieve its fundamental goals. so some delays
are necessary, both from the point of view of the countries
petitioning the entry and also from the Union itself. But I
think I've said enough, in view of what President Delors has
already said in such detail.
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to go back to your original
question. What you asked, I think, was since there will be --
since there is sort of a phased-in possibility for additional
membership to the European Union and a phased-in possibility for
membership in NATO, should the criteria and timetables have been
reconciled. I think that's the question you're asking.
I can't give you a yes or no, except to say that I
think it would have been difficult to do that for a couple of
reasons. First of all, NATO and the European Union are
fundamentally different organizations. Membership in NATO means
that each member has a solemn obligation to defend the security
of each other -- any other member from attack. And membership in
NATO includes a guarantee, therefore, coming from the United
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:55
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.024,024
- 7 -
States and from Canada, something that is not the same with the
European Union.
On the other hand, membership in the European Union
now involves a commitment to a level of economic and political
integration that some who may want to be a part of NATO may or
may not want to commit to. so I think as a practical matter, it
would have been very difficult to reconcile these two timetables
since the organizations are different. Some may be more
interested in being in the European Union. I can conceive of
some countries who want to be in the Union who may not want to be
in NATO. Some may wish to be in NATO before they' re able to meet
the responsibilities of the European Union.
PRESIDENT DELORS: I would just like to add one
sentence. In my humble opinion, the generation that I belong to
and which holds responsibility at present has two obligations,
and to reconcile these is not easy. On the one hand, we want to
create a political union with the European countries that desire
this, because we think that none of our countries is capable of
coping with these problems and with world responsibilities.
And secondly, given the events that have occurred in
the East, we have another obligation which is equally important;
that is to extend our values of peace, cooperation and mutual
understanding to the wider Europe. Believe me, to combine the
two is no easy task.
And, again, I criticize those who put forth
simplistic solutions in this area. Life is difficult. No one
can prevent such events being conflictual. A little modesty on
the part of those proposing miracle solutions will be necessary.
Я Mr. President, Germany recently requested that
the famous Article 5 of the NATO Pact should apply for the
security for the Czech Republic, not a NATO member, in order to
face a threat not been defined yet. Since Greece is a NATO
member, according to the report, many of them are facing a real
threat in her northern border from an expected movement of
Albanian refugees from Kosovo via skopje. If the same article
could apply on that case, keep also into account that European
Union and Western European Union are not guaranteeing the Greek
borders. And I'm taking this opportunity, Mr. President, to ask
directly if America will be in the position to guarantee the
security of Greece from such a threat on a bilateral basis?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Frankly, that's a conversation I
think I ought to have with Prime Minister Papandreou before I
have it in public in some ways. But let me respond in two ways.
First of all, the United States has taken two strong steps to try
to make sure that the dire situation you described does not
occur. We have sent 300 troops to be located in Macedonia -- or
Skopje, as the Prime Minister describes it, as a part of a NATO
effort or a U.N. effort to contain the conflict in Bosnia.
In addition to that, shortly before I became
President but after I was elected President, the previous
administration with my strong support sent a very strong and firm
warning about involving Kosovo in the conflagration in Bosnia.
And we made it very clear that we would have very strong views
about that and a strong reaction to it.
So I think the real issue is, are we trying to
protect the interests of Greece and other nations from being
embroiled in the conflict now in the Balkans. And the answer is
yes, and I think we've taken two strong steps to do that. I
believe we will be successful in doing that.
THE PRESS: Thank you very much.
END
1:19 P.M. (L)
JAN-11-1994 20:45
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS CFC
32 509 F.018/024
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 11, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN STATEMENT WITH EU LEADERS
News Conference Theatre
EU Headquarters
Brussels, Belgium
12:49 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. We have Just
had a very productive meeting, President Delors and Prime
Minister Papandreou and I. As I have said many times in the last
few days, I came to Brussels in the hope of working with the
leaders of Europe to build a broader and more integrated Europe.
At the heart of this new concept of security is the
economic vitality of the relationship between the United states
and the European Union. The EU remains America's most valued
partner in trade and investment. A strong relationship between
us is good for America. It can help to generate more jobs, more
growth, more opportunities for workers and businesses at home as
well as for those here in Europe.
That is one of the reasons that our administration
strongly supported the Maastrict Treaty. We believe a strong and
more unified Europe makes for a more effective economic and
political partner. I think we proved that through our combined
efforts to lead the world to a new GATT agreement in December.
One key to achieving that accord came last spring
when President Delors agreed to join me in focusing on market
access at last year's G-7 summit. I'm committed to deepening our
relationship with the EU through regular meetings at all levels
to continue to address other concerns as we address the market
access concern and as we work together to get a new GATT
agreement.
I have argued in my own country that to advance the
global economy and to advance the interests of American workers
as well, we must compete, not retreat. All advanced economies
dail only generate more jobs and higher incomes when they have
more people beyond their borders to buy their goods and services.
Therefore, we must continue our efforts to expand global growth
and world markets. The GATT agreement will help in that regard.
I am convinced it will create millions of jobs in the global
economy between now and the end of the decade. But we also have
responsibilities, the United States, the EU and others, to
continue our own efforts toward open trade and more global
growth.
In today's meeting, we discussed four ways in which
we can build on the momentum generated by the GATT agreement.
First, we stressed the need to finalize and ratify the agreement.
The agreement itself was an impressive breakthrough, but there
are several areas in which we did not reach full agreement. I
emphasized today our strong desire to resolve our outstanding
differences.
We also agreed that further market access offers
from Japan and from other countries are also needed to meet the
ambitious goals on which we agreed. The U.S. and the EU cannot
alone create the open markets the world needs.
JAN-11-1994 20:46
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.019/024
- 2 -
We think it is clearly time for the other great
economic power, Japan, to join us in this effort to open markets.
Second, we agreed on the importance of putting jobs at the center
of our trade and economic agenda. Today, the nations of the
European Union are facing high and persistent rates of
unemployment and sluggish growth.
In the United States, we have begun to generate more
jobs, but our nation still has a long way to go before our
unemployment is at an acceptable level and before our workers
begin to generate more income when they work harder. The renewal
of each of our economies will benefit all of them. We discussed
some of the innovative ideas contained in the Delors White Paper.
President Delors and Prime Minister Papandreou both made very
thoughtful comments about the kinds of things we could do to
generate more job growth both in Europe and the United States.
And we look forward to pursuing those ideas at the jobs
conference in Washington this spring, and again at the G-7 summit
this July.
Third, we agreed to explore the next generation of
trade issues. I suggested that the successor agenda to the
Uruguay Round should include issues such as the impact of
environmental policies on trade, antitrust and other competition
policies and labor standards -- something that I think we must,
frankly, address.
While we continue to tear down anticompetitive
practices and other barriers to trade, we simply have to assure
that our economic policies also protect the environment and the
well-being of workers. And as we bring others into the orbit of
global trade people who can benefit from the investment and
trading opportunities we offer, we must ensure that their
policies benefit the interest of their workers and our common
interest in enhancing environmental protection throughout the
globe. That is exactly what we tried to do with the North
American Free Trade Agreement. And in the coming months I look
forward to continuing discussions on these issues with our EU
partners.
Finally, we discussed the imperative of helping to
integrate the new market democracies of Europe's Eastern half
into the transatlantic community. Yesterday, NATO took an
historic step in this direction with the Partnership For Peace.
We must match that effort by helping to ensure that our markets
are open to the products of Eastern Europe. Ultimately, the
further integration of Europe can be a future source of jobs and
prosperity for both the United States and Western Europe as these
nations become increasingly productive and, therefore,
increasingly able to serve as consumers in the global economy.
We have already begun to open our markets to these
new democracies. And I have urged that both the United states
and the EU explore additional ways in which we can further open
our markets to the nations to our east. Our trade are a source
of strength, the source of jobs, a source of prosperity.
I look forward to continuing these discussions in
the future. We had a lot of very good specific discussions this
morning on the jobs issue in particular. And we intend to
continue to work together and to make progress together.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT PAPANDREOU: President Clinton, in this
very brief presentation, has covered the issues that we discussed
today. He has done so in a very complete way so I will make two
or three comments and not more. To begin with, we have the
revitalization of transatlantic relations, relations between
Europe, the European Union and the United states of America.
JAN-11-1994 20:43
PRAGLE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 505 P.020.024
- 3 -
It is very important for President Clinton that
European integration, the great objective of a united Europe, is
very important. Now, the other important issue is an opening
towards Eastern Europe. The wall separating the Bast from the
West have been dismantled. We do not want any further divisions
in Europe. But we should not ignore the dangers that may
confront us on this road.
Russia is involved in a very difficult economic,
political and social reform. And we would like to contribute in
any way we can so that this road will lead to a modern economy,
to a peace policy and to a just society. We hope that that will
be the final outcome of this process.
NOW, the third point which is directly linked to
what we have mentioned so far is a Partnership For Peace. We
have to work together for peace. This is a great concept. We
should consider ways of working together in the area of defense
in connection with problems arising due to crises, due to
nationalist fanaticism, due to conflicts in Burope or at the
periphery. Crisis management is a very important objective.
Military cooperation without Eastern European countries being
members of NATO, but cooperation between them and NATO is not a
threat for Russia, but rather an invitation to Russia to
contribute constructively.
I will not embark on the problem of the European
economy. Mr. Delors will speak about this problem. But the
truth is that there are three regions in which we have both
unemployment and recession -- Europe, Japan and the United
states. Now, the United States has started an upswing.
We are faced with a very serious problem in
connection with employment, and we will have to live with this
problem for many years unless we manage to find a radical
solution. It is not the right time to go into the details of
these solutions. Now, this is what I wanted to say at the
present juncture.
so, President Delors.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Questions immediately, because
this is more interesting that what I could add to what Prime
Minister Papandreou has spoken on behalf of the Community.
& Back to NATO, Mr. President. what makes you
think that the Serbs will take the threat seriously now since
NATO has been the boy crying wolf in the past? And what really
has stiffened everybody's spine now after two years of shelling,
bombing, slaughter?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, keep in mind now the
resolution was directed toward a specific set of circumstances.
They reaffirmed NATO reaffirmed the August position that if
Sarajevo was subject to strangulation defined as large-scale
shelling, that air power from NATO could be used as a response to
that. And then, today there were added two conditions that we
asked our military leadership to come up with plans to ensure
that the troop replacement in srebrenica could proceed and to see
whether the airstrip at Tuzla could be opened.
I can only tell you what happened in the meetings.
The Secretary General of NATO and I both said that these steps
should not be called for unless everyone voting in the
affirmative was prepared to see them through. And there was an
explicit discussion of that. so I think that the continued
deterioration of conditions, the frustration of all us that no
peace agreement has been made and that explicit debate should
give this vote the credibility that I believe it deserves.
0 Listening to what you said about growth and
jobs and also defense of the environment and social rights, I'm
JAN-11-1994 20:50
PPAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.021.024
- 4 -
very struck by how similar your language is to the proposals
which President Delors recently put to the European heads of
government. Would you acknowledge that your thinking on these
issues is very largely convergent? And what would you say to
some people who responded in this Union by saying now is no time
to be unduly concerned about workers' rights or the environment,
that this can no priority when we are tackling mass unemployment
priority when we are tackling mass unemployment? It's a debate
we've had here in the Union. I wonder how you would advise
people in that respect here.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think it is fair to
say that President Delors and I share a lot of common ideas.
Prime Minister Papandreou and I have shared some ideas. I've
read some of his thoughts and interviews. I think any person who
seriously studies this issue, who studies income trends in the
United States, who studies job trends in Europe, who studies now
what is happening in Japan, will reach the conclusion that every
wealthy country in the world is having great difficulty creating
jobs and raising incomes, and that there are some common elements
to this malady which have to be addressed.
Now, let me say in response to the two issues you've
raised, first of all, with regard to the environment, I believe
that dealing with the environment creates jobs, doesn't cost jobs
if you do it in the right way. And I think we now have about 20
years of evidence that supports that -- that if you have the
right sort of sensible environmental policy and if you finance it
in the right way, you will create jobs, not cost jobs. Much of
the environmental cleanup that is sensible requires the
development of technologies and the generation of high-wage jobs
which will be virtually exclusively the province of the same
countries that are having trouble creating jobs.
with regard to workers' rights, I would respond in
two ways. First of all, if in order to create jobs we have to
give up all the supports that we have worked hard for over
decades for working families, then we may wind up paying the same
political price and social price. That is, we do not want to see
the collapse of the middle class in Europe or in the United
States. What we want to do is to rebuild and strengthen the
middle class.
If you look at the vote in Russia, if you look at
the recent vote in Poland, you see what happens in democracies
when middle class people feel that the future will be worse than
the present. So if you're going to ask for changes in the system
of support, those changes have to be done in a way that increase
the sense of security that middle class working class families in
all these countries.
Secondly, the issue of worker rights and the issue
of the environment should be seen from our prospective as a
global one. That 1s, if you look at what Ambassador Kantor
negotiated with Mexico in the NAFTA treaty, the first trade
agreement ever to explicitly deal with environmental and labor
issues, we did it because we said, okay, if we're going to open
our borders and trade more and invest more with developing
nations, we want to know that their working people will receive
some of the benefits and a fair share of the benefits of this
trade and investment. Otherwise, they won't have increasing
incomes and they won't be able to buy our products and services.
80 I see this whole worker rights issue as more a
function of the global economy and one that will help us to build
up ordinary citizens everywhere, which I think should be our
ultimate objective.
Q Mr. President, back on Bosnia. You mentioned
that this threat of military action is not a new threat. How
long can NATO keep on making these threats without carrying them
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:51
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.022/024
- 5 -
out, without delivering? At what point does it become, as you
warned about yesterday, an empty threat?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we have two
different issues here. The French and the British proposed the
motion to ask our military planners to come up with a strategy to
ensure the rotation of troops in Srebrenica and to see whether
with the use of air power or some other device we might secure
the opening of the airstrip at Tuzla to continue the U.N.
mission, the humanitarian mission. So we'll await the plan and
see what happens.
On the question of the use of air strikes in
retaliation for the strangulation of Sarajevo, that is largely
going to be a function of the behavior of the people who have
been shelling Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serbs. so we'll just have to
-- part of it depends upon -- when you say how long -- it depends
on what is their behavior? Is the shelling going to abate now,
as it did after August when we adopted the resolution? And then
it basically escalated dramatically only relatively recently. or
will they continue to do it? And then we'll see if our resolve
is there. My resolve is there. That's all I can tell you. And
I believe the people in that room knew what they were doing when
they voted for this resolution.
It depends in part -- when you say how long, it
depends in part on what will be the conduct from this day forward
of those who have been responsible for shelling Sarajevo.
Q
I had a question on Partnership For Peace. And
I'd be grateful if, Mr. President, you could answer, and perhaps
President Delors, too.
With hindsight, I wonder whether you don't think you
missed a trick by making entry into NATO for the former communist
countries of Central and Eastern Europe work on the same track as
entry into the European Union. Would this not have been a more
credible approach for Partnership For Peace?
THE PRESIDENT: I'll be glad to answer that
question, but I think perhaps I should defer to President Delors
since he has a much better sense of how the membership track for
the European Union works and let him answer the question that you
specifically posed, and then I'll also respond. And perhaps
Prime Minister Papandreou will respond.
PRESIDENT DELORS: Back in 1989 already, with the
event that took place then, the Summit of Industrialized Nations
dealt at length with this question: HOW, after the fall of the
Berlin wall and the collapse of communism, could we make it
possible for the countries in question to get back onto the track
of pluralist democracy and open economy? And then, it seemed to
us that immediate entry by the countries in question into the
European Union would be more damaging for them than would be a
period of preparation and adaptation.
We were afraid then that there would be a clash
between the strong and the weak, however much aid we could give
them. so a period of transition was necessary. It was in the
context of the mission that was entrusted to the European
Community and to the Commission that we endeavored to help them
in order to make it possible for them to progress in parallel
along the two tracks that I have indicated today. After four
years of experience and speaking in my personal name, I am ready
to take stock of this aid to which the Community has contributed
a lot.
May I recall that in 1989, the European Union only
represented 25 percent of the external trade of the countries of
Eastern Europe. NOW we represent 60 percent. And so we have
replaced COMICON, and that was absolutely necessary. We have
doubled our imports over three years from these countries. We
JAN-11-1994 20:53
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.023,024
- 6 -
represent 60 percent of total aid, including the aid from the
international financial organizations.
But we cannot replace them. These countries are
responsible countries. They have to learn the workings of an
open economy and democracy. of course, there are claims in our
countries. There are also people that are recommending other
solutions, but I still think that immediate entry to the European
Union would have been very damaging to them, irrespective of what
our leaders would have had to explain to our citizens who are
taxpayers.
For today, we have to take stock of what's happened,
but not do this having in mind the idea that we could substitute
for them. They are responsible for the fates. Some of them have
chosen the "big bang" approach in order to reform their
economies. I deplore this, and I feel that this was one of the
reasons for the return of the former communists and others.
Others have taken a more gradualist approach.
But each country was different. Czechoslovakia was
traditionally an industrial country. Hungary, even out of
communism, had begun experiments in decentralization way back in
1970. so we cannot act in their stead. Today, they have to face
a growing problem of security. The Partnership For Peace is
there to deal with this, but there is also a need for economic
security.
But I'm a pragmatist. I'm open to any solution.
But when I hear some leaders within Europe saying that we should
have acted otherwise, I remain convinced that we did opt for the
right solution. Now, have we always supplied it with the
desirable efficacy? That's another question. It remains open.
But again, with the commissioners responsible, we shall take
stock of all of this.
But we have to be careful. All of the miracle
solutions that have been proposed would not have resolved the
problems, and anyway, we can see this with German unification.
It is not this that in any way has diminished the frustration of
the populations concerned, or filled the psychological gap, or
even made it possible to get onto the ideal road towards
modernization. There are all sorts of problems. Besides, I'm
very respectful of what is happening in Germany. But it is an
experience contrary to the other one. You can see what problems
remain to be resolved.
PRIME MINISTER PAPANDREOU: Just a few words,
because I think President Delors has stated very clearly our
stand. There is a very delicate relationship between deepening
of the European Union and enlargement of the Union. They must go
together in a careful relationship. Otherwise, the Union itself
may not be able to achieve its fundamental goals. so some delays
are necessary, both from the point of view of the countries
petitioning the entry and also from the Union itself. But I
think I've said enough, in view of what President Delors has
already said in such detail.
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to go back to your original
question. What you asked, I think, was since there will be --
since there is sort of a phased-in possibility for additional
membership to the European Union and a phased-in possibility for
membership in NATO, should the criteria and timetables have been
reconciled. I think that's the question you're asking.
I can't give you a yes or no, except to say that I
think it would have been difficult to do that for a couple of
reasons. First of all, NATO and the European Union are
fundamentally different organizations. Membership in NATO means
that each member has a solemn obligation to defend the security
of each other -- any other member from attack. And membership in
NATO includes a guarantee, therefore, coming from the United
MORE
JAN-11-1994 20:55
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.024,024
- 7 -
states and from Canada, something that is not the same with the
European Union.
On the other hand, membership in the European Union
now involves a commitment to a level of economic and political
integration that some who may want to be a part of NATO may or
may not want to commit to. So I think as a practical matter, it
would have been very difficult to reconcile these two timetables
since the organizations are different. Some may be more
interested in being in the European Union. I can conceive of
some countries who want to be in the Union who may not want to be
in NATO. Some may wish to be in NATO before they're able to meet
the responsibilities of the European Union.
PRESIDENT DELORS: I would just like to add one
sentence. In my humble opinion, the generation that I belong to
and which holds responsibility at present has two obligations,
and to reconcile these is not easy. On the one hand, we want to
create a political union with the European countries that desire
this, because we think that none of our countries is capable of
coping with these problems and with world responsibilities.
And secondly, given the events that have occurred in
the East, we have another obligation which is equally important;
that is to extend our values of peace, cooperation and mutual
understanding to the wider Europe. Believe me, to combine the
two is no easy task.
And, again, I criticize those who put forth
simplistic solutions in this area. Life is difficult. No one
can prevent such events being conflictual. A little modesty on
the part of those proposing miracle solutions will be necessary.
Q Mr. President, Germany recently requested that
the famous Article 5 of the NATO Pact should apply for the
security for the Czech Republic, not a NATO member, in order to
face a threat not been defined yet. Since Greece is a NATO
member, according to the report, many of them are facing a real
threat in her northern border from an expected movement of
Albanian refugees from Kosovo vía skopje. If the same article
could apply on that case, keep also into account that Buropean
Union and Western European Union are not guaranteeing the Greek
borders. And I'm taking this opportunity, Mr. President, to ask
directly if America will be in the position to guarantee the
security of Greece from such a threat on a bilateral basis?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Frankly, that's a conversation I
think I ought to have with Prime Minister Papandreou before I
have it in public in some ways. But let me respond in two ways.
First of all, the United States has taken two strong steps to try
to make sure that the dire situation you described does not
occur. We have sent 300 troops to be located in Macedonia -- or
Skopje, as the Prime Minister describes it, as a part of a NATO
effort or a U.N. effort to contain the conflict in Bosnia.
In addition to that, shortly before I became
President but after I was elected President, the previous
administration with my strong support sent a very strong and firm
warning about involving Kosovo in the conflagration in Bosnia.
And we made it very clear that we would have very strong views
about that and a strong reaction to it.
So I think the real issue is, are we trying to
protect the interests of Greece and other nations from being
embroiled in the conflict now in the Balkans. And the answer is
yes, and I think we've taken two strong steps to do that. I
believe we will be successful in doing that.
THE PRESS: Thank you very much.
END
1:19 P.M. (L)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 10, 1994
January 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
SUBJECT:
Transfer of Funds for Assistance for the New
Independent States (NIS) of the Former Soviet
Union
Pursuant to the Supplemental Appropriations for the NIS of
the Former Soviet Union Act, 1993 (Title VI of Public Law 103-
87) (the "Act"), I hereby determine that programs described in
Section 560 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1994 (Titles I-V of Public
Law 103-87) and programs described in Section 498 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (Public Law 87-195), will
increase the national security of the United States.
The political and economic transformation of the NIS of the
former Soviet Union into peaceful market-oriented democracies
will directly reduce the security threat to the United States
and lead to substantial savings in the cost of the defense of
the United States. The above-mentioned programs facilitate
this transformation, thereby making a critical contribution
to increasing the national security of the United States.
Accordingly, unless I instruct otherwise in the interim,
on the thirtieth day following submission to the appropriate
Committees of the Congress of the memorandum regarding noti-
fication under 10 U.S.C. 2215 for the NIS of the former
Soviet Union, you are authorized and directed to exercise
your authority under the first two provisos under the heading
"Operation and Maintenance, Defense Agencies" in the Act to
transfer funds in the amounts and to the accounts detailed in
the attachment to this memorandum. Any funds transferred to
the Agency for International Development may thereafter, at
the direction of the Secretary of State or the Coordinator
designated under Section 102 of the FREEDOM Support Act
(Public Law 102-511), be allocated or transferred pursuant
to the authority of Section 632 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as amended. In the event of such transfer, the
implementing agency shall be the agency responsible and
accountable for the management, audit and use of such funds.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
# # #
22:16
BRUSSELE FREES OFFICE
46509 P.002
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 10, 1994
Taken Questions on Ukraine Nuclear Issues
Q. Is there a time frame for the trilateral agreement on nuclear
issues with Ukraine, Russia and the United States?
A. There are timing aspects of this agreement that cannot be
discussed publicly at this point. As was stated earlier by an
Administration official, at a minimum, under the agreement to be
signed Friday, Ukraine would meet its START obligation within
seven years.
Our concern about the nuclear situation in Ukraine, however,
led us to insist on a shorter time frame for the dismantlement of
Ukraine's most dangerous warheads. We will have additional
information to provide on this aspect of the agreement after it
is signed on Friday, January 14.
Q. could you clarify the financial aspects of this agreement?
A. The estimated value of the highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in
Ukrainian warheads is approximately $1 billion. The compensation
for this HEU under the agreement to be signed Friday will be in
the form of fuel rods for Ukraine's civilian nuclear energy
program.
On the basis of this compensation agreement with Ukraine, as
well as Russia's commitments to share HEU proceeds with
Kazakhstan and Belarus, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation will be
able to sign a $12 billion commercial contract with Russia.
The United States will also be providing, under the agreement
to be signed Friday, up-front funds to Russia to get the
compensation process immediately underway. There will be more
details on this funding provided on Friday.
Q. Will Ukraine be receiving other assistance?
A. As previously announced, the United States is prepared to
provide at least S175 million to Ukraine in Nunn-Lugar assistance
for the safe and secure dismantlement and destruction of nuclear
weapons systems.
The United States is also prepared to provide S155 million to
Ukraine in economic assistance in fiscal year 1994. This amount
could be doubled if Ukraine undertakes significant economic
reforms.
JAN-10-1994 19:26
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.001
Pool Report #11
POOL REPORT NATO HEADQUARTERS
January 10, 1994 4:30 p.m. local
(Delivery delayed)
BACKGROUNDER with senior White House official following NATO
leaders signing Partnership for Peace
NATO CONSULTATIONS:
The official, speaking to the pool, said there were no
disagreements among NATO leaders at the morning session about the
Partnership for Peace or any of the other issues on the agenda.
The leaders subsequently signed the framework agreement for
Partnership for Peace and issued the invitations to former Warsaw
Pact, CIS and neutrals at a televised ceremony shortly before 4
p.m.
Seven of the 14 NATO leaders made sequential statements on the
full range of business before NATO during the morning session --
including Bosnia, the official said. Although NATO summits allow
leaders to challenge or discuss points made by their colleagues,
there was no follow up discussion on any subject, the official
said.
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE:
``The plan has been to sign today. I'll level with you and say
there is a very heavy substantive agenda here and we thought if
we could get one interesting story today and another tomorrow,
it's as simple as that. (Today- Partners for Peace; tomorrow:
summit declaration, Clinton news conference, Prague).
The official said there were no last minute refinements in the
Partnership for Peace documents. We came into this summit with
no brackets (around words on which there is disagreement). As far
as I know that's unique in NATO history, the official said.
And there's been a certain amount of joshing about how are we
going to make this interesting when we have no disagreements. But
believe me it's very happy joshing.'
There were no disagreements or important differences on the
nuances (on partnership for peace). Everyone said how wonderful
the partnership is and what a great idea, the official said.
Leaders emphasized that we absolutely have to be sensitive to
the sense of the Central European countries that they are in a
gray area but also the sense of the countries to the south of
that and to the east of that not to be on the wrong side of a new
dividing line.
The official said joint military exercises involving unnamed
Eastern European nations are expected this year, possibly by
spring.
The official said the U.S. does not expect Eastern European
leaders to sign any NATO partnership documents during Clinton's
visit to Prague on Wednesday. Leaders will need to consult
political leaders in their respective countries. Some leaders
might announce their intention to join. They could sign the
framework agreement anytime they like, the official said. The
official suggested that Eastern European leaders have all
wanted to see the fine print'' before seeking partnership status.
The official said the process would require presentation of
signed framework agreements to NATO in response to the
JAN-10-1994 19:28
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.002
-2-
invitations being issued today. The official said the U.S. hopes
Russia will join but gave no indication whether Moscow's
application is expected during the visit to Russia.
I am confident that President Clinton will be meeting with
tomorrow and several others are going to want to be very early
members in this. I don't have any doubt about that at all. But
when they feel they can make a formal announcement (is unknown.)
They certainly could announce that they plan to join if they
want too. Technically I guess anything is possible but I have not
heard any suggestion that he (Clinton) would take this framework
document on behalf of NATO and go traveling with it.''
CHALLENGE OF EXTENDING U.S. NUCLEAR GUARANTEES TO EASTERN EUROPE:
The nuclear issue is not the issue that people raise. People
raise the problem, various problems with NATO expansion, like the
negative consequences, who would fear they would be on the wrong
side of the new line. People do raise the question, Are we
ready for new commitments?' It's interesting, I've never heard
anyone raise the nuclear commitment. I've heard people talk about
the conventional commitment, defense budgets, reaction of some
countries if NATO soldiers were stationed closer to their
borders, certainly the consequences for defense budgets. The fact
that people who would like to be in NATO do not now have
militaries that are compatible or capable of making a
contribution. But it's a very interesting question.
It's not
to say that in some conversation I have been party to someone
hasn't raised the nuclear issue. But no one has (raised it
formally). People are thinking about how we would defend Eastern
Europe with conventional means if necessary'' once Eastern
European nations become members.
Actually anybody can be wrong. But my impression is that the
Central Europeans themselves do not think they face an imminent
Russian military threat. The Poles and others have, given their
history, some reason, a lot of reason to worry about what might
be the course of Russia over the future. But they don't come to
us and say we need a NATO guarantee because we think there is a
near or even medium Russian military threat.
They say the perception of living in a security vacuum of the
West not caring about us, being in a gray area, has a very
negative impact on domestic politics, on whether we should cast
our road with the West whether reform is worth the pain. All of
these things are very very important but they are not worried
about a near term Russian military attack on them which is not to
say they're not worried about the longer term future.
BOSNIA:
The official acknowledged that several leaders raised the issue
of Bosnia and the statement essentially will affirm previous NATO
policy regarding air strikes. Clinton mentioned Bosnia toward the
end of his remarks and no one challenged what he said, the
official said.
People have talked about Bosnia, yes and about what NATO
already is doing, which is considerable, about the commitment
NATO has made to implement a viable settlement on the conditions
everybody knows about and have talked about the air strike
warning. But what they' been doing is agreeing that everything
they've agreed in the past remains very much on the table, the
official said.
Bob Rankin--Knight Ridder
Stewart Powell--Hearst Newspapers
21:14
ERUSSELE PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.001
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 10, 1994
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
SECRETARY WARREN CHRISTOPHER
Conrad Hotel
Brussels, Belgium
7:35 P.M. EST
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Good evening. The President
has made a rather full statement. I'm here mainly to take your
questions about the President's day. It was really an unusual
day in which he achieved two very important diplomatic
breakthroughs that, in my judgment, will increase the security of
the United States and the security of the world as a whole.
Before taking your questions I want to make just a
few remarks. They will be very brief because I want to be very
careful not to put any of you to sleep. (Laughter.)
By adopting the Partnership For Peace NATO took an
historic step; I think, clearly, one of the most NATO meetings
perhaps in all the history of NATO. By its action today, NATO
almost instantaneously became relevant in the post-Cold War
world.
This was a United states' initiative which we have
been working on all year, and it was endorsed unanimously and
enthusiastically by all the members of NATO.
The second breakthrough today was the announcement
by the President which you've just heard, the trilateral
agreement between Russia, Ukraine and the United States. The
significance of this agreement, I think, is you really have to
let it sink in on you. This agreement means that it will
eliminate over time 175 intercontinental ballistic missiles with
about 1,500 warheads that have been pointed, targeted at the
United States up to this time. Clearly, one of the most
important nonproliferation steps that have been taken in years.
I'd point to the symbolic significance of these two
steps. They're, in a way, two sides of a coin. The Ukraine step
is reflective of the end of the Cold War. It's clearing up some
the remnants of the Cold War and the nuclear danger that we
confronted for such a long time.
on the other hand, the step taken in NATO today is
the beginning of a new era with NATO looking to incorporate over
time in a process the emerging democracies to the East. There
are two other major initiatives today, both U.S. initiatives --
the Combined Joint Task Forces, which will allow NATO to adapt to
the new world by permitting NATO forces to be used in other
structures with European countries' forces.
The other initiative is an initiative to place
nonproliferation at the core of the NATO effort, a very important
new initiative to make NATO relevant in this post-cold War
period.
I just say in conclusion that sitting there in the
room today, one could see and feel the reemergence of U.S.
leadership in this post-cold War period. This was President
MORE
21:15
ERUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.002
- 2 -
Clinton's summit. He called the summit. He developed the three
initiatives, which were enthusiastically and unanimously
endorsed. And I believe, in the judgment of those in the room,
he made the strongest most powerful statement today. So it was a
good day for President Clinton.
And I'd be glad to respond to any questions that you
might have.
& Mr. Secretary, the President essentially said
Mr. Kravchuk - worrying about the Ukrainian Parliament -- is a
man of his word. But you and your predecessor both had some
unhappy experiences with the Parliament not following through.
Why should we assume that this time the Parliament, which is so
divided and has so many parties, will indeed ratify the
agreement?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Well, I don't want to pose
as an expert on Ukrainian politics. We have -- we will have the
solemn undertaking of the government of Ukraine. But I say that
they are very strong incentives for Ukraine to proceed with this.
First, they'll receive security guarantees. Second, they'll
receive a very substantial amount of Nunn-Lugar funds for the
dismantlement of these nuclear weapons. And third, they stand to
receive a very substantial amount of compensation for the highly
enriched uranium.
In the present stringent conditions in Ukraine, I
would think that would be a major incentive, but we'll have to
let that work its way out. We have the commitment from President
Kravchuk, and we're going to take that and we're going to also
recognize, as I say, these three strong reasons why this
agreement is in the interest of Ukraine as well as in the
interest of the United states and Russia.
Q
Sir, 18 it your understanding that he actually
has to get it through the Parliament or will he be able to take
his own executive action?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: The latter. My
understanding is he can do this by executive action.
Q
Mr. Secretary, could you please tell us a
little bit more about what went on in the meeting? You say that
the President reasserted U.S. leadership. Most of what we saw
here, at least what we got from the remarks of the President, had
to do with Bosnia, and yet the President came out here and said,
well, there still seems to be a lot of disagreement, we have to
meet more on that. What is going on in Bosnia right now, and
where do you think this is going to go?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Well, the President's
statement today was by no means devoted to Bosnia. Most of it
was devoted to the Partnership For Peace and the Combined Joint
Task Forces and the new look of NATO to the East. He added the
provisions, or the paragraphs, on Bosnia. But he delivered the
entire statement with a good deal of power and force, and I think
all of his NATO colleagues were struck by how much force he
brought to his statement today. I think it was that that left
the strong impression on the room.
with respect to Bosnia, it was a reaffirmation of
the August 9th statement, but under circumstances where you could
just feel the President's force behind it. I think it impressed
those in the room. It was a serious statement by a serious
Alliance. They're going to be discussing it further tonight, but
I think that's the main significance, that the President made a
special point of reaffirming the events of the decision taken on
August 9th. And as you've no doubt seen from the transcript, he
was very pointed in saying members of NATO should not endorse
this declaration, should not approve the declaration unless they
mean what it says; unless they intend to carry out the August 9th
MORE
11:17
BRUSSELE FRESS OFFICE
46509 P.003
- 3 -
resolution. And the significance of the statement to that end
was certainly not lost on the members of NATO.
Q And some didn't. And some didn't. so how
forceful could he have been?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Well, I just have some
question about your facts. The discussions are ongoing. They're
going to be discussing it tonight. It was discussed around the
room, but they all they've all unanimously endorsed the
declaration which contains the paragraph that the President
called attention to.
Let me clarify that. The President called attention
to the sentences in the declaration that are a reaffirmation of
the August 2nd and August 9th action of NATO. And he told the
members of NATO they shouldn't reaffirm that unless they were
serious. So the most I can say about the Bosnia situation
tonight is it was a serious statement by a very serious Alliance.
Q
Can you tell us about his conversation with
President Mitterrand and whether they are now in agreement on
Bosnia?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: President Mitterrand made a
statement before President Clinton made his statement. I was not
in the bilateral between President Mitterrand and President
Clinton today. I had something else that I needed to do at that
moment, so I can't tell you the sense of that bilateral. But my
understanding is that it's an ongoing discussion which will be
continued tonight.
Secretary General Woerner very explicitly said he
was reserving tonight for a discussion of key topics they didn't
have time to get to today, particularly Russia and Bosnia.
Q
Mr. Secretary, on the Ukraine agreement, what
is the timetable for dismantling there? IS there a deadline,
specific, precise deadline in that agreement? And secondly, what
are the security guarantees? DO they go beyond what simply is
implicit in the Nonproliferation Treaty?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: With respect to the timing,
I can't give you any more on that now. There may be something
more by the time we get to Moscow, but I don't have anything more
for that tonight.
And the security guarantees are fairly technical
stuff, but they are those contained in the CSCE Charter, and they
basically indicate that -- and also the Nonproliferation Treaty
-- that nuclear states such as the United States and Russia will
not use their nuclear arsenals against countries that give up
their nuclear weapons.
Q Mr. secretary, is the United States now a
guarantor of the borders of Ukraine?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: The security guarantees do
relate to that subject and provide assurance in that connection.
Q Mr. Secretary, isn't this agreement meaningless
without a time frame? It could take the Ukraine 10 years, 15
years, 40 years unless you tell us a set period of time about
over which they --
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I didn't say there as no
time frame. I simply said that I was not able to give you
anything on that tonight. And I might --
Q
-- determines its strength, does it not? If
it's a small period of time as compared to --
MORE
-6509 P.004
- 4 -
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: I would agree with you the
time frame is important, but that doesn't mean that = can give
you the specifics on it tonight.
Q Mr. Secretary, can you be more specific about
the assurances in connection with guaranteeing Ukraine's borders?
You said that there were assurances in the language. Can you
specify?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: There will be a backgrounder
after I finish here, and you get more detailed information on
that subject at that time.
Q Mr. Secretary, do you have an understanding
from President Kravchuk that he has assurances from his
parliamentary leadership that he won't be overridden on this
agreement?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: No, we only have the
assurances of the government of Ukraine at the present time. And
it's an action that we're told can be taken by the executive
branch of the Ukrainian government. As I say, I do not want to
pose as an expert on Ukrainian government structure.
Q
Mr. Secretary, at any point will the United
States provide nuclear fuel for reactors in the Ukraine? And if
so, would any of that -- could any of that be used at Chernobyl?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Well, the United States will
not be providing them nuclear fuel. It will come from the work
that's going to be done in Russia. with respect to Chernobyl,
the United States is working with Ukraine to try to upgrade the
quality of their nuclear reactors, to get rid of or improve the
dangerous old reactors, let me just say, I hope it won't be used
in such reactors, but that really depends upon our capacity to be
effective with them in working with them to improve the
effectiveness and quality of their reactors.
Q
So there will be no interim supplies from the
United States?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: No, the United States' role
in this -- and you'll hear more about this from some of the
people that follow me -- the United States is basically providing
facilitation in the form of financing.
Q
On the Partnership For Peace, one more
question. Since this agreement was signed today, have you been
in touch personally with the leaders of any of the Visegrad
republics, and what was their response, and are they all now on
board on this?
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: Rita, I've had a busy day,
and I haven't been in touch with anybody before coming over here.
My present understanding is that Slovakia and Hungary are
committed to joint the Partnership For Peace. And I believe
there is a statement issued by Poland today along the same lines.
I've got confidence that by the time we leave Prague
all the members of the Visegrad countries will have signed up.
And I think a great many other countries will promptly sign up.
But it will depend upon their own governmental processes. But
the expressions of interest coming from Central and Eastern
Europe, as well as the new independent states, indicate a very
high degree of acceptance.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
7:47 P.M. (L)
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.001/017
January 9, 1994
Pool Report #4
Brussels -
Grand Place post-speech; Motorcade stop at Cafe & American
Community Event
Enroute the hotel from the Grand Place, the president made an
"unscheduled" stop at a small cafe on Rue Sablon. A full
transcript of his remarks is being prepared by the White House,
with comments on the possibility of going to Kiev and the muted
reception to his speech tonight.
So while you wait for the substance, here is a heavy dose of
color, starting with his emergence on Grand Place following the
speech. Accompanied by the prime minister on his left, the
president was greeted with a lively rendition of "Rhapsody in
Blue," whose first burst both surprised and clearly pleased the
First Visitor. As soon as he walked onto the fringe of the square
and heard the music, he smiled broadly and, pausing briefly,
reached out both his hands, lifting his arms toward the skies in
apparent gratitude as if to say, all this is for me? One fashion
note: despite the cold, he was without overcoat. The prime
minister, displaying customary Belgian common sense, was more
appropriately bundled up.
As soon as he hit the square, he veered to his right and took to
the ropelines as if it were New Hampshire in a primary year.
Carefully laid plans to have the prime minister point out the
Star of Brussels imbedded in the pavement (from which, we are
told, all distances in Brussels are measured) went out the window
and the handshaking commenced. Little could be heard from the
crowd beyond squeals of delight and applause, as the president
was bathed in the light from multiple flashbulbs. This went on
for about 20 minutes from one end of the ropeline to the other
before the business of a planned interview with Ted Koppel
intervened. The interview -- which your pool could not hear --
was brief. It was conducted near a lonely small Christmas tree at
the edge of the square. Before leaving, Andy Friendly brought an
elderly Clinton fan to the president. The woman Madeleine Helinck
was clutching a copy of a European magazine (sorry, didn't get
the name) with the president's face on the cover. Could not hear
the conversation -- which we think was conducted in French on her
side and Arkansan on his -- but she was thrilled.
The motorcade then left, but did not, as scheduled, return
directly to the hotel. Apparently unable to tolerate being ahead
of schedule -- believed to be a first in this administration --
the president stopped off for a cup of coffee and a little chat
with some surprised Belgians previously minding their own
business at a little cafe called "Au Vieux Saint Martin." Before
entering the restaurant, the president was clearly pleased when
he was greeted with adulation by Claire Mulasi, 29, a native of
Zaire, who had run over to the restaurant from the square. "I
love you,' she shouted. He beamed and waved. Later, interviewed
(1)
JAN-10-1994 17:09
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.002/017
by your crack poolers, she explained why she had waited in the
square since 2 p.m. to catch a glimpse of the president and why
she had pledged her love to him. "I adore him; I adore him. It's
my life."
Dee Dee Myers suggested the restaurant had been picked after the
president had told staff that he remembered the neighborhood
fondly from an earlier trip, probably his first visit here as a
student -- did Bob Dornan know about this in the campaign? -- and
wanted to stop by to see real people. The outside of the
restaurant had a green and white awning and a sign that said
"Appartment a louer." Never has a single handbill been so
successful in gaining worldwide media attention. Inside, there
were ceiling fans awhirling and Belgian hearts aflutter. Not to
even mention the pommes frites sent ascattering by the
media/security/staff horde that invaded the premises. Modern art
was on the walls and distinctly traditional decorations were
added for the holidays: Hanging from the ceiling was an army of
little Santa Clauses, with one dangling directly above the
president when he sat down at a front table for a small cup of
decaf. (According to the menu, the cup cost 95 francs. According
to Chad, the president pulled money from his pocket and offered
to pay but was spurned.)
A woman sitting by the door, Benedict Dautricourt, professed both
shock and pleasure at the visit, which she insisted was a
complete surprise to all the diners. "I was just eating," she
said. "And there he was, the president. I like his job. I like
him." After stopping at what appeared to be all the tables, the
president sat down for his coffee and a brief chat with two men
and three women at a front table. The conversation expanded to
include people at nearby tables and could not be heard except in
snatches by your pool. One revealing vignette occurred when a
woman asked him "What do you think about decaffeinated?" Lifting
his cup jovially, he sipped, thought and responded, "Very nice."
Then a man, in very broken English, told him: "I love your
country. It's not because you're president. But I love your
country. You don't know me." At that, the president stood up,
said his goodbyes and made his way out to the sidewalk where his
remarks to the pool were made.
One trip note: Dee Dee Myers said of the president's condition,
"The president slept five and a half hours on the plane. He's
tired, but he's cranking." (She later urged the pool to make sure
everybody knows she said cranking, not some other word that may
sound the same and end in y.)
Back at the hotel, he was greeted by about 300 at the American
diplomatic community event here in the hotel. You heard his
remarks and many of you, peering into forbidden pool territory
from the windows outside the filing center, saw the event. What
you may not have seen is the water cascading and then dripping
off the lectern throughout the speech. Shortly after bounding on
stage, our cranking -- and clearly not jet-lagged -- president
(2)
knocked over a glass of water with his right hand. Even as the
water started flowing toward the floor, the president never
missed a beat or a syllable in his remarks. It was only at the
conclusion of the speech, as applause washed over him, that he
glanced at the puddle he had left on the floor. None of it seemed
to hit his pantleg or his shoe.
The American community event ended on a musical note, though one
far less stirring than the earlier Rhapsody in Blue. After the
speech, the mayor of a nearby town which was the home of Adolphe
Sax, gave the president a shiny "instrument of sax.' For his
part, the Arkansas hornblower took the instrument reverently and
tried to read the inscription. He got as far as "Adolphe Sax,
1814-94, to Bill Clinton, President of the United States," before
breaking off his reading to confess, "it says something else but
my glasses are not here." Moments later, the president left the
stage to widespread chants of "Play, play!" No such luck, just
ten minutes of handshaking and a departure for the night.
George Condon, Copley News
(3)
Walter Shapiro, Esquire
Pool #8
The Sumo Pool Report -- a bonus
January 10, 1994
President Clinton apparently had sumo on his mind as he greeted
various leaders before NATO's opening session. Clinton gave not
one, but at least two allies a not-so-instant replay of his TV
viewing habits last night. It turns out the prez knows a few
factoids about the sport.
The pool TV tape was hard to hear, but some highlights as Clinton
worked his way around the conference table:
Clinton told British PM John Major how he'd watched sumo
wrestling last night on TV.
He told Major the average length of a sumo match is "like 7
seconds," but he had seen one that lasted a minute. ""It is sort
of an art, he said.
"
There is no one my size
...
can't do it unless you
weigh about 280. They had a guy last night who weighed over 500
pounds. He was defeated. He was too slow."
The subject came up again when Clinton chatted with German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl. ""I was thinking of you last night Helmut
because I watched the sumo wrestling on television. #
With animated gestures, Clinton told him, ""You and I are the
biggest people here and we are still a whole 100 pounds too
light. We are too small.
Other snipits of conversation: He admired the pipe sitting on
the Italians' desk and said he used to smoke one until his
allergies caused him to stop.
At the Icelandic desk he told how he used to always fly through
Reykjavik as a student.
He thanked the Belgians ""for last night" and they
complimented him for knowing a good place to go (the cafe). He
was asked by one if he'd had a real Belgian beer. Clinton said
""no, but tonight. If If Last night he said he had had no sleep
and was ""afraid I'd fall over in public'' and cause an incident.
He joked that he'd go home and everyone would say ""you
embarrassed us in Brussels.
--Kathy Lewis
Dallas Morning News
Pool Report # 10
January 10, 1994
Doorway at NATO
News: Clinton signing Partnership for Peace at NATO HQ. Audio
feed to Brieifng Room.
Clinton arrived at 3:11 p.m. and was asked as he entered the NATO
Headquarters "What message are you sending to the Serbs?" He
ignored the question. He was also asked "are you stopping in
Kiev?" Without breaking stride. smiling as he walked. he said
"good question." Two minutes later Warren Christopher arrived.
Asked the same questions he strode through the lobby: Christopher
did not answer. He waved. He did not smile. but his frown
eased. He was fully awake.
Bob Rankin--Knight-Ridder
Stewart Powell--Hearst
17:13
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.006/017
January 10, 1994
Pool Report #7
Family Photo at NATO and Morning Jog
Things got off to a slow start at NATO. Although the POTUS was
prompt, Mitterrand was late, as is his custom. His motorcade
arrived at the front door just before 10 a.m. for an opening
session scheduled to begin at 9:45.
Your pool was escorted into the large hallway just inside the
main entrance for the leaders' photo. Most of the leaders came in
as a group at 10:25 and positioned themselves according to pre-
arranged order in two rows. All men except for the prime
ministers of Turkey and Norway. President Clinton was on the
front row between Sec. General Woerner and Prime Minister Major.
Mitterrand was the straggler again, coming in last and solemnly
taking his front row post on the other side of Woerner (being as
Mitterrand is the senior leader at the summit).
Clinton was very animated, chatting with summit partners, with
his back to Major until Andrea began asking about Bosnia. The
POTUS then quipped: Ask John (Major) a question, Andrea. He's
lonesome.
Andrea complied: ``Are you now going to agree to air strikes?''
she asked. Clinton immediately tried to take back his suggestion.
No. Don't ask John a question, he said, laughing. Major
didn't say anything audible to your pool. So Andrea tried the
question on Woerner, who ignored it. The leaders filed out after
about three minutes of posing.
Dee Dee said afterwards that there was nothing new to report on a
possible trip to Kiev.
One other item: Outside the entrance, Woerner was asked questions
and here is a transcript of what was audible:
Asked if NATO will reach an agreement on air strikes in Bosnia,
Woerner said: I think we will reach an agreement about possibly
everything. It will be a successful summit. Asked if it will be
a hard sell for the president, Woerner said: I don't think
(so?) He made a brilliant speech yesterday.
Earlier, the president took a pre-dawn jog. At about 6:30 he 1
motorcaded a few minutes to the Bois de la Cambre park and ran
twice around the lake. He was accompanied by a batalion of motor
cycle cops and the usual complement of Secret Service joggers. He
declined to answer questions, waving at the pool and saying only
Good morning'' as he passed us by. (But it was lots of fun
anyway.)
Julia Malone
Cox Newspapers
JAN-10-1994 17:15
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
40009
P.008/017
POOL REPORT #9
NATO Nabobs' Pix with Koning
January 10, 1993
After sitting for an incredibly long time on a crowded bus, in
which we were bombarded by Euro-trash radio music and the smoke
of cigarette-sucking colleagues of various former Imperial
Powers, your pool was admitted to the front hall at the Laeken
where we saw 17 white guys have their picture taken. Also in the
shot were PM Ciller, who at Herr Kohl's urging abandoned her spot
on the back row and moved up front, and PM Brundtland, who was on
the second row and could barely be seen between Clinton and Kohl,
who made no effort to relocate or get out of the way of his
Norwegian colleague who was radiant in red.
The Leader of the Free World was to the immediate left of the
King of the Belgians, who was in the center of the front row.
Frankie was to Albert's right. (France, with it's divided
government, claimed two spots. PM Balladur was way on the back
row, to the far right.)
For summit devotees, Mitterrand looked virtually alive grayer
than Tokyo but not as yellow as Venice and about as blue as Bonn,
Washington and Martinique. He was, it goes without saying, late.
The leaders wandered into the front hall from a side chamber,
chatting jovially as they located their pre-marked spots on the
white marble floor and two steps. After several minutes of
flashing strobes, the leaders passed into an adjoining chamber
(it looked round and colonnaded) for lunch.
There was no audible sound, only amenable mutterings and
meaningless gesticulations.
Cragg Hines
Houston Chronicle
Pool #6
Jan. 10, 1994
Clinton Arrival at NATO Headquarters and Photo Op of Meeting
with Secretary General Manfred Woerner, Opening Session
Secretary General Manfred Woerner was the early bird, arriving
around 7:30 a.m.
As the time approached for Clinton's arrival, Woerner took his
place in the entrance way -- only to discover the President was
still five minutes out. He asked the pool, "How is the mood?"
and noted that there were fewer of us than he'd expected.
It was still dark when the headlights to Clinton's motorcade
could be seen pulling into NATO. The President was about five or
six minutes late. He declined to answer the pool's questions
about whether there had been any progress on Ukraine.
Inside the President worked a ropeline, shaking hands with those
lining the hallway.
We entered Woerner's office from the wrong door (Clinton's back
was to us), so there was some confusion. But everyone in the
room was laughing and Clinton could be heard saying, "he hasn't
had any sleep." He then asked, "When did we finish our rally
last night?" Someone responded, "quite late." Woerner then
asked Clinton if he "went all around Brussels" and Clinton told
him no and described his evening agenda -- saying he'd invited
people who worked with NATO, the European Union, the embassy and
their children to the hotel.
When the pool started asking about Ukraine again, a NATO aide
interrupted, "This is a photo opportunity, please. This is a
photo opportunity." Clinton gave a thumbs up and quipped, "
Good for you. How would you like a job in the White House? Have
we got a seat on the plane for that man?"
Christopher was seated on the couch with the President.
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was among the first to arrive for
the opening session in NATO's large two-story brown and cream
conference room. He promptly went over to shake hands with the
Turkish Prime Minister Tansa Ciller. British Prime Minister John
Major walked up and the threesome posed for photographers.
Clinton entered the room around 9:53 a.m. and slowly but surely
worked his way around the long oval shaped table -- greeting
aides as well as heads of government. Clinton and Major were all
smiles, joking about something.
Several German aides introduced themselves to Clinton. with a
hearty laugh, Kohl turned to Clinton and (according to a local
pooler with very good ears) said in English, "And I am the German
Chancellor."
French President Francois Mitterrand entered the room at 10:03
a.m. The leaders finally took their seats. Clinton put on his
glasses and with a smile and wave signaled it was time for the TV
camera and stills that had been sticking with him to leave.
The room is rather plain with the colorful flags of the NATO
nations (behind the head of the table) contrasting with the
room's neutral tones. FYI: Clinton wore a dark gray suit, white
shirt and olive green tie.
Woerner's remarks were piped into the filing center. The session
ended at 10:21 a.m. as the leaders headed out for the family
portrait.
I will try to get sound of Clinton's walk about from the TV pool.
Kathy Lewis
Dallas Morning News
JAN-10-1994 17:11
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.004/017
POOL REPORT #5
Briefing by U.S. Military Leaders at NATO
January 10, 1994
Shortly before 9:00 am, we were ushered into Annex E at NATO
Headquarters, where POTUS was being briefed by U.S. military
commanders. POTUS was sitting at a rectangular table between
Admiral Paul David Miller, Commander in Chief of the Atlantic
Command, and General George Joulwan, Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe. When we arrived, POTUS was being briefed Joulwan, who
was pointing to a map and explaining the scope of his duties as
Supreme Allied Commander.
The pool asked about Bosnia: "Mr. President, can you tell us
why the United States is opposing air strikes in the former
Yugoslavia now that the allies are formally requesting it?"
Clinton responded: "That's not accurate. That is not accurate.
We've had no conversations.' Asked what is accurate, POTUS said,
"this is not a press conference."
As White House press aides struggled to get us out of the
room, POTUS remarked to Jeremy et al that the NATO press staff,
which had escorted the previous pool to the meeting between POTUS
and NATO Secretary General Woerner, was more iron-fisted than the
White House staff. "You guys are not nearly as good as the guys
in the last one," he joked.
Also in the room: a half-dozen U.S. military officials and
Administration officials, including General Robert Oaks,
Commander U.S. Air Force, Europe, Admiral Mike Boorda, Commander
U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, General Maddox, Commander, U.S. Army,
Europe, Anthony Lake, Leon Fuerth, Frank Wisner, Mack McLarty,
NATO Ambassador Bob Hunter, NSC official Jenonne Walker, and
Warren Christopher, who was awake.
Bob Cohn, Newsweek
Julia Malone, Cox
JAN-10-1994 17:07
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.001/017
January 9, 1994
Pool Report #4
Brussels -
Grand Place post-speech; Motorcade stop at Cafe & American
Community Event
Enroute the hotel from the Grand Place, the president made an
"unscheduled" stop at a small cafe on Rue Sablon. A full
transcript of his remarks is being prepared by the White House,
with comments on the possibility of going to Kiev and the muted
reception to his speech tonight.
So while you wait for the substance, here is a heavy dose of
color, starting with his emergence on Grand Place following the
speech. Accompanied by the prime minister on his left, the
president was greeted with a lively rendition of "Rhapsody in
Blue,' whose first burst both surprised and clearly pleased the
First Visitor. As soon as he walked onto the fringe of the square
and heard the music, he smiled broadly and, pausing briefly,
reached out both his hands, lifting his arms toward the skies in
apparent gratitude as if to say, all this is for me? One fashion
note: despite the cold, he was without overcoat. The prime
minister, displaying customary Belgian common sense, was more
appropriately bundled up.
As soon as he hit the square, he veered to his right and took to
the ropelines as if it were New Hampshire in a primary year.
Carefully laid plans to have the prime minister point out the
Star of Brussels imbedded in the pavement (from which, we are
told, all distances in Brussels are measured) went out the window
and the handshaking commenced. Little could be heard from the
crowd beyond squeals of delight and applause, as the president
was bathed in the light from multiple flashbulbs. This went on
for about 20 minutes from one end of the ropeline to the other
before the business of a planned interview with Ted Koppel
intervened. The interview -- which your pool could not hear --
was brief. It was conducted near a lonely small Christmas tree at
the edge of the square. Before leaving, Andy Friendly brought an
elderly Clinton fan to the president. The woman Madeleine Helinck
was clutching a copy of a European magazine (sorry, didn't get
the name) with the president's face on the cover. Could not hear
the conversation -- which we think was conducted in French on her
side and Arkansan on his -- but she was thrilled.
The motorcade then left, but did not, as scheduled, return
directly to the hotel. Apparently unable to tolerate being ahead
of schedule -- believed to be a first in this administration --
the president stopped off for a cup of coffee and a little chat
with some surprised Belgians previously minding their own
business at a little cafe called "Au Vieux Saint Martin." Before
entering the restaurant, the president was clearly pleased when
he was greeted with adulation by Claire Mulasi, 29, a native of
Zaire, who had run over to the restaurant from the square. "I
love you, she shouted. He beamed and waved. Later, interviewed
(1)
JAN-10-1994 17:09
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.002/017
by your crack poolers, she explained why she had waited in the
square since 2 p.m. to catch a glimpse of the president and why
she had pledged her love to him. "I adore him; I adore him. It's
my life."
Dee Dee Myers suggested the restaurant had been picked after the
president had told staff that he remembered the neighborhood
fondly from an earlier trip, probably his first visit here as a
student -- did Bob Dornan know about this in the campaign? -- and
wanted to stop by to see real people. The outside of the
restaurant had a green and white awning and a sign that said
"Appartment a louer." Never has a single handbill been so
successful in gaining worldwide media attention. Inside, there
were ceiling fans awhirling and Belgian hearts aflutter. Not to
even mention the pommes frites sent ascattering by the
media/security/staff horde that invaded the premises. Modern art
was on the walls and distinctly traditional decorations were
added for the holidays: Hanging from the ceiling was an army of
little Santa Clauses, with one dangling directly above the
president when he sat down at a front table for a small cup of
decaf. (According to the menu, the cup cost 95 francs. According
to Chad, the president pulled money from his pocket and offered
to pay but was spurned.)
A woman sitting by the door, Benedict Dautricourt, professed both
shock and pleasure at the visit, which she insisted was a
complete surprise to all the diners. "I was just eating,' she
said. "And there he was, the president. I like his job. I like
him." After stopping at what appeared to be all the tables, the
president sat down for his coffee and a brief chat with two men
and three women at a front table. The conversation expanded to
include people at nearby tables and could not be heard except in
snatches by your pool. One revealing vignette occurred when a
woman asked him "What do you think about decaffeinated?" Lifting
his cup jovially, he sipped, thought and responded, "Very nice."
Then a man, in very broken English, told him: "I love your
country. It's not because you're president. But I love your
country. You don't know me." At that, the president stood up,
said his goodbyes and made his way out to the sidewalk where his
remarks to the pool were made.
One trip note: Dee Dee Myers said of the president's condition,
"The president slept five and a half hours on the plane. He's
tired, but he's cranking." (She later urged the pool to make sure
everybody knows she said cranking, not some other word that may
sound the same and end in y.)
Back at the hotel, he was greeted by about 300 at the American
diplomatic community event here in the hotel. You heard his
remarks and many of you, peering into forbidden pool territory
from the windows outside the filing center, saw the event. What
you may not have seen is the water cascading and then dripping
off the lectern throughout the speech. Shortly after bounding on
stage, our cranking -- and clearly not jet-lagged -- president
(2)
FRESS OFFICE
46509 P.003/017
knocked over a glass of water with his right hand. Even as the
water started flowing toward the floor, the president never
missed a beat or a syllable in his remarks. It was only at the
conclusion of the speech, as applause washed over him, that he
glanced at the puddle he had left on the floor. None of it seemed
to hit his pantleg or his shoe.
The American community event ended on a musical note, though one
far less stirring than the earlier Rhapsody in Blue. After the
speech, the mayor of a nearby town which was the home of Adolphe
Sax, gave the president a shiny "instrument of sax." For his
part, the Arkansas hornblower took the instrument reverently and
tried to read the inscription. He got as far as "Adolphe Sax,
1814-94, to Bill Clinton, President of the United States, " before
breaking off his reading to confess, "it says something else but
my glasses are not here." Moments later, the president left the
stage to widespread chants of "Play, play!" No such luck, just
ten minutes of handshaking and a departure for the night.
George Condon, Copley News
(3)
Walter Shapiro, Esquire
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release:
January 10, 1994
LETTER BY THE PRESIDENT REGARDING MR MORTON HALPERIN
The following is a letter by the President accepting Morton Halperin's request that
Mr. Halperin's name not be resubmitted for the position of Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping. Also attached is a letter by Mr.
Halperin.
30-30-30
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Brussels
January 10, 1994
Mr. Morton H. Halperin
2101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Dear Mort:
I have received your letter asking that I not resubmit your
nomination to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy
and Peacekeeping. With deep appreciation for your willingness
to serve our country and with real regret, I accept your request.
Yours is a superb record of service and accomplishment dating
back over 30 years. Your qualifications speak for themselves,
and I am pleased to hear that your willingness to serve my
Administration continues unabated.
At the same time, I appreciate your understanding of the
circumstances involved in a new Secretary of Defense coming on
board and the tradition of Cabinet officers having the freedom
to select subordinates.
I am confident that this Administration will continue to benefit
from your talent and counsel and hope that you will be available
for other suitable assignments.
Sincerely,
Biu Clinton
Morton H. Halperin
2101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
January 10, 1994
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I write to respectfully request that you not resubmit my
name in nomination for the position of Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping.
When my old friend Les Aspin told me that he wanted to
recommend to you that I be nominated for an Assistant Secretary
position in the Defense Department, I was pleased at the prospect
of once again serving in the federal government. When you
nominated me I was deeply honored.
At the same time, I believe that Cabinet officers should
have the freedom to select their subordinates.
As I said at my confirmation hearing, I believe that there
is no higher calling than to serve the nation, and I am at your
disposal should you believe that I can be of assistance to you
and your Administration.
Respectfully yours,
month 7X His
Morton H. Halperin
N-10-1994 17:18
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.012/017
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
BACKGROUND BRIEFING
BY
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
January 9, 1994
The Conrad Hotel
Brussels, Belgium
8:40 P.M. (L)
MR. GEARAN: The President arrived, having slept on
Air Force One for five hours, to begin his day here. He arrived
in Brussels, having spent time, as you know, in Arkansas, and has
been then discussing with all of us informally the services that
were held for his mother. Many of his friends from around the
country, his college roommates, friends and colleagues from
around the country came into Hot Springs for the services. And
he greatly appreciates certainly the outpouring of sympathy that
has been extended to him from across the country and, indeed,
across the world.
His return here to Brussels -- as he mentioned, he
was here initially as a Governor, and returned several times in
the interim. In our stop before we arrived here, the impromptu
stop -- he had been here in 1989 for the National Governors
Association, leading a delegation of 10 governors -- had stayed
in the area of the cafe that he went to and wanted to stop by for
an impromptu cup of coffee.
Upon arrival, he met alone at Laeken Castle for
nearly 30 minutes with King Albert II. According to Belgian
protocol, all meetings with the King are held in strictest
confidence and discussions are never divulged in public --
something we may want to continue when we return back to the
states.
The bilateral meeting that he had was attended by
Secretary Christopher; the Chief of Staff Mack McLarty; and Tony
Lake, the National Security Advisor. They discussed the
Partnership For Peace, the combined joint task force, the
European economic integration in Zaire. The President and the
Prime Minister then met separately for 15 minutes or so, although
the topics they discussed were generally the same.
The President was able to rest for a couple of hours
this afternoon before reviewing his speech that he reviewed with
Tony Lake and others. And I think he would believe that after
another good night's sleep this evening he is anxious to join the
NATO meetings with our other 16 allies tomorrow.
We will now get right into both tomorrow and an
overview of today's events with my colleague
Q
IS this on the record?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, this is, once
again, your friendly Senior Administration Official.
Q
why?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Because that's the
only name I know to answer to after all these months.
JAN-10-1994 17:19
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.013/017
- 2 -
If you maybe another Helen, for you another
ground rule also, which is that if you agree with what I say and
think it makes sense, that's what the President believes; and if
you don't agree with what I say, it's sleep deficit and you can
throw it away.
Let me say something first very -- I'll be very
brief -- about the speech. It was laying out not only a preview
of the NATO Summit, but the general theme for the trip as a
whole. And that is a vision of a new security in Europe. This
is a moment of extraordinary strategic challenge and opportunity.
And as the President said, he believes we need to move towards a
new security in Europe.
As he said, the old security was based on a defense
of our bloc against their bloc. The new security seeks the
military and economic and democratic integration of all Europe.
And the speech laid out in those three areas practical ways to
work towards that integration.
Let me pick up a bit of an argument I was having
with a friend afterwards. It is much easier to achieve a
consensus about the old security than it is about the new
security. It's much easier to summon people to the ramparts
against a clear central danger, as during the Cold War, than it
is to lead them down the avenues of integration, as must be done
in the post-Cold War era. But the President will try, and he has
laid out a vision for doing 80.
It's really wrong, also, it seems to me, to speak
only of this as a time of opportunities, because if we fail to
pursue that vision of integration, then we will face very real
new dangers in Europe over the coming years. A Europe that is
redivided and insecure, a Europe that has failed to seize the
economic opportunities before it, and a Europe in which the
democratic tide to the East has started to ebb rather than flow.
so you will hear repeatedly the President call on the Europeans
and on Americans and on our friends to the East to pursue this
vision of integration.
As in the Partnership For Peace, we will be
preparing for dangers while we try to seize opportunities. Or,
to paraphrase the President, we must prepare for the worst to try
to build for the best.
Let me say something very quickly about the
schedule for tomorrow and the issues that will be discussed, and
then my colleague will talk about the economic side and the
prospects for economic growth and integration.
Tomorrow's events will begin with a meeting between
the President and NATO Secretary General Woerner. He will then
meet with our military commanders in Europe. And then the formal
proceedings of the NATO summit will begin. There will be three
working sessions at NATO headquarters Monday morning, Monday
afternoon and again on Tuesday morning. And there will be two
more informal discussions that will take place during lunch and
again over dinner. And at the end of the summit on Tuesday
morning, then the President will hold a press conference at NATO
Headquarters.
During the course of the discussions -- and I've
talked to many of you about the substance of this at length, and
I won't repeat it here -- but the general issues that will be
raised all as a part of trying to adapt NATO to the new strategic
landscape in post-Cold War Europe will be, first of all, to
launch the Partnership For Peace -- and we can talk about that a
little bit more later if you wish -- secondly, to take steps
within NATO to support the development of a European security and
defense identity in a way that reaffirms NATO as the linchpin of
current and future European security; third, through the creation
of combined joint task forces to create more flexible military
MORE
JAN-10-1994 17:21
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.014/017
- 3 -
structures for potential post-Cold War missions and to create,
then finally, a new framework within NATO to help counter the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
My colleague is here -- and again, since you've
heard me, many of you so often, on the Partnership now -- who
could talk more about that as we get into your questions. But
first, my colleague on economic opportunities before us.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. I think
I'm older than you -- I get to be more senior than he does
because I'm older. (Laughter.)
The President, of course --
Q Is this on background or on the record?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: oh, this is
background. I think the same rules apply. It's just I was
referring to my age. (Laughter.)
The President, on Tuesday, of course, meets with the
leaders of the European Union. Much of that discussion --
certainly not all, but much of it will be on the economic issues
we face, including trade. As you know, we worked together with
the European Union to reach a market access agreement in Tokyo,
and then, of course the successful conclusion of the Uruguay
Round. But we had the implementation process coming, which is
critical. It involves everything from market access in goods to
market access in services.
Now I have an hour and a half on services. I know
Bob Novak wanted me to do that tonight, and so I'm going to do
that. You'll have to sit here and listen to every word I have to
say about that. (Laughter.)
But that is part of the three -- the triad the
President talked about tonight. It's political and it's military
and it's economic. And they are mutually interdependent, and
it's the way in which the President has talked about since his
American University speech on February 26th of last year, how
we're going to meet the third great challenge this century, which
is in the post-Cold War world. It's not just economic or not
just military or not just political, it's all three. And you
heard that theme again tonight, which I think is not only
visionary but also critically important.
It's not just the -- as my colleague said quite
eloquently, not just the opportunities we have, it's all the
responsibilities each of us have -- the United States taking the
leadership, but also the European Community or Union, and the
Japanese coming along with us to take their share of the
responsibilities we meet this challenge of the post-Cold War
world.
And so trade and economics obviously plays a vital
part of this. The follow-up to the Uruguay Round is a critical
part of that situation. And so his meetings on Tuesday with
President Delors and others will help to push that forward.
2
How close is the U.S. to an agreement with
Ukraine on the withdrawal of their nuclear weapons?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We have made, over
the recent weeks, a great deal of progress -- and, indeed, over
the last few days. We are not quite there yet. This is a
tremendously important issue for obvious reasons. And we want to
be very careful that we do not allow ourselves to be driven by
any artificial deadline into achieving less than the most
complete and best agreement possible. And we will not do so.
MORE
JAN-10-1994 17:23
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.015/017
- 4 "
So as I said, I think we are almost there. There
remains time to get it done, and we will have to see what
happens.
Q
And is it still a possibility it could be done
to allow the initialing of some kind of agreement either in
Moscow or in Kiev if the President stops --
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's possible, but
we will have to see how we go over the next day or SO.
Q
Are you waiting to hear back from them? Are
you now in the position of waiting to hear back?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's, as you know,
a three-way negotiation and messages are passing on all parts of
the triangle.
&
Is a London report of a deal of we give $12
billion and in return we get enriched uranium -- is that the way
it's going?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Without my
blackboard here, it's very hard to describe it, because there are
-- when you look at the finances involved, there are different
aspects to it -- some private money being paid for uranium; some
government underwriting of the deal; some financial transactions
between Russia and Ukraine. It's very complicated. And what I'd
rather do is wait and see when and if we get a deal to talk you
through it then.
Q
How close is NATO to ordering air strikes in
Bosnia?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This is a very
serious situation. The NATO warning against the strangulation of
sarajevo remains very real. We have been in touch with the
Serbian government and other parties to encourage them to
understand the seriousness of the situation. I don't anticipate
that there would be any action within the next few days. But we
have reminded the parties of the seriousness of the moment.
Q
Is this a warning that you've given them in the
past 24 hours?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's been an
existing warning all along. And we are reminding them that that
warning remains alive.
Q Has the U.S. made a judgment whether the Serbs
have transgressed, have gone past the limits set forth by NATO in
August? Has the U.S. come to a conclusion?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: If you look at the
pattern of fighting around Sarajevo and of the artillery action
against Sarajevo, it's tended to come in spikes -- increases and
then diminishing again and then a lower period and then another
spike. We have clearly, in the recent days, seen a number of
those spikes. I would note that the situation there now is still
not as grave as it was at the time of the warning. But we are
watching to see if this 18 simply another spike or something
worse.
or
Isn't that gamesmanship? I mean, how long does
it go on? Every time you give a warning, they lower --
deescalate for a while.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the other
part of that 1s to proceed with efforts to encourage a settlement
that can put an end to that pattern, and that the European Union
is working on with our support. And I think you will see in the
communique a strona. serious statement about Bosnia.
JAN-10-1994 17:24
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.016/017
- 5 -
& With all due respect, why should they listen or
respect any of these warnings? Why should a new warning from us
or NATO have any relevance to the Serbian government, given the
track record of the past few months?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, if you look
at, again, as I just said, the pattern of behavior in the past,
there has been a response when we have reminded them of the
seriousness of the situation. I should also note that I believe,
based on reports I just got, that the airfield in Sarajevo has
now reopened.
Q
As I understand it, as you well know, what
happens is you issue a warning and then they stop and then the
warning abates and they do it again. That's been going on, as
your office has been telling us, for sometime. I understand that
the French have specifically asked for air strikes, and that the
Dutch Foreign Minister suggested air strikes, and that others in
the Community - in NATO have suggested air strikes and that
the United States has been opposed. Is that true?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm not aware of a
formal request by another government at the summit.
Q How about an informal one?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Informal also. I'm
not aware of a request at the summit tomorrow to take such an
action.
2
-- not have the summit and not in Brussels --
such requests were made?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Not that I'm aware
of.
2
Under the U.N. agreement, could fuel rods
supplied by the United States be used in Chernobyl? Under the
Ukrainian any sort of Ukrainian deal?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me reserve that
until we have any deal, if we do, to talk about.
Q
Is this now a matter of President Kravchuk
getting an agreement from his Parliament or parliamentary leaders
-- is that all that's left that's left to do?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I think this is
issue among discussion among all three still. That would not
be accurate.
Q When you say you expect no action over the next
couple of days, does that mean you expect no decision by NATO on
air strikes? Is that what you mean?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't want to
rule out a decision, although I'm not aware of one that is about
to be made because let's see what happens. A fair question.
9
Back to the Ukraine for just a moment. If you
reach an agreement, does it have to go back to Parliament again?
In other words, are you back in the same situation where you seem
to have reached an agreement and Parliament can spike it again?
What would an agreement need?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, let me save
that for when and if we have an agreement. As you know, there
are elections in late March, in fact, for a new Parliament in
Ukraine. And we can talk about when it becomes, and if it
becomes relevant.
MORE
JAN-10-1994 17:25
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.017/017
- 6 -
Okay? Good. Thanks very much.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
9:00 P.M. (L)
JAN-10-1994 17:16
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.010/017
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 9, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE TRAVEL POOL
Au Vieux Saint Martin Restaurant
Brussels, Belgium
2
Mr. President, how do you think your speech was
received tonight?
THE PRESIDENT: oh, very well. I mean, you know, we
consciously picked a very small room and the Europeans are
normally much more polite when speeches are given like that. It
was a serious speech. But a lot of the students came up to me
afterwards and said that they were pleased to know that we were
thinking about their future and that they found the ideas
basically things they agreed with. I was very encouraged --
0
Mr. President, can you tell us about the
Ukraine?
THE PRESIDENT: -- and then after I got out into the
crowd in the Place there was much more sort of overt enthusiasm.
And the Prime Minister and others were saying, you know, that's
the way we are. We're restrained in speeches, but these people
are glad to see you. Look at the Place.
Q
What can you tell us about the Ukraine, Mr.
President? Do you think they're -- are you close to an agreement
or do you have an agreement? Can Kravchuk sell it? Might we go
to Kiev?
THE PRESIDENT: All I can tell you tonight is that
we worked very, very hard to bring, all -- the three of us
together -- and we've made a terrific amount of progress. And at
least when I left to go to the speech I was not in a position to
make an announcement.
0
But you think it might be possible that this
could happen and that Kravchuk could sell it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't want to presumably,
Mr. Kravchuk wouldn't agree to anything he didn't think he could
sell I think: I feel -- I'm proud of the work that's been
done and I appreciate very much the attitude that Kravchuk and
Yeltsin have brought to this whole endeavor But I don't think I
can say any more tonight. [sdon't even, want to
Q
Do you think Eastern European countries are
going to be reassured by the Partnership For Peace?
THE PRESIDENT; I hope so
Q
giving Russia veto?
7
THE PRESIDENT: I think they need to know this is
not a question of veto power. But keep in mind there are certain
responsibilities inherent in being in NATO, first of all, that
NATO allies all remind each other of all the time. And what I
said tonight I want to reemphasize. what. I want to do is to
leave open the possibility of creating the best possible future
for Europe, where they all have the chance to be democracies,
they all have a chance to be market economies, they all have a
MORE
JAN-10-1994 17:18
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.011/017
- 2 -
chance to respect one another's securities and to support it, and
to do it in a way that also permits us to do the best we can if
the best future is not open to us.
That's what the Partnership For Peace does. It's
not giving anybody a veto on future NATO membership.
or
But what do you say to people who say that NATO
isn't relevant if it can't guarantee the peace, let's say, in
Bosnia?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that was never the purpose of
NATO. The purpose of NATO was to guarantee the peace and
security of the countries that were member nations. And when the
United States asked NATO to approve some actions in and around
Bosnia, it was the first time we'd ever done anything out of the
area of the NATO members themselves
so we're working on this. It's not been established
yet that anyone is capable of solving a cívil war in another
country. That's not been established yet
!
-- air strikes will be discussed tomorrow? Air
strikes possible tomorrow?
THE PRESIDENT: Good night, everybody.
END
1111
January 4, 1994
LUNCHEON WITH COLUMNISTS
DATE:
January 5, 1994
LOCATION: Old Family Dining Room
TIME:
12:30-1:45p
FROM:
Mark Gearan
I.
PURPOSE
The purpose for this luncheon is two accomplish two goals:
First, to layout the themes for your speech in Milwaukee-- a
speech intended to kick-off your trip to Europe; Second, to
discuss your themes and objectives for each individual stop
in Europe and explain how they blend together.
Before the G-7 Summit, you sat down with a similar group
reporters in this same forum. Many
II. BACKGROUND
TO BE FORWARDED BY NSC
III. PARTICIPANTS
Jim Hoagland
Washington Post
Meg Greenfield
Washington Post/Newsweek
EJ Dionne
Washington Post
William Safire
New York Times
Abe Rosenthal
New York Times
Al Hunt
Wall Street Journal
Clarence Page
Chicago Tribune
Michael Elliot
Newsweek
Michael Kramer
Time
Jack Nelson
Los Angeles Times
Tom Oliphant
Boston Globe
Chris Mathews
San Franscico Examiner
Gerogie Ann Geyer
Universal Press Syndicate
Mary McGrory
Washington Post
Margaret Warner
PBS
Walter Mears
AP
Richard Cohen
Washington Post
Gloria Borger
US News and World Report
IV. PRESS PLAN
On the record.
V.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
CONFIDENTIAL
0034
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 4, 1994
DECLASSIFIED E.O. 13526
White House Guidelines,
INFORMATION
September 11, 2006
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
By 103 NARA, Date 2/19/19
2017-0413-F
FROM:
ANTHONY LAKE
EVL
SUBJECT:
Your Dinner with Outside Experts to Discuss
European Security, Tuesday, January 4, 1993,
7:30 pm.
We have invited eight of the country's leading experts on Europe
and the former Soviet Union to attend tonight's dinner and help
you prepare for your upcoming trip to Europe. The gathering
provides an opportunity for you to discuss the momentous changes
taking place in Europe, to refine the key objectives and themes
of the trip and to deepen your understanding of the challenges
and opportunities that you will confront during your first visit
to Europe as President.
Guest List
The guests and their areas of expertise are as follows:
Michael Beschloss -- author and historian; specialist on Russia;
co-authored (with Strobe Talbott) At the Highest Levels, an
account of the end of the Cold War.
Stanley Fischer - - professor of economics at MIT; leading
scholar on the Russian economy.
Robert Hormats - - international economist at Goldman Sachs;
specialist in trade and U.S. European commerce.
Charles Maier - - professor of history at Harvard; specializes in
modern European history; has drawn lessons from the 1930s for
today's effort to promote stability in Europe's east.
Michael Mandelbaum - - professor of political science at Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced Study; specializes in U.S. foreign
policy and Russia; focuses on security policy.
Condoleezza Rice - - provost of Stanford University; specialist in
Russia and Central and Eastern Europe; focus on military affairs;
served on the NSC staff during the Bush Administration.
CONFIDENTIAL
CC: Vice President
Declassify on: OADR
Chief of Staff
CONFIDENTIAL
2
James Schlesinger Secretary of Defense and Director of Central
Intelligence during the Ford Administration; Secretary of Energy
during the Carter Administration; currently at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.
Steven Sestanovich -- based at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies; leading scholar on Russia and the former
Soviet Union.
Agenda and Format
We recommend that you begin the dinner with several minutes of
welcoming remarks that serve to set the agenda and the format for
the event. You should emphasize that you see this period as a
defining moment in European history. You should lay out the
strategic choices that hang in the balance: Russia's future and
that of other NIS states, the integration of Central and East
European democracies into the West, NATO's relevance to Europe's
new security challenges, global denuclearization and U.S.
relations with an evolving European Union. You should underscore
the unifying theme of the trip -- the challenge of integrating
Europe's east into the community of market democracies. Talking
points are attached.
After framing the discussion, you could lay out the following
format. You could begin by asking Mandelbaum, Sestanovich and
Hormats to make brief (5-10 minute) presentations to start the
discussion. Mandelbaum will focus on NATO and the task of
integrating the new democracies into the West. Sestanovich will
focus on Russia and developments in the NIS. Hormats will
discuss trans-Atlantic trade and the challenge of integrating the
new democracies into Western markets. You could then guide the
general discussion among all the participants. The discussion
should be divided into the following three sections to help
provide focus: (1) overview of post-Cold War Europe; (2)
integration of the new democracies; (3) Russia and the NIS. You
could direct your questions to specific guests. Talking points
and suggested respondents are attached.
Attachment
Tab A
Talking Points
CONFIDENTIAL
Tab A
0034
TALKING POINTS
Introductory Remarks
I want to thank all of you for coming this evening. Some of
you have braved a winter storm to attend. I am excited
about my trip to Europe and am delighted that you have taken
the time to share your thoughts with me.
I believe we are at a defining moment in European history.
American leadership must play a major role in determining
the strategic choices that hang in the balance: Russia's
future and that of other NIS states, the integration of
Central and East European democracies into the West, NATO's
relevance to Europe's new security challenges, global
denuclearization and U.S. relations with an evolving
European Union.
The unifying theme of the trip is the challenge of
integrating Europe's east into the community of market
democracies. I want to reaffirm that the link between the
U.S. and Western Europe remains at the core of global
stability and welfare. But I also want to make clear that
Americans and West Europeans must work together to
capitalize on this historic opportunity to enlarge the
community of market democracies.
I intend my trip to Europe to provide hope and confidence to
those throughout the former communist bloc who are
struggling to build democracy, markets and civil society.
Equally important, I want to galvanize the Western community
to action and ensure that we do not let this historic
opportunity slip away.
Format
I would like to begin by asking Michael Mandelbaum, Steve
Sestanovich [ses-TAN-o-vich] and Robert Hormats to make some
brief introductory remarks. Michael will focus on NATO and
the task of integrating the new democracies into the West.
Steve will focus on Russia and developments in the NIS. Bob
will discuss trans-Atlantic trade and the challenge of
integrating the new democracies into Western markets.
I suggest that we then have a free-flowing conversation and
focus our discussion on the following three areas: (1)
overview of post-Cold War Europe; (2) integration of the new
democracies; (3) Russia and the NIS.
2
Questions
I. Overview of post-Cold War Europe
An integrated, democratic Western Europe is a fundamental
building block of our foreign policy in virtually every
region of the world. Where is the process of integration in
the European Union headed? Is there any chance that the
process of integration will stall or be reversed? Without a
Cold War threat, might Western Europe renationalize? What
can the U.S. do to further European integration? (Maier,
Hormats, Schlesinger)
The states of Europe's east and especially Poland,
Hungary and the Czech Republic
have
made
tremendous
strides along the path of reform. Is this process already
irreversible in some areas? What are the key challenges
that lie ahead in Central Europe, Russia, other regions of
the NIS? As we look down the road, what are the key threats
to democracy and stability? How can the U.S. best advance
and consolidate democracy? (Rice, Beschloss, Fischer)
As I mentioned, I believe we are at a defining moment in
Europe, comparable to 1815 (the end of the Napoleonic Wars),
1918 and 1945. We are building Europe anew. What
historical lessons can we draw from these earlier periods
about how to manage dramatic change in Europe? What do the
1930s tell us about how to prevent fledgling democracies
from falling prey to economic turmoil and virulent
nationalism. (Maier, Beschloss).
II. Integration of the new democracies
The key objective of the Partnership for Peace is to open
NATO to Europe's east. The Partnership provides a way of
drawing the new democracies into NATO without drawing new
dividing lines in Europe that could threaten Russia and make
all of Europe less secure. As you look down the road, what
key challenges are likely to confront the Partnership? What
strategic choices will NATO have to make in the near term?
(Rice, Mandelbaum)
The dangers of virulent nationalism and ethnic hatred have
already begun to fragment Europe's landscape. Building
civil society is a process that takes generations. What
more can we do today to promote ethnic tolerance and dampen
aggressive strains of nationalism? Is there more the
international institutions (IMF, World Bank, EBRD) should be
doing to address social needs and help reduce radical
nationalism? (Maier, Mandelbaum, Rice)
With completion of the Uruguay Round behind us, the U.S. and
EU are formulating a new economic agenda to promote trade,
create jobs, and stimulate global growth. What the new
democracies most need is trade and investment. As we
formulate this agenda, how can we best take advantage of
this historic opportunity to integrate eastern economies
into the West? (Hormats and Fischer)
3.
In many respects, we are operating in the post-Cold War: era
with what are still Cold War institutions. Our initiatives
for the NATO Summit will in large part adapt NATO to new
realities in Europe. What other institutions need to be
transformed or created? (Schlesinger and Hormats)
III. Russia and the NIS
While a welcome exercise in democracy, the recent elections
in Russia are also cause for concern. The country now has a
factionalized parliament and a constitution tilted toward a
strong president. In what direction is Russia now headed?
What more should we be doing to support democracy?
(Sestanovich)
What lessons can we draw from recent events for U.S. and
multilateral assistance programs and how best to help
economic reform proceed? Do we need to focus more attention
on social welfare? (Hormats and Fischer)
Russia's behavior beyond its borders is still a wildcard.
How can we most effectively get leverage over Russian
behavior in the "Near-Abroad"? (Rice and Mandelbaum)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 6, 1994
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT
IN FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH
Pabst Theater
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
11:51 A.M. CST
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, ladies and
gentlemen. Thank you so much for your welcome. And thank you,
Secretary Aspin, Dr. Bowman.
Over the past 14 months, Wisconsin gave the Clinton
administration three very fine presents. The first was voting for us
in November of 1992. (Applause.) I'll never forget that rally in
Madison, incidentally. The second and third were lending us Donna
Shalala and Les Aspin. (Applause.) Les has made a lasting
contribution to our nation's security not just as Secretary of
Defense, but in serving this state in Congress for two decades --
where, as he mentioned, we became close, personal friends. And on
this occasion, I want to ask all of you to join me in thanking Les
Aspin for his tremendous public service. (Applause.)
I'm delighted to be here in Milwaukee with your
congressional delegation and your other excellent public leaders. I
want to acknowledge Governor Thompson. I want to especially
acknowledge my warm and close friends and allies, working partners
Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Russ Feingold. We've worked very hard
together to help get this country on the right track again and create
more jobs and bring interest rates down and get the economy moving.
I want to acknowledge my friend, the dean of your House delegation,
David Obey -- a long-time friend and partner. And also Tom Barrett,
Peter Barca, Gerald Kleczka, Thomas Petri; and also the local and
state officials, Mayor John Norquist and Attorney General James
Doyle, Speaker Walter Kunicki and County Executive Thomas Ament,
Sheriff Richard Artison and others.
As you know, and as has already been mentioned, the
President had planned to be here today and was looking forward to it,
but had to go early this morning to Arkansas instead because his
mother, Virginia Kelley, passed away in the wee hours of the morning.
The President, when we spoke this morning, asked me to express his
deep regret at not being able to join you, and I'm sure that you join
me this morning in expressing our deep condolences to the President
and his family as they confront the sad loss.
The President came to this very theater 15 months ago
during the campaign when he was a candidate and came at a critical
moment. As I look at this beautiful hall and this wonderful
audience, I can see why he was so eager to come back and see you
again. And I know that he was especially eager to come here today
and join in celebrating the victory of the 1994 Rose Bowl Champions,
the University of Wisconsin Badgers. (Applause.) It was a wonderful
game. And may I say that I watched it with my family, including my
mother, who has been spending some time with us the last couple of
weeks, who attended law school at the University of Wisconsin.
(Applause.) So I claimed honorary Badgerhood on that occasion.
And, boy, if you could have seen Donna Shalala the next
day -- (laughter) -- walking -- was she a sight? When the two of
them walked into the Cabinet Room and Donna was talking about the
football program and the game and everything, it was a great, great
day.
MORE
- 2 -
SECRETARY ASPIN: -- taller than anybody in the room.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: She was taller than anybody in the
room that day. (Applause.) That's a pretty good line, Les.
(Laughter and applause.) It's true, too.
When the President was here 15 months ago, on that
October day he spoke about America's need for a strong pro-democracy
national security policy. In two days, President Clinton will leave
for Europe for a series of meetings designed to advance that goal.
He will go to Brussels to stress the importance of our economic and
security ties with NATO and Europe. He will go to Prague and stress
our strong commitment to the new democracies in Poland, Hungary, the
Czech republic and Slovakia. He will visit Moscow and stress our
support for Democratic reforms there and elsewhere. And he will
visit Minsk in Belarus and stress the importance of the progress that
state and others are making to dismantle nuclear weapons.
Before he left our shores to talk with foreign leaders,
the President wanted to come and talk with you about why this trip is
important to the American people. And the President has now asked me
to share his views directly with you today because at this point in
history, all of Europe stands at a turning point with deep
implications for our own security and prosperity.
That's why the President and I and why the President has
insisted that our administration focus so much on Europe,
particularly Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. At the
President's request, my first trip abroad as Vice President was to
Poland. There are at least a couple of people here who traveled with
me on that occasion. While there I had extensive meetings with
President Walesa and shared prayer and communion with him at morning
mass in his private chapel.
I just recently visited Hungary last month and met with
the new leadership in Budapest. In addition, at the President's
request, I enjoyed a lengthy one-on-one meeting during the same visit
to Europe with President Kravchuk of Ukraine. And may I say that
since taking office, the President and I have met with almost all of
the leaders of virtually every Central and Eastern European nation
and many of the leaders of the former Soviet republics as well
because President Clinton feels so strongly about the importance of
our nation's role in contributing to the positive change which is
taking place and must continue to take place.
We live at a time of astounding changes. After a half-
century of standing firm against Soviet aggression in the Cold War,
suddenly the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union is gone. After
decades of praying for reconciliation between black and white in
South Africa and between Arab and Jew in the Middle East, suddenly we
witness handshakes of hope that rivet the world. After decades of
dreaming and working for the freedom of captive nations -- as I know
many of you have with all your hearts -- suddenly those states are
free, and new democracies have blossomed across Europe. And the
President has told me that one of the things he is most looking
forward to is meeting again with some of those democratic heroes,
such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa.
At the same time, some of the world's changes hold great
danger for us, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and the degradation of the global environment. And we
face the changes of a new global economy, changes that offer us many
new opportunities but that also can be unsettling for our jobs and
our communities. In the face of all these changes, some Americans
would prefer that we stay out of the world's squabbles and focus only
on our challenges here at home. Europe is facing even harder
economic challenges: double-digit unemployment and very sluggish
MORE
- 3 -
growth. And many Europeans also might prefer not to get involved
with problems beyond their borders. And the economic transformation
facing Russia and the other former communist states are more daunting
still.
So there is a great temptation in all our nations to
focus only on our own problems. But my message today -- and the
message of the President's trip is very simply this: In order to
be strong at home, we must engage abroad as well. We must work with
other nations to get the world's economy growing and open foreign
markets if we want to sell more exports. We must engage with other
nations to lock in the end of the Cold War, or else we would simply
end up needing to spend more on defense and less on the domestic
investments that we need. We tried running away from the world after
World War I. What did it bring us? A depression and another
horrible war. But when we helped shape world events after World War
II, what did that bring us? Decades of security and prosperity. And
that is what we must do again.
During the campaign, the President and I said our
foreign policy would be based on economic renewal, strong defenses
and the promotion of democracy overseas. In the past year we have
made progress toward those goals. We began, of course, by putting
our country's economic house back in order; because without a strong
economy, we cannot compete and lead abroad. We passed an economic
package to cut a half a trillion dollars from our deficits, while
investing in education, technology and defense conversion. And,
incidentally, if you can remember it, the projection for next year's
deficit when we took office was $300 billion. The projection now is
way down to $190 billion. The effort is already yielding dividends
not just with a reduced deficit which is so important -- we're
enjoying low inflation and historically low interest rates.
Consumer confidence is up. Housing starts are booming -
- highest number last month in the entire history of the United
States of America. And our nation has created more private sector
jobs in the past 12 months than in the previous four years combined.
And we still have a long way to go. We understand that. And to take
one example, we still need to ensure health care for every American
that can never be taken away. And we're going to do that, with your
help. (Applause.) But we've made a good start. It's been a good
first year.
Well, in any event, after putting our own economic house
in order, we next took major steps to open up foreign markets to U.S.
goods and services so we can boost exports and create more new jobs.
We passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which will lower
tariffs on our exports and create over 200,000 new American jobs. We
expanded our ties with the fast-growing economies of Asia. And just
last month we reached an historic new agreement in the GATT world
trade talks that will create another hundreds of thousands -- another
set of hundreds of thousands of American jobs and also provide a
boost to the entire world economy so that we can get it moving again.
With these steps and others we're putting the economic
interests of the American people back at the heart of our foreign
policy. We have restored America's leadership on the environment as
well. And this past year we have worked to strengthen our nation's
defenses.
Under Les Aspin's able leadership, we completed a
sweeping review of our military to ensure that we have the forces we
need to respond to the diverse threats of this new era. And when we
were threatened abroad, such as when we learned of that Iraqi plot to
try and assassinate former President Bush, President Clinton used
those military forces to hit back hard, to send a clear, unmistakable
message.
MORE
- 4 -
We also have worked to promote democratic movements
around the world with significantly increased support for reformers
in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and the other new states of the former
Soviet Union who seek to close the door to a communist past and usher
in a democratic future. We lifted sanctions on South Africa as soon
as there was an agreement to end apartheid and hold a nonracial
election. (Applause.) And isn't that a sign of hope in our world?
(Applause.)
And despite intense budget pressures, we substantially
increased funding for programs to support grass roots, democratic
organizing from Central America to Asia to Eastern Europe. The
success of these new democracies, like the ones in Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic and Slovakia is important to our nation and our
security. We must help them succeed. We didn't spend years
supporting solidarity just to lose democracy in Poland. We didn't
celebrate the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia just to see that
birth of freedom die from neglect. We prevailed in the Cold War for
their sake and ours. And now we must prevail for their sake and ours
in building a broader democratic peace throughout Europe.
The steps we have taken this year make America stronger
and safer. I want to take a moment to acknowledge in particular the
service of all the men and women who wear our nation's uniform and
protect us all over the world. As President Clinton has often said,
America's Armed Forces are the best this world has ever known, and we
are determined to make sure they remain just that. (Applause.)
We're going to make certain they remain the best-trained, best-
equipped, best-prepared fighting force on the face of this Earth.
Now, we have done much this past year to make America
more secure. But nothing is more important to our security than our
relations with Europe. With the Cold War over, some may think Europe
doesn't matter as much to our nation as it used to. President
Clinton says, they're wrong. The fact is, Europe remains our most
valuable trading partner, and our military security remains as
interwoven with that of Europe as ever in our history.
Twice in this century, we sent our sons and daughters to
Europe to repel aggression and protect the survival of democracy.
Two world wars left us with a lesson that is understood in every VFW
and American Legion Hall in Wisconsin and across our nation. When
Europe fights, we suffer. When Europe is safe and free, we thrive
here in the United States.
Now, Europe is enjoying a rebirth of freedom. After a
half century of captivity, we've seen the Baltic nations regain their
rightful independence. We've seen great dissident heroes, such as
Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa help throw off communist rule and emerge
as leaders of their people. We've seen Boris Yeltsin and other
courageous democratic reformers in Russia hold elections and write a
constitution in the face of fierce reactionary resistance.
This democratic renaissance is cause for hope. But, of
course, there is also a dark cloud on Europe's horizon. It is the
threat of fiery nationalism, ignited by old resentments, fueled by
economic frustration, fanned by self-serving demagogues. We already
see it burning across the former Yugoslavia. But it smolders in
other states as well, particularly in Europe's East. If we do not
begin building new forms of protection, these embers could flare and
engulf Europe again, just as they have during this century's worst
crises.
President Clinton's goal on this trip is to help build
that protection. It cannot come from new walls topped with barbed
wire. Rather, the protection new states of Europe need today is the
kind all of us carry inside our souls -- the protection that keeps
our darkest nature from spilling out into public life, the sense of
MORE
- 5 -
tolerance and the habits of the heart that are built up by the
practices of free commerce, open democracy, robust civic life and
respect for differences among individuals and nations.
To those who would ask where in the world such tolerance
can be found, I would say come to Milwaukee. Just look at your city.
Your roots trace back to Poland, Russia, Ukraine, the Baltics, to
Germany, Italy and England, to Africa, Asia and Latin America. You
may be Christian, Jewish or Muslim, and yet you are all one
community. Why? Because you all share the American belief that
there is strength in all our differences; that we can build a
collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities,
that we can be E Pluribus Unum, out of one many. We take that for
granted here in our blessed United States of America. But that idea
is not foreign to Europe. Those very ideas that Jefferson and
Madison wrote into our Declaration of Independence and our
Constitution were European imports, derived from Europe's great age
of reason.
But throughout the former Soviet Union's bloc, those
ideas were strangled by false ideologies and decades of dictatorship.
Now, we have the opportunity to help our cherished values of freedom
take root in places that were homelands to so many of us and our
ancestors. We can help erase the false lines that divided Europe for
too long and heal the scars those divisions left behind. Fostering
the integration of Europe will not only express our highest ideals,
it also will be the best investment we can make in our own security
and prosperity.
President Clinton's first goal on this trip will be to
reinvigorate NATO and help ensure that NATO is prepared to meet the
challenges that I just described. NATO is the greatest military
alliance in all human history. We couldn't have won the Cold War
without it. But now, the Soviet Union it helped deter is gone. It
is time for NATO to address Europe's new security challenges, such as
consolidating democracy's gains among NATO's eastern neighbors and
warding off ethnic conflict.
At the NATO summit in Brussels, the President will
propose that NATO create a Partnership For Peace as a major step
toward the new security Europe needs. The Partnership is a new way
of drawing the former communist states into cooperation with the rest
of Europe. It advances an evolutionary process of formal NATO
enlargement, a step toward adding new members of NATO. (Applause.)
The Partnership For Peace invites Europe's new
democracies to take part right away in military and political
cooperation with NATO members as well as with each other. Those
states that join the partnership can participate in military
planning, exercises and operations. The partnership will help foster
democratic practices that can prepare these states for full NATO
membership. The new NATO must address the concerns of those nations
that lie between Russia and Western Europe, for the security of these
states affects the security of America. Let me say that again: The
security of the states that lie between Western Europe and Russia
affects the security of America. (Applause.) Especially after
Russia's recent elections, those states are naturally concerned about
whether they will again be rendered pieces of a buffer zone, prizes
to be argued over by others.
The Partnership For Peace is designed to offer these
states the confidence that they can integrate into the West rather
than always fear what could happen to their East. The Partnership
For Peace does not divide East and West in a way that could create a
self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation. Instead, it tries
to integrate a broader Europe. On an equal basis, it provides an
open door for all the nations of Central and Eastern Europe as well
as the nations emerging from the former Soviet Union, it invites all
MORE
- 6 -
of them to forge a new relationship with NATO based on a belief that
freedom's boundaries now must recognize not just old history, but
also new behavior.
The Partnership for Peace can build the habits of
cooperation that have been the sinews behind NATO and NATO's formal
security guarantees. We look forward to beginning such cooperation
soon with Poland, the Czech Republic and other former communist
states as we create the foundation for a new and broader Europe.
President Clinton's second goal will be to show our
support for those people and leaders in former Communist states
working to build democracy, and to lay the building blocks of a civil
society: political parties, labor unions, business associations and
a free press. In Prague, he will meet with leaders of the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia -- the Visegrad nations --
nations that are playing such leading roles in Europe's wave of
reform. In Minsk, the President will voice our support for Chairman
Shushkevich and other leaders of Belarus's democratic progress. And
in Moscow, he will meet with President Boris Yeltsin and other
Russian reformers who are steering their nation toward a democratic,
market-based and peaceful future.
The strong support for reactionary candidates in the
recent Russian elections gave all of us cause for concern. We would
be foolish to ignore those results; and it is our duty to condemn the
voices of racism and intolerant nationalism wherever such voices are
heard. (Applause.) But make no mistake about it, there was another
larger message of hope in those Russian elections. An election that
looked doubtful only months before was held in a free and fair
manner. And when they voted, the Russian people ratified a
democratic constitution and elected Russia's first post-Soviet
legislature.
All these can help Russia's reformers move ahead. We
must not lose faith in the process of reform simply because it moves
slowly or encounters setbacks. Changing an entire society is the
work of generations. Along the way, the people of Russia and the
other new states will doubtless make some bad choices, just as we
often have done at times in our own history. Democracy, after all,
doesn't turn us into angels, it simply gives us a way to learn
collectively from our very human trials and errors. As long as these
nations support freedom with protections for ethnic and religious
minorities and political dissent, we have faith that reaction will
give way to reform.
President Clinton's third goal will be to help reduce
the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. (Applause.) When the
Soviet Union dissolved, four states were left with its nuclear
weapons Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. One key to our
security is making sure there is only one nuclear successor state to
the Soviet Union. Under the leadership of President Nazarbayev,
Kazakhstan has agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. I was pleased
to be in Alma-Ata last month on the day his parliament ratified the
decision.
We're working with Ukraine to secure a similar
agreement. And one reason the President is going to Minsk is to
congratulate the people of Belarus and the leaders of Belarus for
ratifying the START Treaty and agreeing to live as a nonnuclear
state. In addition, in Brussels, we expect NATO to adopt our
proposal to address the threat posed by nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons as well.
Now, the President's final goal is to support the
dramatic progress toward market reforms throughout the former
communist states and to work for a greater Europe that is more
economically vibrant. Most of Europe, as we all know, is deep in
MORE
- 7 -
recession, and if those nations can start growing again we will
benefit from more exports and more jobs here in our own nation.
Equally important, we must help ensure that economic growth reaches
all the way into the former communist states which are making the
hard transition to market economies.
Some of the greatest heros of that flight from communism
are people whose names will we never know -- the farmer outside of
Sofia working with new pride now that he once again owns the land of
his grandfather; the entrepreneur in Riga running a new business out
of his apartment; the factory worker in St. Petersburg trying to
adapt to the new habits and uncertainties of capitalism.
Freedom's success will depend in large part on their
labors. We need to do all that we can to ensure that their labors
are rewarded. In Brussels, the President will urge Western Europe's
leaders to join our nation in taking steps to make all of our markets
more open to goods from Europe's new democracies. In Prague, Moscow
and Minsk, he will work with the leaders of those new market
democracies to ensure that our economic assistance and trade and
investment efforts are well targeted to provide the greatest possible
support as these nations make the very difficult transitions to
market economies.
Today, the people of the former communist nations are
performing human miracles on a daily basis. Without much at all in
the way of resources or experience, they're turning economic ruin
into working markets. They're replacing gray Orwellian life with the
bright and diverse cultures their people once enjoyed. They're
reviving the religious traditions that communism could not stamp out.
And they're planting strong seedlings of democracy on terrain once
laid bear by dictatorship and devastated by the wild fires of war.
The hard work of political and economic transformation
belongs to the people of the region and they are making heroic
progress, but the stakes for our own nation are enormous. And we
must put our shoulder behind the cause of reform as well. It is in
America's self-interest for those reforms to succeed and endure. If
they do, we will all be more secure. We can prevent another all-
engulfing European war. We can make further progress to dismantle
the world's doomsday weapons. We can continue maintaining our
security with far lower defense budgets. We can create new markets
for our exports and new jobs for our people as these new economies
begin to grow and thrive. That's why we must not sit on the
sidelines. We must continue working to build a broader and freer
Europe.
I think back to the Polish uprising of 1863, in which
the motto of the Polish fighters was, "For your freedom and ours."
(Applause.) They believed in their hearts that their own liberation
would liberate others since they were fighting for a broader
principle of liberty. Today, the fight for freedom in Europe
continues with new hope and high stakes.
The President, as he leaves for these countries, and all
of us who have worked with him, know that the struggle to erase
communism's scars and ensure democracy's success is not their
struggle alone. It must also be our struggle. It is the fight of a
lifetime -- our lifetimes. It is the story of a century -- our
century. President Clinton and I are committed to make it the work
of our nation.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END
12:27 P.M. CST
JAN-09-1994 20:48
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.006
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 9, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
UPON DEPARTURE FROM HOTEL DE VILLE
Grand Place
Brussels, Belgium
6:47 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming out
tonight. Thank you for waving the flags. I'm sorry we didn't
have more room inside, but I'm glad we could show the speech on
the screen.
Let me say that I have been in this place many
times. I've been here as a student. I've been here as the
governor of my state. I never imagined I would actually be here
as President and you would be here to say hello. You have
already heard my speech, I have really nothing else to say except
I'm delighted to be here. We are here to build a new and
stronger future for Europe and a better partnership between
Europe and the United states, and I hope all of you will support
that.
Happy new year, and thank you very much.
(Applause.)
END
6:48 P.M. (L)
JAN-09-1994 21:02
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.015
(CORRECTED COPY: Prime Minister's name)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 9, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
IN PHOTO OPPORTUNITY WITH
JEAN-LUC DEHAENE, PRIME MINISTER OF THE BELGIANS
Conrad Hotel
Brussels, Belgium
1:55 P.M. (L)
9
Mr. President, do you think that Bosnia should
be at the top of the agenda for the NATO consideration?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll discuss that and a
number of other things. We have a lot of issues to discuss. But
the Prime Minister and I will discuss that and several other
issues. As you know, he's just ended a tour in the -- of six
months in the presidency of the EU and, in my judgment, he and
Belgium did a superb job. They were very instrumental in the
successes we had last summer in the G-7 meeting, which laid the
foundation for the adoption of the GATT Round. so we're going to
talk a little about that, too.
Q
Mr. President, are you finding it difficult to
engage in diplomacy after your personal loss?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm glad to be -- I'm glad to be
here. My family and my friends and my mother's friends, we had a
wonderful day yesterday, and I'm doing what I should be doing.
I'm glad to have the opportunity to be here and go back to work.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
1:56 P.M. (L)
JAN-09-1994 20:48
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.005
January 9, 1994
Pool Report #3
Brussels - Motorcade from Hotel de Ville and speech
POTUS traveled to Hotel de Ville largely without benefit of press
coverage as the motorcade was split and press Dool bus failed to
regain sight of sight of the presidential party despite a
careening race through confused traffic, clipping barricades.
In the Gothic room of the 15th century Hotel de Ville:
Dark oak paneling. Renaissance-scene tapestries, and 275
well-groomed and polite young members of the Successor Generation
-- some of whom just found out last night that they were selected
for this audience. At least a quarter of them were students at
the College of Europe, according to one such student.
From where this pooler sat (at the edge of the audience about
two-thirds back) the audience seemed attentive. But there was no
spontaneous applause or really any display of reaction at all.
Prompt and sturdy applause at the end but definitely no standing
or ovations.
Leo Parpala, a College of Europe student from Stockholm. had this
favorable response: ``I was very impressed with the way he held
the speech together for 35 minutes'' without seeming to read much
of it.
A student from Spain. David Giles. had the shrugging response
that he heard pretty much what he had expected from press
reports.
POTUS shook hands around the front rows and disappeared until he
emerged from the front gates of the Hotel de Ville as Gershwin's
Rhapsody in Blue suddenly came over the loudspeakers in the
square.
Marshall Ingwerson
Christian Science Monitor
JAN-09-1994 20:47
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.004
Jan. 9, 1994
Pool report #2
Brussels
Laeken Palace
At Laeken Palace, King Albert was at the door to greet
President Clinton at the stroke of one p.m. local time. They
posed for a handshake in an entry hall.
Your pool had been sternly warned against questions, but a
vigorous wave from the back of the crowd from your pooler was
returned with a wave by President Clinton who then seemed to
explain our presence to the King.
No news offered up by Gergen, Gearan, or Myers waiting
outside by the motorcade.
-Ann Compton
ABC News
JAN-09-1994 21:03
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.016
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Brussels, Belgium)
For Immediate Release
January 9, 1994
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO STAFF AND FAMILIES OF THE U.S. EMBASSY TO BELGIUM,
THE U.S. MISSION TO NATO, AND
THE U.S. MISSION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
The Conrad Hotel
Brussels, Belgium
8:03 P.M. (L)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you for
coming. Thank you for playing. And thank you for waiting a
little as I had the chance to stop downtown and talk to some
citizens after I gave my speech.
I want to tell you how very much I appreciate the
work that all of you are doing for your country a long way from
home, but at the center of the future we have to make together.
I think in a way you're all fortunate to be serving
in Brussels at such a pivotal point in the history of Europe and
the history of the world. This is a remarkable city, the
headquarters of the Commission on European Unity and Union and
NATO. And I want to thank all of our three ambassadors behind us
for the work that they have done. The importance of our
bilateral relationship with Belgium can hardly be overstated.
Alan Blinken, I think, will represent us very well,
particularly if all of you at the embassy do what everybody tries
to do at the White House everyday and make sure I'm not my own
worst enemy. (Laughter.) I want to thank Bob Hunter for the
work he's doing at NATO and say that this Partnership For Peace,
contrary to what some have suggested, is not a weak limitation on
the future of European security, it is a strong first step that
opens the possibility of the best possible future for Europe in
which everyone will have an opportunity to be a democracy and to
be part of our shared security.
And I want to say a special words of thanks to my
longtime friend, stu Eizenstat, for coming here to serve. We've
worked hard to get this GATT agreement. The European Union is
now a reality. We have to see it through; there's still a lot to
do.
I stopped at a little coffee shop and restaurant on
the way out here tonight, just talked to some citizens, and I met
this incredible Belgian lady who said, you're right, we've got to
compete. We can't run away from the world. And she said, I know
how hard it is economically, but two years ago I didn't have a
job, and now I have my own business and I'm doing very well, and
I'm excited about the European Union. I'm going to do business
in other countries now.
We've got to somehow communicate that spirit, that
belief that we can bring this economy back, this whole global
economy back to people here so they can believe in themselves. I
can tell you that, back home, that is beginning to happen. We do
have more control over our economic destiny. The deficit is
coming down after going up for 12 years. Jobs are being created
and movement is there in the economy. And there is a sense that
we're beginning to confront problems that we have ignored for
way, way too long.
So I think we're coming here at a very important
time, and an appropriate time. And I guess I ought to end by
MORE
JAN-09-1994 21:05
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.017
- 2 -
apologizing to those of you who have had to do so much extra work
because of this trip, and the headaches I may have caused you.
But, believe me, it is in a worthy cause, and we are going to
make a new future for the people of Europe and the people of the
world so that we don't repeat the mistakes of the 20th century in
the 21st; and so that we give all these children a better future
than any generation has ever known.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
MAYOR DEMARET: In the name of the city of Dinant, I
have the honor to give to the President of USA an instrument of
sax -- the saxophone, yes. (Laughter and applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: In case you didn't understand it,
Dinant, Belgium, is the home of Adolphe Sax, the man who invented
the Saxophone. And this says, "Adolphe Sax, 1814 to 1894. To
Bill Clinton, President of the United States." And it says
something else, but my glasses are not here. (Laughter.)
Dinant, Belgium, and --
MAYOR DEMARET: "International year of the
saxophone."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- "The international year of
Adolphe sax." And it points out that this wonderful horn was
made in Paris by Selmer.
Thank you very much.
END
8:07 P.M. (L)
JAN-09-1994 20:46
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.002
Jan. 9, 1993
pool report -- Air Force One
Flight from Andrews AFB to Brussels
Pool Report # I Brussels
President Clinton arrived by helicopter at Andrews tarmac
11:20 p.m. - nearly one hour behind original schedule. Your pool
watched him land from under the wing -- close enough to see him,
but not to question him.
Although the wind-chill factor was sub-zero, Clinton wore no
hat or gloves, was dressed in jeans and a brown, leather jacket.
He walked quickly to Air Force One. That was the last your pool
saw of him. Wheels up at 11;30 p.m.
No one from the president's party spoke to the pool until we
arrived on the tarmac in Brussels. There, Dee Dee Myers said that
Clinton spoke with National Security Adviser Anthony Lake and
Chief of Staff Mack McLarty about the trip. He also walked around
the plane a bit, talking to the staff about his day, Myers said.
Obviously, yesterday was an emotional day for him, but I
think he felt very gratified for all the friends who responded
and turned out,'' Myers said.
Clinton gave an interview to Ted Koppel, who rode up front and
was not seen by pool. Myers said Clinton went to sleep about
12;30 a.m. and slept for about five-and-a-half hours.
The flight took 6 hours and 53 minutes.
pool reporters;
Mary Curtius, Boston Globe
Susan Garland, Business Week
^Z
JAN-09-1994 20:46
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.003
Pool 1/9/94 No. 1A
Brussels - Arrival and Bilateral
POTUS arrived about 12:30, came down AF1 stairway alone. Greeted
by Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, Foreign Minister willy Claes,
US Amb to Belgium Alan Blinken, US Amb to NATO Robert Hunter, US
Amb to EU Stuart Eisenstat, others including SecState
Christopher. No remarks.
Motorcade uneventful.
Arrived Conrad Hotel for bilateral with Prime Minister. Also
present: Christopher, and Claes.
Asked if Bosnia should be at top of agenda, President replied,
"We'll discuss that and a number of other issues." He praised
Belgium's role in GATT talks.
Asked whether its difficult to undertake this diplomatic trip so
shortly after his mother's funeral, Clinton said "Im glad to be
here." He commented briefly on the funeral.
"I'm doing what I should be doing," he said of his trip here.
The rest of the afternoon is to be private/speech prep time.
Logistics note for evening event at Grand Place: WH Press will be
in large cordoned off area near Christmas Tree. Other part of the
square will be open to locals. Clinton is to come out of Hotel de
Ville, go to riser for brief remarks, and then is expected to
work the rope line.
Atlas, Chicago Tribune
Sat Jan 8th, 1994
Pool Report from Mrs. Kelley's funeral.
The president didn't speak at his mothers funeral. The
funeral was held at Hot Springs conventions auditorium. The
octangular shaped room with a 3000 seat capacity was not filled
by the crowd. However, at least 2500-2700 people were in the
multi-cultured audience that included people informally dressed
in blue jeans, cowboy boots and heavy coats. To the well
connected and suit and tie clad Governors and entertainers,
including Barbara Streisand, The Governor Jones
(Kentucky), Bill Miller (Nevada), and former Senator George
Sinner.
Although it was a large convention floor, the scent of
flowers could reach to the back of the room where the pooler was
stationed. Only one print pool was allowed in although the
audience included several local and washington media who came in
with the public. The music was provided by soloist Malvie Lee
Giles. Janice Sjostarnd and the Grand Ave. Methodist Church
Chancel Choir. The funeral program included a quotation from the
wall in Mrs. Kelley's home, "Lord, help me to remember that
nothing is going to happen to me today that you and I can't
handle." The sermon by Rev, John P. Miles lightened the somber
mood with which the funeral began as he described Mrs. Kelley as,
"An American Original. She was unique," he said. He even
mentioned how she talked with a self deprecating humor about
herself. "You know, there's no telling what I could accomplish
in this life if I had been born with eyebrows," he said quoting
Mrs. Kelley. He described her as a "celebration on the way to
heaven.' And said she was ferociously protective of her family.
"If you wanted to see how fierce then mess with one of her kids."
He said that Mrs. Kelley was the matriarch of a unique family"
that was blended together with strength." He said she faced one
tragedy after another but said the harder life put her down the
higher she rose.
He stressed Mrs. Kelley was something of a Bon Bivant who loved
playing cards and watching the horses. "Virginia Kelley had a
very private spiritual life. She went to church and to the horse
track there after. Virginia Kelley was not without flaws. If
you ever crossed those she loved you found out how imperfect she
was."
After the funeral service, the casket, a simple cherrywood model
with brass handles was wheeled out of the audiotorium and placed
in hearse. The Clinton's family followed the casket out and
watched while it was loaded. The family stood in the vestipal of
the auditorium shaking hands with many of those who attended the
funeral. The pooler was not allowed to watch as the receiving
was greeted.
Ron Taylor--Washington Post
Pool Report #2, Saturday, January 8, 1994
Nearly a one mile motorcade left Hot Springs right on time and
covered the 90 mile trip to Hope in just under 1 hour and 25
minutes. The motorcade and funeral procession included the many
politicians and personalities from the church service. The group
included Barbra Steisand and Harry Thomason.
Senator David Pryor told reporters that the President's
Republican opponents showed bad taste in continuing to hammer Mr.
Clinton about allegations of wrongdoing.
In Hope, the roadway was lined with local residents many of whom
held signs expressing sympathy.
Your pool was kept well away from the Rose Hill Cemetary where
Mrs. Kelley was buried in a family plot. The cemetary also
happens to be where the President's biological father, William
Bythe, is buried. The President was not seen visiting his
father's grave.
After the burial, Mr. Clinton shook hands at the gravesite and
then was taken to a reception at the Western Sizzler Restaurant
on the outskirts of Hope. He remained at the reception only a
few minutes before going to Hope Airfield, where he, along with
his family and stepfather, boarded Airforce 1 for the quick trip
to Hot Springs where he dropped off Mr. Kelley.
After shaking a few hands in Hot Springs, he reboarded for the
trip back to Washington, landing at Andrews and then proceeded
back to the White House by Marine 1 at 7:15pm.
Ron Taylor -- Washington Times
JAN-09-1994 00:30
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.001/014
REVISED PRESS SCHEDULE
Trip of the President
to
Brussels, Belgium
Sunday, 9 January 1994
Working document for news planning
Not for release or distribution
PICK UP YOUR NATO CREDENTIALS: Come to the Press
Office in the Foyer of the Ballroom. You MUST get these
credentials. Anytime after 8 AM Sunday.
Note on this revision: This is a new schedule for Sunday
afternoon in Brussels. The schedule after 5:30 pm is the same
as originally released. The speech still starts at 6 PM.
ALL POOLS WILL FORM: In the Filing Center, in the far
left front corner of the room.
For press at Hilton: Special 24-hr "Info" desk: HILTON
ROOM 1518 This room is designed to make sure that you can
always reach somebody especially in off hours. This is NOT a
a "spokes person" operation or press office; it is more an
information broker (help you find people, help you with general
Brussels info, too).
IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS:
To get local dial tone in Belgium, dial "0" - not "9".
HILTON HOTEL: Press hotel: 504-1111
CONRAD HOTEL: POTUS: 542-4242
Please use this number only when absolutely necessary reach
the White House Press Office, dial local Brussels number:
with discretion! 534-3289
Sunday, January 9, 1994
Note on switching out Air Force One Pool - Pool #1: will be
done on the tarmac during the welcome. Send the replacements
with Pool #2 to the airport. Pool #1 switches out and becomes
Pool #3 and picks up the motorcade.
JAN-09-1994 00:31
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.002/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 2
Meeting the King: The President will now see the King at
Laeken Palace as the President pays a courtesy call. WHITE
HOUSE POOL #4 will pre-position at Laeken Palacem leaving
Conrad approx 10 AM. Pool #4 is for inside Laeken only,
photo session only, and then disbands back to Conrad. The
motorcade pool can NOT do events at Laeken Palace.
The President's bilateral with Prime Minister Dehaene: After
the President's meeting with King Albert II, the President goes
to the Conrad Hotel where he will meet with with the Belgian
Prime Minister. Motorcade Pool #3 will handle photo session.
The President is then in private time until he departs, as
originally scheduled, for the Hotel de Ville at 5:30 PM.
4:20 AM AIR FORCE ONE DEPARTS Andrews Air Force Base
10:20 PM EST-Saturday enroute Zaventem Airport, Brussels.
Pool #1 - Air Force One Pool accompanies
10:15 am
Following pools all report to Conrad Hotel Filing Center:
POOL #2 - Airport: Pre-positions at main riser at Zaventem Airport
Note: There are a few positions open in this pool #2. If
interested please come to press office by 10 AM.
Pool #3 - Airport: Waits at main riser to switch out with Pool #1
Pool #4 - CASTLE: Pre-positions at Laeken Castle for photo of the
President and King Albert II
10:30 am
Pool #2 & Pool #3 depart for the airport,
Pool #4 departs for Laeken Castle.
Note: Security will be strict at all Belgian sites. Pools cannot
be late arriving anywhere. Pools will form and move on time
from the Conrad. No waiting for stragglers.
11:00 am
Pools #2 and #3 arrive Zaventem Airport
Pool #4 arrives Laeken Palace, to pre-position.
JAN-09-1994 00:31
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.003/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 3
Airport arrival scenario: The President will be greeted by
Belgian and U.S. officials on a receiving line at planeside.
Honor guard, no anthems, no remarks, straight into the car.
11:55 am
AIR FORCE ONE arrives Zaventem Airport, Brussels,
Belgium
Pool #1 and Pool #2
ONLY AF-1 Pool at steps
All others at head-on flatbeds
Among those greeting the President will be:
Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene.
Foreign Minister Willy Claes
U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Alan Blinken
U.S. Ambassador to NATO Robert Hunter
U.S. Ambassador to EU Stuart Eisenstat
12:00 pm
POOL SWITCH: Pool #1 (AF One Pool) disbands and Pool #3
(motorcade).
NOTE: Pool #1 off Air Force One will be escorted to same
press area where Pool #2 is working off the flat bed and
members of new Pool #3 are hanging around. - switch NOW.
Note to motorcade pools: For all motorcades in Belgium, all
pool members ride in one mini-bus type vehicle which allegedly
has two doors and plenty of space.
12:10 pm
THE PRESIDENT boards motorcade and departs Zaventem Airport enroute
Laeken Palace, Brussels.
Pool #3 accompanies in motorcade
12:25 pm
Pool #2 & Pool #1 members left over at airport board press bus
and depart enroute Conrad Hotel.
12:25 pm
THE PRESIDENT arrives Laeken Palace.
Closed Press
JAN-09-1994 00:32
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.004/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 4
Note: The motorcade SPLITS on arrival at Laeken Palace. Pool
#3's vehicles will be stoppped at the gate and not enter the
Laeken grounds. That's why Pool #4 os inside.
12:30 pm
THE PRESIDENT meets with His Highness Albert II, King of the Belgians,
Laeken Palace.
Pool #4 photo session
Note: There is natural DAYLIGHT in this room. It is NOT
artificially lit. Please remember that not only are no remarks
planned, they are actively discouraged. It is an offense to the
King and to Belgians to speak in the presence of the King.
12:45 pm
MEETING CONCLUDES. THE PRESIDENT boards motorcade and
departs Laeken Palace enroute Conrad Hotel.
Pool #3 accompanies in motorcade
1:00 pm
THE PRESIDENT arrives Conrad Hotel and proceeds inside to private time.
1:00 pm
Pool #3 (from motorcade) is escorted to pre-position for photo session
with Prime Minister Dehaehne.
1:00 pm
Pool #1 & Pool #2 leftovers from airport arrive at Conrad Hotel and
press filing center.
1:00 pm
POOL #4 (at Laeken) boards press bus and returns to Conrad Hotel.
1:30 pm
POOL #4 arrives from Laeken at Conrad and disbands.
Press Note on private time: The Filing Center is in the
President's hotel, at the Conrad. WH Travel Pool #5 will be on
protective standby at the Conrad, though this time of the
President is expected to be entirely private.
1pm -2 pm
IMPORTANT: Pool #6 "Grand Place credentials" pick-up, from
White House Press Office in Foyer of Conrad Hotel Ballroom.
Press Note: Please check back of schedule for membership of
the HUGE pool #6 and the motorcade Pool #7.
JAN-09-1994 00:33
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.005/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 5
1:30 pm
THE PRESIDENT MEETS with the Prime Minister of the Belgians, Jean-
Luc Klaes. Conrad Hotel, Room TBA, Brussels.
Photo session for Pool #3
1:45 pm
Pool #3 now goes on protective standby at the Conrad Hotel. Stay in
Filing Center and lobby area unless other arrangements are made
explicitly with your pool sherpa.
2:00 pm
First press buses depart the Conrad Hotel enroute the Grand Place
and Hotel de Ville, Brussels.
Press Note: Press buses will shuttle between Conrad HOtel and
Grand Place every 15 minutes throughout Sunday afternoon and
evening. To get BACK from Grand Place: Buses will be where
you got off. After 8 PM, WH Press buses will run from that
same spot once an hour, last bus to press hotels at 11 PM.
Press Notes on Grand Place: Press areas are available in Grand
Place for set-up at this time. Grand Place notes:
(1) You can see and hear President's Hotel De Ville speech on
TVs while you are in this outdoor area;
(2) White House Press Advance can escort you to Hotel De
Ville to get to a couple of WH press phones as you need them,.
(3) All restaurants and shops at edges of the open air Grand
Place will be open all afternoon and evening. They surround
the press area and are within the secured area.
PRESS NOTES ON SPEECH: Coverage notes and facilities:
Speech site is small and coverage is pool.
Inside: WH POOL #5 (from motorcade pool) plus US & Euro
TV pools cover inside the room.
Adjacent press viewing room: for non-pool press inside Hotel
de Ville with TVs, mults and and a few phones.
Outside on "Grand Place": is large Press area for big White
House POOL #6 with mults and TVs to see/hear speech..
Back at Conrad Filing Center: Speech in mults, on PA and
visible on TVs.
JAN-09-1994 00:34
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.006/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release for planning only Page 6
In the Gothic room:
Motorcade pool #5 Correspondents: seated in audience
Pool's Stills: Arrangements made to get film out as needed
during the speech. However, the room is too quiet and too
intimate to allow movement and switching out of people. Press
Advance will offer assistance.
TV: US TV Pool cams plus Euro-TV pool
Radio: Mult in room (and in viewing room, and outside).
4:00 pm
Pool #3 disbands, Pool #5 gathers, Press Filing Center, Conrad and
goes on protective status.
5:30 pm
THE PRESIDENT boards motorcade and departs Conrad Hotel en route
Hotel de Ville at Grand Place, Brussels
WH Travel Pool #5 accompanies in motorcade
5:35 pm
THE PRESIDENT arrives interior courtyard of Hotel de Ville at Grand Place
and proceeds to private time inside Hotel de Ville.
WH Travel pool #5 is escorted to pre-position inside Gothic Room
Press Facilities at speech:
Pool #5 reporters will be in room.
Stills can ship film out of room with staff.
TV pre-positioned at head-on & cut.
mults inside room.
"Viewing" room with phones and workspace and TV with
speech on it also available to pool inside
6:00 pm
THE PRESIDENT ARRIVES the Gothic Room, Hotel De Ville, Brussels, to
address multi-national audience of future leaders of Europe.
Welcoming remarks by Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene (in English).
Remarks by the President
WH Pool #5 coverage in room
7:00 pm
ADDRESS CONCLUDES. THE PRESIDENT proceeds to private time,
inside Hotel de Ville.
7:00 pm
WH Pool #5 switches out, becomes WH Pool #7.
JAN-09-1994 00:35
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.007/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 7
Note: Pooler XX for Pool #7: Please be at Grand Place main
press riser by 6:15 pm and identify yourself to press advance.
7:05 pm
WH Pool #7 quickly pre-positions in Grand Place for President's
departure from Hotel de Ville and for informal remarks.
COVERAGE NOTES FOR OUTSIDE, IN GRAND PLACE:
(New information): Number of WH Pools on Grand Place
REDUCED since first schedule. Only pools at Grand Place will
be Huge Pool #6 in press area and ONE WH Motorcade Pool,
now Pool #7. Motorcade Pool #7 and Pool #6 can see entire
proceeding from their risers.
7:15 pm
THE PRESIDENT departs Hotel de Ville enroute Grand Place.
The President will be accompanied by Prime Minister Dehaene.
White House Travel Pool #7 pre-positioned in Grand Place for entrance to
Grance Place;
Walk is Visible from Big Press Area where Pool #6 is.
Facilities in Grand Place: Large camera platform for Huge
Pool #6 which can see President's route. For remarks, this
same platform is 60' distance. MULTS at main WH platform
and at Pool #7 position. Audio on PA of Press Filing Center.
7:40 pm
(Time approximate) THE PRESIDENT delivers informal remarks outside
Hotel de Ville.
Open Coverage by Huge Pool #6
and by WH Motorcade Pool #7.
8:10 pm
THE PRESIDENT boards motorcade and departs the Grand Place enroute the
Conrad Hotel, Brussels.
WH Travel Pool #7 accompanies
JAN-09-1994 00:35
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.008/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 8
8:25 pm
THE PRESIDENT arrives the Conrad Hotel atrium for greeting of staff and
families of the U.S. Embassy to Belgium, the U.S. Mission to NATO and the
U.S. Mission to the European Union.
Introduction of the President by Secretary Christopher.
Remarks by the President
WH Travel Pool #7 coverage
Press facilities for remarks:
* Pool #7 will be on riser with mult on atrium floor.
* Remarks will be on the mults and PA of the White House
Press Filing Center.
* Atrium is visible to non-pool press: The hallway outside the
Filing Center overlooks the site.
9:00 pm
Greeting concludes. THE PRESIDENT remains overnight at the Conrad
Hotel, Brussels.
Note: The WH Travel Pool #7 will remain on protective status
at the Conrad Hotel until it receives a goodnight.
Note: WH Travel Pool #8 for MONDAY MORNING remains
overnight in the Conrad Sunday night with the President's party.
Please see pool list at back of schedule for members of Travel
Pool #8.
JAN-09-1994 00:36
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.009/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 9
POOL #1 - AIR FORCE. ONE POOL
Saturday, January 8, Andrews AFB to Brussels
Pool does: AF One from Andrews to Brussels;
Airport arrival (a) underwing and (b) at two tarmac positions.
Breaks up: switches out at airport at approx 12:30 PM
MEMBERS:
Wire Corr: AP, Reuter, UPI
Wire Photo: AP, Reuter, AFP, UPI
Mag Corr Pool: Business Week
Mag Photo: USNWR
TV Corr/Crew: CBS News
Radio Pool: NPR
Print Pool: Boston Globe
POOL #2 Day/City Sunday, Brussels
Pool does: Covers Zaventem Airport arrival from riser
Pool forms:
10:15 am - Conrad Filing Center
Pool breaks up: 1:15 pm - when bus returns from airport
Wire Corr: AP, Reuter, UPI
Wire Photo: AP, Reuter, AFP, UPI
Mag Corr Pool: Business Week
Mag Photo: USNWR, Time, Newsweek
TV Corr/Crew: PER POOL
Print Pool: NO PRINT REPORTER NEEDED
Positions available for this pool. Contact press office
Sunday morning.
JAN-09-1994 00:37
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.010/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 10
POOL #3 - Day City Sunday, Brussels
Pool does: M'cade from Airport to Castle, m'cade from Castle to Conrad.
Stakeout at hotel.
Pool forms: 10:15 AM at Conrad Filing Center
Pool breaks up: 4:00 pm with Switch out at Conrad.
Members of Pool #3:
Wire Corr: AP, Reuter, UPI
Wire Photo: AP, Reuter, AFP, UPI
Mag Corr Pool: Business Week
Mag Photo: USNWR, Time, Newsweek
TV Corr/Crew: PER POOL
Radio Pool:
NPR
Print Pool:
Chicago Tribune
POOL #4 - Day/City: Sunday, Brussels
Pool does: Photo session of the President and King Albert II
Foyer of Laeken Palace
Pool forms: 10:15 AM, Conrad Filing Center
Pool breaks up: 1:30 PM when it returns to Conrad
AP Photo
Reuters Photo
AFP Photo
UPI Photo
TIME Photo
Newsweek Photo
USN&WR Photo
AP Corr
Reuter Corr
AFP Corr
UPI Corr
TV Crew #1 - POOL (3 people)
Print Corr: COPLEY
Radio Corr: ABC RADIO
JAN-09-1994 00:37
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.011/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 11
WH POOL #5 -
Day/City: Sunday-Brussels
Pool does: Afternoon stakeout at Conrad; m'cade from Conrad to Hotel de Ville; ONLY
POOL INSIDE Hotel de Ville for the speech.
Pool forms at (time): 2:30 pm at Conrad Hotel XX
Pool breaks up at: 7 PM - switches out to become Pool #7 after speech at Hotel de Ville
(abandoned pool members will have press buses to get back to Conrad).
MEMBERS:
Wire Corr: AP, Reuter, UPI, AFP
Wire Photo: AP, Reuter, AFP, UPI
Mag Corr Pool: Esquire
Mag Photo: Newsweek, Time, USNWR
TV Corr/Crew #1: Per TV Pool assignment
TV Prod/Crew #2: Per TV pool assignment
Radio Pool: AP Radio
Print Pool: Christian Science Monitor
WH POOL #6 - BIG Pool for outdoor press area at Grand Place
Size: Approx 100 (This pool does NOT include journalists
represented in the travel pool - Pool #7).
Special note: If you are not in this pool, please note that there is
public space at Grand Place that you can access.
POOL #6 CREDENTIAL PICK-UP: Between 1 & 2 PM at Press Office
in Conrad Ballroom Foyer.
Day/City: Monday/Brussels
Pool does: Grand Place outdoor press area during President's exit
from Hotel de Ville; informal remarks in Grand Place.
Pool forms at (place): Take buses from Conrad (see schedule)
Pool forms at (time): After 2 PM (See schedule notes)
Pool breaks up at (time): 7:30 PM, approx at Grand Place.
Getting home to press hotels: Press buses will pick you up where they dropped you
off. After 8 PM, bus is hourly until last bus departs Grand Place at 11 PM.
JAN-09-1994 00:38
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509
P.012/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 12
Pool #6 Members (One correspondent per):
ABC Radio
ABC News (4)
AP Radio
ARD German TV (2)
ARD German TV (2)
Asahi Shimbun
Baltimore Sun
BBC (2)
Beverly Hills Courier
Boston Globe
Business Week Corr
CBS News (4)
CBS Radio
Chicago Tribune
Christian Science Monitor
CNN (4)
Copley News
Cox Newspapers
Dallas Morning News
DPA
EFE
El Pais
Esquire
Financial Times
France 2 TV
Fuji TV
Hearst Newspapers
Hokkaido Shimbun
Houston Chronicle
Il Sole
JiJi Press
Knight-Ridder News
Kyodo News Service
Le Figaro
Le Monde
Liberation
London Times
Los Angeles Times
Media General News
JAN-09-1994 00:39
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.013/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 13
Mutual NBC Radio
NBC News (4)-
New York Times
New York Post
New York Daily News
Newsday
Newsweek Corr.
NPR
SAT 1 German TV
Scripps Howard
St. Petersburg Times
St. Louis Post Dispatch
Standard News
TF-1
Time Corr.
USA Today
USIA
USNWR
VOA
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
Washington Times
ZDF German TV
WH POOL #7 - Day/City: Sunday - Brussels
Pool does: Walk through Grand Place. m'cade back to Conrad Hotel; US Embassy event;
standby at Conrad until goodnight.
Pool forms at 7 PM: (This was Pool #5) after Hotel de Ville speech. Pool reporter for
switch must by at Grand Place press area by 6:30PM.
Pool breaks up at (time): 9:00 pm or goodnight at Conrad
MEMBERS:
Wire Corr: AP, Reuter, UPI, AFP
Wire Photo: AP, Reuter, AFP, UPI
Mag Corr Pool: Esquire
Mag Photo: Newsweek
TV Corr/Crew #1: Per TV Pool assignment
TV Prod/Crew #2: Per TV pool assignment
Radio Pool: CBS
Print Pool: Copley
JAN-09-1994 00:39
BRUSSELS PRESS OFFICE
46509 P.014/014
Tentative Press Schedule: Updated 01-08-94 11PM
Not for release - for planning only Page 14
MONDAY -
WH POOL #8 -
Day/City: Monday - Brussels
Pool does: OVERNIGHTS IN CONRAD HOTEL ON SUNDAY;
morning protective at hotel; motorcade to NATO; Photo session at US Mission/US
Military command briefing; "Class photo" at 10 AM in NATO hallway.
Pool forms at (place): 6:30 AM at Conrad
Pool switches out at: 10:30A at NATO
MEMBERS:
Wire Corr: AP, Reuter, UPI
Wire Photo: AP, Reuter, AFP, UPI
Mag Corr Pool: Newsweek
Mag Photo: TIME
TV Corr/Crew #1: NBC News in hotel
TV Prod/Crew #2: Per pool assignment
(not at Class Photo, not in Conrad Sunday night)
Radio Pool: Mutual/NBC Radio
Print Pool: COX
January JJ, 1994
PRAGUE
CZECH
PRESS
OFC
DC UC4
Pool Report #13
Brussels - American Chamber of Commerce
There was no jog this morning. Instead the President made his
first appearance at the American Chamber of Commerce breakfast,
where, if you were not watching from the balcony he spoke to
about 400 American business men and a few, very few, business
women. Your pool was ushered as the President began speaking--
but his words were transcribed.
Before the President arrived, Mickey Kantor spoke briefly,
praising the Administration for "making trade one of the most
important policy challenges." The Administration, he said, has
gone from "containment to engagement and from mutual assured
destruction to mutual assured prosperity."
He was followed by Warren Christopher who spoke briefly and
pledging as he has before that the state Department, "has turned
over a new leaf and showing "friendly to business." He offered
to take questions, but someone signaled to him to cut it off as
the President arrived.
THe motorcade to NATO was uneventul and the President was ushered
inside before your pool saw him.
saul Friedman-Newsday
NOTE: The scheduled TIME magazine pooler did not participate.
January 10, 1994
Pool Report #12
Brussels - Crand Place Walk
The President went on an unscheduled 45 minute walk through
the old city of Brussels, the Ilot Sacre, at the end of the NATO
working dinner Monday night. It was a wild and slippery affair.
He left the dinner at 10:42 p.m. and your pool was told
enroute home that he was about to make an unscheduled stop.
The POTUS left his car at 11 p.m. and walked through the
slippery, cobblestone streets, trailed by passersby and the pool.
At one point the crowd reached about 50 and by the end of the
walk, when Clinton climbed back into his limousine at 11:45 p.m.,
there were about 300. They cheered him.
The streets were wet and these was a chaotic shoving match at
times between the pool reporters, the Secret Service and the
crowd. It was very slippery and hard to walk through the narrow
cobblestone streets, which were not very well lit.
At the end of the walk, at 11:35 p.m. The presidednt stopped
at a toy and novelty shop, La Trottinettes. It was closed but he
woke up the owners, who lived upstairs. They appeared pleased to
see him. Your pool was kept outside but through the window we
could see Clinton trying on a hat and looking at some of the
wooden toys. We were moved back forcefully away from the window
before we could find out if he bought anything.
A transcript of the president's remarks is being made.
John Hall
Media General News Service
JAN-11-1994 20:27
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.004/024
January 11, 1994
Pool Report #14
Brussels - NATO leaders arrival
Nato leaders' arrival this morning for the 9:00am meeting was
uneventful. Clinton arrived about 9:05am and sat in the car for
the moment and finished a cup of coffee. He breezed past
reporters' questions, smiling and waving. Tony Lake and David
Gergen were with him; Sec. Warren Chrsitopher had hustled in a
couple of minutes before.
None of the NATO leaders bit on questions about Bosnia. Here's
the only comment at all. Sec. Woerner, when asked 1f Bosnia would
be part of NATO communique he said "I think so, yes." and then
asked if it would be the same language as August. He said "read
the communique."
Ball - Daily News
CZECH PRESS OFC
)2 DUD 1.005/024
January 11, 1994
Pool Report #15
NATO to EU
Motorcade routine scramble in EU lobby for photo op with Andreas
Papandreou, now President of office of European Council and
Jacques Delors, the European Commission President. Clinton asked
Delors "How are you-OK? How is your back? n Delors indicated he
was fine. POTUS also chatted with Papandreou, but we couldn't
hear.
During photo op for POTUS meeting with EU commissioners, he was
asked: "Did you say anything important?" No answer "Did you make
any news?' Clinton: "That's a different question" but again no
answer.
"Where are the women?" --this because the room full of about 20
people included just 1 woman. POTUS gestured toward the woman,
who was Jennone Walker of the NSC. (David Gergen, also seated
at the table, said afterwards that it should be noted that the
woman was an American.)
Asked if he thinks he can sell the Partnership for Peace, POTUS
replied: "Yes." He was asked if the interest goes beyond the 3
or 4 countries that have indicated that they want to sign on. He
said "We've had some interest from other countries."
He was then asked if the former Yugoslavia can join the
Partnership for Peace. At this point Gergen gave two loud coughs
which some poolers thought was a warning. POTUS then replied:
"It doesn't exist anymore. There are a lot of different
"
-- and here his voice trailed off.
Deborah Orin
NY Post
JAN-11-1994 20:28
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.006/024
January 11, 1994
POOL REPORT #15 A
Prague - Abroad Air Force One from Brussels to Prague
During the rather brief flight from Brussels to Prague, Tony
Lake and David Gergen came back to talk to the pool.
There was a lot of background stuff from Lake, and a bit
from Gergen, which I will outline in a minute. More
interestingly, halfway through the talk, Lake broke off and
returned to the front of the plane at Andrew Friendly's urgent
summons.
He was up there for maybe five minutes, after which he came
to tell us that the President had called Leonid Kravchuk, the
Ukrainian president, from the plane. The conversation was brief
and the connection poor, the pool was told. According to Lake,
speaking (of course) as a senior Administrtaion official, Clinton
congratulated Kravchuk and thanked him for his leadership on the
nuclear non-proliferation issue. Gergen, quoting Clinton
directly: I want to thank you for the courage you have
shown. Gergen also said the President said he wanted to talk
tomorrow about a number of issues'' in connection with the
agreement --- another suggestion that important details remain to
be worked out.
Now back to Lake, speaking on background:
Lake sought to leave the impression that France and the
United States had more or less simultaneously decided that Bosnia
should be dealt with in a major way in Brussels. The
conflicting approaches, he said, were reconciled late last week;
it is simply not true that we were pushed by the French into
addressing this issue.'
Yesterday morning, as you know, the President emphasized
Sarajevo, and the need to be ready to back up words with actions.
Last night at dinner, Lake said, the French and British pushed
for action at Srebrenica and Tuzla. The President said yes, but
only if the Sarajevo reiteration remained.
Asked what dynamic was at work here, Lake said that any use
of air power at Srebrenica or Tuzla would be close air support of
NATO troops operating under the UNPOFOR banner. The French and
British thought that wise. They were less enthusiastic about the
use of air strikes at Sarajevo, he said, fearing that they might
constitute a major escalation because they would represent a
commitment to the Muslim defenders of the city.
Lake said that if NATO action at Srebrenica and Tuzla was
eventually approved, we might supply technical assistance (such
as electronic equipment for the airport at Tuzla), in addition to
air power, but he absolutely ruled out the use of American ground
troops.
What has changed since August? We are into the winter,
and the situtaion in Sarajevo is worse.
On Ukraine, Clinton is convinced that this agreement will
hold where others did not becuase 1) it contains many more
elements deeply in Ukarine's interest'' (mainly financial ones)
and 2) the united states has evidence that the dismantling of
SS-24's has already begun.
Then there was a lot of what might churlishly be described
as mega-spin from Mr. Gergen, also clad in the raiment of senior
Administration official.
JAN-11-1994 20:30
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
32 509 P.007.024
Much of it was anodyne, but he quoted Clinton as saying to
members of the staff in a discussion of the results of the
Brussels meetings: ``I believe Europe knows now that the United
States does intend to stay engaged and is leading.' How would
he sell Partnership for Peace in Prague? Lake jumped back in to
say that he would tell the eastern Europeans that it is now a
question not of whether but when and how'' NATO will be expanded.
Finally, Gergen offered the view that Woerner and Clinton
had bonded with particular vigor at Brussels.
R. W. Apple Jr., The New York Times
08:07 66I-II-NHO
PRAGUE CZECH PRESS OFC
DC 505 1.000/024
January 11, 1994
Pool Report #16
Prague - Airport Arrival Prague/Castle Welcome
Havel was waiting nervously for Clinton, standing in the cold,
without gloves rubbing his hands and checking to make sure his
tie was straight. Clinton came down the steps to greet him and
was met by a Czech military unit with silver bayonets pointed
upward.
The impossibly long motorcade to town was lined by many Czeck
citizens who had been waiting up to an hour. They cheered and
waved as the limo passed by. A few human rights and Green Peace
demonstrators were outside the airport, but they were few in
number.
At Prague Castle, Clinton and Havel shook hands with people
outside the gate. Clinton also shook hands with Senator Dennis
DeConcini, who had been in Brussels and flew here as Chairman of
the Treasury subcommittee, seeing how the secret Service spends
its' money. DeConcini said he was just here for the night and
going back in the morning.
In the courtyard of the Castle, Havel and Clinton stood at
attention for the plane of both countries' National Anthems.
The scene was resplendent with the Castle in the background, but
there were no American flags. Clinton, a full head taller than
Havel, seemed to be in awe of his surroundings.
Inside the Castle at the first meeting in the Hapsburg Room,
Clinton held his arms wide open and said, "You'll notice
President Havel's modest little surrounding." Havel was asked
about his feelings on the Partnership for Peace Plan. He answered
in Czech and his translators said," Our attitude to the plan is
very favorable."
Havel was then asked if he wants more in exchange for agreeing to
the plan. Havel said "That depends on future developments".
As the pool left the room, which is filled with portraits and
gilt, Clinton said of Havel "He's better than I am," meaning his
answers are shorter.
The next meeting was in a room that looked like an elaborate
wedding cake with white and gilt decorations. Havel and Clinton
were at a long table with their aides facing each other and again
shook hands for the cameras. Carafes of a juice that appeared to
be apricot were on the table. At the table were Warren
Christopher, Tony Lake, Jenonne Walker, Madeleine Albright, Dave
Gergen. Gergen was rubbing his eyes and seemed exhausted, but
Warren Christopher was wide awake.
Then Clinton told Havel with another expansive gesture, "When I
was here as a student no one invited me here."
Ann McFeatters
Scripps Howard
Jay Carney
Time