Presidential Documents - gpo.gov COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Published every Monday by the Office of the Federal Reg-ister, National Archives and …

1

Weekly Compilation of

PresidentialDocuments

Monday, January 17, 1994Volume 30—Number 2Pages 11–54

VerDate 25-MAR-98 09:54 Mar 28, 1998 Jkt 010199 PO 00001 Frm 00001 Fmt 1249 Sfmt 1249 E:\TEMP\P02JA4.000 INET03

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF

PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

Published every Monday by the Office of the Federal Reg-ister, National Archives and Records Administration, Washing-ton, DC 20408, the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Docu-ments contains statements, messages, and other Presidentialmaterials released by the White House during the precedingweek.

The Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents is pub-lished pursuant to the authority contained in the Federal Reg-ister Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15), under

regulations prescribed by the Administrative Committee of theFederal Register, approved by the President (37 FR 23607;1 CFR Part 10).

Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of Docu-ments, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.The Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents will befurnished by mail to domestic subscribers for $80.00 per year($137.00 for mailing first class) and to foreign subscribers for$93.75 per year, payable to the Superintendent of Documents,Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Thecharge for a single copy is $3.00 ($3.75 for foreign mailing).

There are no restrictions on the republication of materialappearing in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Docu-ments.

2

Contents

Addresses and Remarks

Brussels, BelgiumAmerican business community—27American diplomatic community—18Future leaders of Europe—11Hotel De Ville—17North Atlantic Council—21

Moscow, Russia, welcoming ceremony—49

Appointments and Nominations

See also Letters and MessagesCommerce Department, Assistant Secretary—

50Education Department, Regional and Deputy

Regional Representatives—50International Joint Commission, United States

and Canada, members—40Labor Department, Office of Federal

Contract Compliance Programs, Director—50

U.S. Advisory Commission on PublicDiplomacy, members—40

White House Office, Director of PresidentialPersonnel—40

Communications to Congress

Peacekeeping operations in the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, letter—20

Communications to Federal Agencies

Assistance to the states of the former SovietUnion—19

Interviews With the News Media

Exchanges with reportersBrussels, Belgium—11Prague, Czech Republic—39, 40

News conferencesJanuary 10 in Brussels (No. 39)—23

January 11 in Brussels (No. 40)—30

Interviews With the News Media—Continued

January 11 with European Union leaders inBrussels (No. 41)—33

January 12 with Visegrad leaders in Prague(No. 42)—41

January 12 with President Leonid Kravchukof Ukraine (No. 43)—45

Letters and Messages

Assistant Secretary of Defense nominee, letteraccepting withdrawal—27

Meetings With Foreign Leaders

Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene—11

Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel—39European Union leaders—33North Atlantic Council—21Russian President Boris Yeltsin—49Slovak Republic President Michal Kovac—40Ukraine President Leonid Kravchuk—45Visegrad leaders—41

Proclamations

Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday—50National Good Teen Day—52Religious Freedom Day—51

Statements by the President

See Appointments and Nominations

Supplementary Materials

Acts approved by the President—54Checklist of White House press releases—54Digest of other White House

announcements—53Nominations submitted to the Senate—54

Editor’s Note: The President was in Moscow, Russia, on January 14, the closing date of thisissue. Releases and announcements issued by the Office of the Press Secretary but not receivedin time for inclusion in this issue will be printed next week.


11

Week Ending Friday, January 14, 1994

Exchange With Reporters Prior toDiscussions With Prime MinisterJean-Luc Dehaene of Belgium inBrusselsJanuary 9, 1994

BosniaQ. Mr. President, do you think that Bosnia

should be at the top of the agenda for theNATO consideration?

The President. Well, we’ll discuss thatand a number of other things. We have alot of issues to discuss. But the Prime Min-ister and I will discuss that and several otherissues. As you know, he’s just ended a tourof 6 months in the presidency of the EU,and in my judgment, he and Belgium dida superb job. They were very instrumentalin the successes we had last summer in theG–7 meeting, which laid the foundation forthe adoption of the GATT round. So we’regoing to talk a little about that, too.

President’s MotherQ. Mr. President, are you finding it dif-

ficult to engage in diplomacy after your per-sonal loss?

The President. No, I’m glad to be here.My family and my friends and my mother’sfriends, we had a wonderful day yesterday,and I’m doing what I should be doing. I’mglad to have the opportunity to be here andgo back to work.

NOTE: The exchange began at 1:55 p.m. at theConrad Hotel. A tape was not available for ver-ification of the content of this exchange.

Remarks to Future Leaders ofEurope in BrusselsJanuary 9, 1994

Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister,Mr. Mayor, distinguished leaders. I’m de-lighted to be here with the Prime Minister

and with many of Europe’s future leaders inthis great hall of history.

I first came to Brussels as a young manin a very different but a difficult time, whenthe future for us was uncertain. It is fittingthat my first trip to Europe as President beabout building a better future for the youngpeople of Europe and the United Statestoday and that it begin here in Belgium. Asa great capital and as the headquarters ofNATO and the European Union, Brusselsand Belgium have long been at the centerof Europe’s steady progress toward greatersecurity and greater prosperity. For those ofyou who know anything about me personally,I also have a great personal debt of nearly40 years standing to this country because itwas a Belgian, Adolphe Sax, who inventedthe saxophone. [Laughter]

I have come here at this time because Ibelieve that it is time for us together to revi-talize our partnership and to define a newsecurity at a time of historic change. It isa new day for our transatlantic partnership:The cold war is over; Germany is united; theSoviet Union is gone; and a constitutional de-mocracy governs Russia. The specter thathaunted our citizens for decades, of tanksrolling in through Fulda Gap or nuclear anni-hilation raining from the sky, that specter,thank God, has largely vanished. Your gen-eration is the beneficiary of those miraculoustransformations.

In the end, the Iron Curtain rusted fromwithin and was brought crashing down by thedetermination of brave men and women tolive free, by the Poles and the Czechs, bythe Russians, the Ukrainians, the people ofthe Baltics, by all those who understood thatneither economics nor consciences can be or-dered from above. Equally important, how-ever, their heroic efforts succeeded becauseour resolve never failed, because the weap-ons of deterrence never disappeared and themessage of democracy never disappeared.


12 Jan. 9 / Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994

As the East enjoys a new birth of freedom,one of freedom’s great victories lives here inEurope’s West: the peaceful cleaving to-gether of nations which clashed for centuries.The transformation was wrought by visionaryleaders such as Monnet, Schumann, Spaak,and Marshall, who understood that modernnations can enrich their futures morethrough cooperation than conquest. My ad-ministration supports European union andEurope’s development of stronger institu-tions of common purpose and common ac-tion. We recognize we will benefit more froma strong and equal partner than from a weakone.

The fall of the Soviet empire and WesternEurope’s integration are the two greatest ad-vances for peace in the last half of the 20thcentury. All of us are reaping their blessings.In particular, with the cold war over and inspite of the present global recession whichclouds your future, all our nations now havethe opportunity to take long, deferred stepstoward economic and social renewal. My ownNation has made a beginning in putting oureconomic house in order, reducing our defi-cits, investing in our people, creating jobs,and sparking an economic recovery that wehope will help not only the United States butalso will lift all nations. We’re also facing upto some of the social problems in our countrywe have ignored for too long, from the chal-lenge to provide universal health care to re-ducing crime in our streets to dealing withthe needs of our poor children. We have atruly multicultural society. In one of ourcounties there are people from over 150 dif-ferent national and ethnic groups. But we areworking to build an American community forthe 21st century.

And with the European Union, we haverecently led the world to a new GATT agree-ment that will create millions of new jobsin all our countries. In many ways, it wouldbe easy to offer you only a message of simplecelebration, to trumpet our common herit-age, to rejoice that our labors for peace havebeen rewarded, to cheer on the economicprogress that is occurring. But this is not atime for self-congratulation. And certainly wehave enough challenges that we should actas true partners. That is, we should share oneanother’s burdens rather than only talking of

triumphs. And we should speak honestlyabout what we feel about where we are andwhere we should go.

This is the truth as I see it. We servedhistory well during the cold war, but now his-tory calls on us again to help consolidate free-dom’s new gains into a larger and a morelasting peace. We must build a new securityfor Europe. The old security was based onthe defense of our bloc against another bloc.The new security must be found in Europe’sintegration, an integration of security forces,of market economies, of national democ-racies. The purpose of my trip to Europe isto help lead the movement to that integrationand to assure you that America will be astrong partner in it.

For the peoples who broke communism’schains, we now see a race between rejuvena-tion and despair. And the outcome will—bound to shape the security of every nationin the transatlantic alliance. Today that raceis being played out from the Balkans to cen-tral Asia. In one lane are the heirs of theenlightenment who seek to consolidate free-dom’s gains by building free economies, opendemocracies, and tolerant civic cultures. Pit-ted against them are the grim pretenders totyranny’s dark throne, the militant national-ists and demagogues who fan suspicions thatare ancient and parade the pain of renewalin order to obscure the promise of reform.

We, none of us, can afford to be bystandersof that race. Too much is at stake. Considerthis: The coming months and years may de-cide whether the Russian people continue todevelop a peaceful market democracy orwhether, in frustration, they elect leaderswho incline back toward authoritarianismand empire. This period may determinewhether the nations neighboring Russiathrive in freedom and join the ranks of non-nuclear states or founder under the strain ofreform and cling to weapons that increasethe risk of nuclear accident or diversion. Thisperiod may decide whether the states of theformer Soviet bloc are woven into the fabricof transatlantic prosperity and security or aresimply left hanging in isolation as they facethe same daunting changes gripping so manyothers in Europe.

These pivotal decisions ultimately rest withthe people who threw off communism’s yoke.


13Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994 / Jan. 9

They must make their own decisions abouttheir own future. But we in the West canclearly help to shape their choices, and wemust summon the political will to do so.

The task requires a steady and patient ef-fort, guided by a strategic star that points ustoward the integration of a broader Europe.It also requires a fair amount of humility,understanding that we cannot control everyevent in every country on every day. But ifwe are willing to assume the central chal-lenge, we can revitalize not only the nationsof the East but also our own transatlantic re-lationship.

Over the past half-century, the trans-atlantic community only realized half thepromise of World War II’s triumph over fas-cism. The other half lay captive behind Eu-rope’s walls of division. Now we have thechance to realize the full promise of Europe’svictories without its great disappointment:Normandy without Yalta, the liberation ofthe low countries without the Berlin block-ade.

During this past half-century, transatlanticsecurity depended primarily on the deter-rents provided by our military forces. Nowthe immediate threat to our East is not ofadvancing armies but of creeping instability.Countering that threat requires not only mili-tary security but also the promotion of demo-cratic and economic renewal. Combined,these forces are the strongest bulwark againstEurope’s current dangers, against ethnic con-flict, the abuse of human rights, the desta-bilizing refugee flows, the rise of aggressiveregimes, and the spread of weapons of massdestruction.

The integration of the former Communistbloc with the rest of Europe will be gradualand often difficult, as Germany’s bold effortsdemonstrate. And like all great opportunities,we must remember that this one could befleeting. We must not now let the Iron Cur-tain be replaced with a veil of indifference.For history will judge us as it judged withscorn those who preached isolationism be-tween the World Wars and as it has judgedwith praise the bold architects of the trans-atlantic community after World War II.

With the cold war over, some in Americawith short memories have called for us topack up and go home. I am asked often:

‘‘Why do you maintain a presence in Europe?How can you justify the expense when wehave so many problems here at home?’’ Wetried that, right after World War I. TheAmerican people this year proved their re-sistance to the siren song of global with-drawal. We did so when the Congress votedfor the North American Free Trade Agree-ment, voted for America to compete in aglobal economy, not to retreat. And we didso when we reached out to Europe and toothers, and in working with the EuropeanUnion, led the world to accept a new GATTagreement on world trade. I have come heretoday to declare and to demonstrate that Eu-rope remains central to the interests of theUnited States and that we will help to workwith our partners in seizing the opportunitiesbefore us all.

Without question, Europe is not the onlyfocus of our engagement, we must reach outto Latin America and to Asia, areas that areincreasingly important both to the UnitedStates and to Europe. And our bonds withEurope will be different than they were inthe past, but make no mistake about it, thebonds that tie the United States and Europeare unique. We share a passionate faith thatGod has endowed us as individuals with in-alienable rights and a belief that the stateexists by our consent solely to advance free-dom and security and prosperity for all ofus as individuals. That is still a radical ideain the world in which we live. Developed byLocke and Montesquieu, put into practice inmy country by Jefferson and Madison, it hastoppled tyrants, it has drawn millions to ourcountry’s shores. Over three centuries, theties of kinship between the United States andEurope have fostered bonds of commerce,and you remain our most valued partner, notjust in the cause of democracy and freedombut also in the economics of trade and invest-ment.

But above all, the core of our security re-mains with Europe. That is why America’scommitment to Europe’s safety and stabilityremains as strong as ever. That is why I urgedNATO to convene this week’s summit. It iswhy I am committed to keeping roughly100,000 American troops stationed in Eu-rope, consistent with the expressed desiresof our allies here. It is not habit but security



and partnership that justifies this continuingcommitment by the United States. Just as wehave worked in partnership with Europe onevery major security challenge in this cen-tury, it is now time for us to join in buildingthe new security for the 21st century, thecentury in which most of you in this roomwill live most of your lives. The new securitymust seek to bind a broader Europe togetherwith a strong fabric woven of military co-operation, prosperous market economies,and vital democracies.

Let me speak briefly about each of these.The first and most important element of thesecurity must be military strength and co-operation. The cold war is over, but war itselfis not over. As we know, it rages today notonly in distant lands but right here in Europeand the former Yugoslavia. That murderousconflict reminds us that even after the coldwar, military forces remain relevant. It alsoreveals the difficulties of applying militaryforce to conflicts within as well as amongstates. And it teaches us that it is best to actearly to prevent conflicts that we may laternot be able to control.

As we work to resolve that tragedy andease the suffering of its victims, we also needto change our security institutions so they canbetter address such conflicts and advanceEurope’s integration. Many institutions willplay a role, including the European Union,the Western European Union, the Councilof Europe, the Conference for Security andCooperation in Europe, and the United Na-tions. But NATO, history’s greatest militaryalliance, must be central to that process.

Only NATO has the military forces, theintegrated command, the broad legitimacy,and the habits of cooperation that are essen-tial to draw in new participants and respondto new challenges. One of the deepest trans-formations within the transatlantic commu-nity over the past half-century occurred be-cause the armed forces of our respected na-tions trained, studied, and marched throughtheir careers together. It is not only the com-patibility of our weapons but the camaraderieof our warriors that provide the sinews be-hind our mutual security guarantees and ourbest hope for peace.

Two years ago our nations began to adaptNATO to this new era by creating the North

Atlantic Cooperation Council. It includes allthe states of the former Soviet bloc as wellas the 16 of NATO. Now it is time to movebeyond that dialog and create an operatingpartnership. That is why I have proposed thatwe create the Partnership For Peace.

This partnership will advance a process ofevolution for NATO’s formal enlargement. Itlooks to the day when NATO will take onnew members who assume the alliance’s fullresponsibilities. It will create a framework inwhich former Communist states and othersnot now members of NATO can participatewith NATO members in joint military plan-ning, training, exercises, and other efforts.This partnership will build new bonds of co-operation among the militaries of the Eastand the West. It will reinforce the develop-ment of democracies and democratic prac-tices, such as respect for human rights andcivilian control over military forces. It cangive NATO new tools for responding to eth-nic instability and other dangers of our era.The use of NATO forces in such missionswill always be considered and must be ona case-by-case basis. But tomorrow’s summitwill put us in a stronger position to makethose decisions and to make them early andwisely.

The Partnership For Peace will not alterNATO’s fundamental mission of defendingNATO territory from attack. We cannot af-ford to abandon that mission while the dreamof empire still burns in the minds of somewho look longingly toward a brutal past. Butneither can we afford to draw a new line be-tween East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation.

This partnership opens the door to co-operation with all of NATO’s former adver-saries, including Russia, Ukraine, and theother newly independent states, based on abelief that freedom’s boundaries must nowbe defined by new behavior, not old history.

I say to all those in Europe and the UnitedStates who would simply have us draw a newline in Europe further east that we shouldnot foreclose the possibility of the best pos-sible future for Europe, which is a democracyeverywhere, a market economy everywhere,people cooperating everywhere for mutualsecurity. We can guard against a lesser fu-



ture, but we should strive for the best futurefor you and your generation.

NATO can also help to meet Europe’s newsecurity challenges by doing more to counterthe proliferation of weapons of mass destruc-tion. I tell you, frankly, it is one of our mostdifficult and challenging tasks. Counteringthose weapons and the missiles that deliverthem will require close cooperation, honestyand discipline, and a willingness of some notnow willing to do it to forgo immediate finan-cial gain.

The danger is clear and present. Growingmissile capabilities are bringing more of Eu-rope into the range of rogue states such asIran and Libya. There are disturbing reportsof efforts to smuggle nuclear materials intoand out of Eastern Europe. And this east-ward-looking summit will give us the chanceto begin to address the threat on our ownterritory.

The second element of the new securitywe are building must be greater economicvitality, the issue which I would imagine isof most immediate concern to most of you.We must build it on vibrant and open marketeconomies, the engines that have given usthe greatest prosperity in human history overthe last several decades in Europe and in theUnited States.

Our combined success in leading the worldto a new GATT agreement capped 7 yearsof effort to expand prosperity to all tradingnations. Now we must define a successoragenda to GATT that focuses on the renewalof advanced economies and the enlargementof prosperities to the nations of our East thatare making the difficult transitions to marketeconomics.

First, the renewal of our own economiesis critical. Unless we are creating jobs andunless we are raising incomes in Europe andin the United States and Japan, in the ad-vanced countries of the world, it will be dif-ficult for the people of those nations, all ournations, to continue to support of policy ofinvolvement with the rest of the world.

The nations of the European Union faceparticular severe economic challenges withnearly 20 million people unemployed and, inGermany’s case, the extraordinarily highcosts of unification. All our nations have hadto struggle against the restless forces of this

new global economy, against the competitionthat comes from countries with lower wagesor that is generated when technology enablesus to do more with fewer workers. But thereis not new technology to provide new jobsfor those who are displaced. This is a prob-lem not just for Europe but also for theUnited States and now for Japan as well.

Among the Atlantic nations, economicstagnation has clearly eroded public supportin finances for outward-looking foreign poli-cies and for greater integration. Our respec-tive efforts to revive our own economies are,therefore, important not only for our own liv-ing standards but also for our collectivestrength. And both of them will shape thefuture you and your children will have.

We must proceed quickly to implementthe GATT agreement. But we also must learntogether and from each other on making abroader and bolder series of adjustments tothis new global economy.

We Americans have a lot to learn from Eu-rope in matters of job training and appren-ticeship, of moving our people from schoolto work, into good paying jobs with the ca-pacity to continue to learn new skills as theeconomy forces them to do so. But we alsomay have something to teach in the area ofthe flexibility of our job structure and ourcapacity to generate work and new employ-ment opportunities. This is an area in whichwe can usefully draw lessons from eachother. And that is why I am pleased that inMarch our leading ministers will hold a jobsconference that I proposed last July. We sim-ply must figure out how to create more jobsand how to reward people who work bothharder and smarter in the workplace. It isthe basis of all the other attitudes that wewant to foster to remain engaged with oneanother and with the rest of the world.

But as we work to strengthen our owneconomies, we must know that we serve ourown prosperity and our security by helpingthe new market economies of Europe’s east-ern half to thrive. Successful market reformsin those states will help to deflate the region’sdemagogues. It will help to ease ethnic ten-sions. It will help new democracies to takeroot. It is also in your long-term interest be-cause one of the things that we have learnedis that wealthy nations cannot grow richer



unless they have customers beyond their bor-ders for their goods and their services.

So the short-term difficulties of takingEastern Europe into our economic alliancewill be more than rewarded if they succeedand if they are customers for Western Eu-rope’s goods and services tomorrow. That iswhy early on in our administration we com-mitted to increase support substantially formarket reforms in the new states of theformer Soviet Union and why we have con-tinued our support for economic transitionin Central and Eastern Europe.

Ultimately, the success of market reformsto the East will depend more on trade thanaid. None of us have enough money to mark-edly change the future of those countries asthey move to free market systems in the gov-ernment coffers. We cannot give themenough aid to make them full partners. Theymust grow and trade their way into full part-nership with us.

One of our priorities, therefore, should beto reduce trade barriers to the former Com-munist states. It will make little sense for usto applaud their market reforms on the onehand while offering only selective access toour markets on the other. That’s like invitingsomeone to a castle and refusing to let downthe drawbridge. The United States has al-ready eliminated many of our cold war bar-riers to products from these countries. Andall our nations must find more ways to dothe same thing. The economic success ofthese states simply cannot be separated fromour own renewal and security.

In 1931, a remarkable British political car-toon portrayed the United States and Europein a rowboat. At the back end of the boat,where Europe’s more Eastern powers sat,there was a terrible leak, and it was sinkingfast. The front end, where the United Statesand Western Europe were, was still afloat.The boat was sinking from the back end. Andone of the figures in our end of the boatwas saying, ‘‘Thank goodness, the leak’s notat our end of the boat.’’ In the end, the wholeboat sank. That will happen again unless wework together. Europe’s Western half clearly,as history shows, cannot long be secure ifthe Eastern half remains in turmoil.

The third and final imperative of this newsecurity is to support the growth of democ-

racy and individual freedoms that has begunthroughout Europe’s former Communiststates. The success of these democratic re-forms make us all more secure because de-mocracies tend not to wage war on one an-other, and they tend not to break their wordto one another. Democratic governmentsnurture civil society, respect for human rightsand habits of simple tolerance. The demo-cratic values at the heart of the Western com-munity are also our best answer to the ag-gressive nationalism and ethnic hatreds un-leashed by the end of the cold war.

We in the transatlantic community mustcommit ourselves to helping democracy suc-ceed in all the former Communist states thatare Western Europe’s immediate neighbors,because their security matters to our security.Nowhere is democracy’s success more im-portant to us all than there and then in Rus-sia. I will say again: In Russia, if the nationcontinues to evolve as a market democracy,satisfied within her borders and at peace withher neighbors, defining her greatness interms of the ability to enable all of the chil-dren of Russia to live to the fullest of theirpotential, then our road toward Europe’s fullintegration will be wider and smoother andsafer. As one Ukrainian legislator recentlystated, ‘‘If Russia is democratic, Europe willbe calm.’’

The results of the recent elections in Rus-sia and the statements of some Russian politi-cal figures have given us all genuine causefor concern. We must consistently condemnexpression of intolerance and threats of ag-gression. But we should also keep those con-cerns in some historical perspective. It wasonly 2 years ago, after all, that the SovietUnion dissolved. Just 2 months ago, Russiaappeared to be on the brink of a civil war.But since then Russia has held a free andfair national election, its people have ratifieda genuinely democratic constitution, and theyhave elected their first-ever post-Soviet legis-lature. And the Government continues topursue democratic and economic reform.

The transformation Russia is undertakingis absolutely staggering. If you just thinkabout what the country has been like since1917, if you go back to the 18th century andimagine the history of the nation from thatpoint to this, the idea that the nation could



seriously be involved by democratic vote inundertaking these transformations is abso-lutely staggering. We cannot expect them tocorrect overnight three-quarters of a centuryof repressive leadership, three-quarters of acentury of totalitarian policy, or a whole na-tional history in which there was no democ-racy.

As in the other Communist nations, thiswill be the work of generations. We in theUnited States have been at it for 200 yearsnow, and we’re still working to try to get itright. All of us have to recognize that therewill be wrong turns and even reversals, asthere have been in all of our own countriesthroughout our histories. But as long as thesestates continue their progress toward democ-racy and respect the rights of their own andother people, they understand the rights oftheir minorities and their neighbors, then weshould support their progress with a steadypatience.

In order to support these new democ-racies, we are supporting grassroots effortsto build the institutions of civil society, fromcommunity organizers in the Czech Republicto election volunteers in Bulgaria. We alsowill take steps to encourage cooperationamong the new democracies. As with West-ern Europe after World War II, we must getregional neighbors working together ratherthan looking at each other with suspicion.

The broader integration in peace we arebuilding is not only a European concern, Isay again, it is distinctly in the interests ofthe United States. My Nation has thrilled atthe progress of freedom on this continentover the past 5 years. And we understandwell the toll that European discord ultimatelytakes on our own people.

Only a few hours from this place lie thegraves of thousands of Americans who diedin Europe’s two great wars. History recordswhere they fell, at Flanders Field, on theshores of Normandy, and in the Battle of theBulge. But let us remember as well why theycame here, why they left the safety of theirhomes to fight in a distant land. They camebecause our security depends more on thingsthat go far beyond geographical divides. Oursecurity depends on more than the oceanthat divides us. It depends on the existenceof a strong and free and democratic Europe.

Today we can honor the sacrifice of thoseAmericans buried here on your soil by ex-panding the reach of the freedoms theyfought and gave their lives to preserve. Thefight for your generation across a broaderEurope will be joined and won not on thiscontinent’s beaches or across its plains butrather in its new parliaments and city coun-cils, in the offices and factories of its newmarket economies, in the hearts and mindsof the young people like many of you here.You have the most to gain from a Europethat is integrated in terms of security, interms of economics, in terms of democracies.

Ultimately, you will have to decide whatsort of Europe you want and how hard youare willing to work for it. But I want youto know that the United States stands by youin that battle, as we have in the other battlesof the 20th century.

I believe that our freedom is indivisible.I believe our destinies are joined. I believethat the 21st century can be the most excitingperiod that Europe and the United Stateshave ever known and that your future canbe the richest and brightest of any genera-tion. But we will have to work to make itso.

Thank you very much.

NOTE: The President spoke at 6 p.m. in the Goth-ic Room at the Hotel De Ville. In his remarks,he referred to Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaeneof Belgium and Mayor Jose Desmaret of Brussels.

Remarks on Departure From TheHotel De Ville to in BrusselsJanuary 9, 1994

Thank you all for coming out tonight.Thank you for waving the flags. I’m sorry wedidn’t have more room inside, but I’m gladwe could show the speech on the screen.

Let me say that I have been in this placemany times. I’ve been here as a student. I’vebeen here as the Governor of my State. Inever imagined I would actually be here asPresident and you would be here to say hello.You have already heard my speech; I havereally nothing else to say except I’m delightedto be here. We are here to build a new andstronger future for Europe and a better part-



nership between Europe and the UnitedStates, and I hope all of you will support that.

Happy New Year, and thank you verymuch.

NOTE: The President spoke at 6:47 p.m. in theGrand Place. A tape was not available for verifica-tion of the content of these remarks.

Remarks to the American DiplomaticCommunity in BrusselsJanuary 9, 1994

The President. Thank you very much.Thank you for coming. Thank you for play-ing. And thank you for waiting a little as Ihad the chance to stop downtown and talkto some citizens after I gave my speech.

I want to tell you how very much I appre-ciate the work that all of you are doing foryour country a long way from home, but atthe center of the future we have to maketogether. I think in a way you’re all fortunateto be serving in Brussels at such a pivotalpoint in the history of Europe and the historyof the world. This is a remarkable city, theheadquarters of the Commission on Euro-pean Unity and Union and NATO. And Iwant to thank all of our three Ambassadorsbehind us for the work that they have done.The importance of our bilateral relationshipwith Belgium can hardly be overstated.

Alan Blinken, I think, will represent usvery well, particularly if all of you at the em-bassy do what everybody tries to do at theWhite House every day and make sure I’mnot my own worst enemy. [Laughter] I wantto thank Bob Hunter for the work he’s doingat NATO and say that this Partnership ForPeace, contrary to what some have sug-gested, is not a weak limitation on the futureof European security, it is a strong first stepthat opens the possibility of the best possiblefuture for Europe in which everyone willhave an opportunity to be a democracy andto be part of our shared security. And I wantto say a special word of thanks to my longtimefriend Stu Eizenstat for coming here to serve.We’ve worked hard to get this GATT agree-ment. The European Union is now a reality.We have to see it through; there’s still a lotto do.

I stopped at a little coffee shop and res-taurant on the way out here tonight, justtalked to some citizens, and I met this incred-ible Belgian lady who said, ‘‘You’re right,we’ve got to compete. We can’t run awayfrom the world.’’ And she said, ‘‘I know howhard it is economically, but 2 years ago Ididn’t have a job, and now I have my ownbusiness and I’m doing very well, and I’mexcited about the European Union. I’m goingto do business in other countries now.’’We’ve got to somehow communicate thatspirit, that belief that we can bring this econ-omy back, this whole global economy backto people here so they can believe in them-selves. I can tell you that, back home, thatis beginning to happen. We do have morecontrol over our economic destiny. The defi-cit is coming down after going up for 12years. Jobs are being created, and movementis there in the economy. And there is a sensethat we’re beginning to confront problemsthat we have ignored for way, way too long.

So I think we’re coming here at a very im-portant time and an appropriate time. AndI guess I ought to end by apologizing to thoseof you who have had to do so much extrawork because of this trip and the headachesI may have caused you. But believe me, itis in a worthy cause, and we are going tomake a new future for the people of Europeand the people of the world so that we don’trepeat the mistakes of the 20th century inthe 21st and so that we give all these childrena better future than any generation has everknown.


Mayor of Dinant. In the name of the cityof Dinant, I have the honor to give to thePresident of USA an instrument of sax—thesaxophone, yes. [Laughter]

The President. In case you didn’t under-stand it, Dinant, Belgium, is the home ofAdolphe Sax, the man who invented the saxo-phone. And this says, ‘‘Adolphe Sax, 1814 to1894. To Bill Clinton, President of theUnited States.’’ And it says something else,but my glasses are not here. [Laughter]Dinant, Belgium, and——

Mayor of Dinant. ‘‘International Year ofthe Saxophone.’’



The President. Yes, the international yearof Adolphe Sax. And it points out that thiswonderful horn was made in Paris by Selmer.


NOTE: The President spoke at 8:03 p.m. at theConrad Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to AlanBlinken, U.S. Ambassador to Belgium; RobertHunter, U.S. Ambassador to NATO; and StuartEizenstat, U.S. Ambassador to the EuropeanUnion. A tape was not available for verificationof the content of these remarks.

Memorandum on Assistance to theStates of the Former Soviet Union

January 8, 1994

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

Subject: Notification Under 10 U.S.C. 2215for the New Independent States (NIS) of theFormer Soviet Union

Pursuant to Section 2215, Title 10, UnitedStates Code, as amended by Section 1106 ofthe National Defense Authorization Act forFiscal Year 1994, I hereby certify that makingavailable the funds appropriated under theheading ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, De-fense Agencies’’ in the Supplemental Appro-priations for the NIS of the Former SovietUnion Act, 1993 (Title VI of Public Law 103–87) to the Agency for International Develop-ment, Assistance for the NIS of the FormerSoviet Union, is in the national security inter-est of the United States.

You are authorized and directed to submita copy of this certification to the appropriatecommittees of the Congress and to arrangefor its publication in the Federal Register.

William J. Clinton

NOTE: This memorandum was released by the Of-fice of the Press Secretary on January 10.

Memorandum on Assistance to theStates of the Former Soviet UnionJanuary 8, 1994

Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

Subject: Transfer of Funds for Assistance forthe New Independent States (NIS) of theFormer Soviet Union

Pursuant to the Supplemental Appropria-tions for the NIS of the Former Soviet UnionAct, 1993 (Title VI of Public Law 103–87)(the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby determine that pro-grams described in Section 560 of the For-eign Operations, Export Financing and Re-lated Programs Appropriations Act, 1994 (Ti-tles I–V of Public Law 103–87) and programsdescribed in Section 498 of the Foreign As-sistance Act of 1961, as amended (PublicLaw 87–195), will increase the national secu-rity of the United States.

The political and economic transformationof the NIS of the former Soviet Union intopeaceful market-oriented democracies willdirectly reduce the security threat to theUnited States and lead to substantial savingsin the cost of the defense of the UnitedStates. The above-mentioned programs fa-cilitate this transformation, thereby makinga critical contribution to increasing the na-tional security of the United States.

Accordingly, unless I instruct otherwise inthe interim, on the thirtieth day followingsubmission to the appropriate Committees ofthe Congress of the memorandum regardingnotification under 10 U.S.C. 2215 for theNIS of the former Soviet Union, you are au-thorized and directed to exercise your au-thority under the first two provisos under theheading ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, De-fense Agencies’’ in the Act to transfer fundsin the amounts and to the accounts detailedin the attachment to this memorandum. Anyfunds transferred to the Agency for Inter-national Development may thereafter, at thedirection of the Secretary of State or the Co-ordinator designated under Section 102 ofthe FREEDOM Support Act (Public Law102–511), be allocated or transferred pursu-ant to the authority of Section 632 of theForeign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.In the event of such transfer, the implement-ing agency shall be the agency responsible



and accountable for the management, auditand use of such funds.

William J. Clinton

NOTE: This memorandum was released by the Of-fice of the Press Secretary on January 10.

Letter to Congressional LeadersReporting on PeacekeepingOperations in the Former YugoslavRepublic of MacedoniaJanuary 8, 1994

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)Six months ago I provided you with my

initial report on the deployment of a U.S.peacekeeping contingent as part of theUnited Nations Protection Force(UNPROFOR) in the former Yugoslav Re-public of Macedonia. I am now providing thisfollowup report, consistent with the WarPowers Resolution, to ensure that the Con-gress is kept informed about this importantU.S. contribution in support of multilateralefforts in the region.

As a significant part of U.N. efforts to pre-vent the Balkan conflict from spreading andto contribute to stability in the region, theU.N. Security Council adopted Resolution795 (1992) authorizing the presence ofUNPROFOR for peacekeeping purposes inMacedonia. In early 1993, a Nordic battalionwas deployed to Macedonia with the missionof monitoring and reporting developmentsalong the northern border that could signifya threat to the territory of Macedonia. Con-sistent with U.N. Security Council Resolu-tion 842 (1993), the United States aug-mented the UNPROFOR Macedonia peace-keeping force with a combat-equipped U.S.Army contingent. The U.N. Security Councilextended the UNPROFOR mandate in Res-olution 871 (1993). Our U.S. Armed Forcespersonnel have served with distinction inMacedonia continuously since their arrival inearly July 1993.

The peacekeeping operations in Macedo-nia have been conducted safely and effec-tively, and I am certain that you share mypride in and appreciation for the superb ef-forts of the Americans who are contributingso much to the UNPROFOR Macedoniamission. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Army per-

sonnel received high praise from the U.N.Commander, Danish Brigadier GeneralThomsen, for their outstanding professional-ism and capabilities, which enabled themquickly to assume an integral role in theforce. Upon receiving orientation and train-ing on the mission at UNPROFOR head-quarters in Skopje, the U.S. unit began con-ducting observation and monitoring oper-ations along the northeastern section of theMacedonian border with Serbia. The U.S.contribution has thus enhancedUNPROFOR’s coverage and effectiveness inpreventing a spillover of the conflict, and hasunderscored the U.S. commitment to theachievement of important multilateral goalsin the region.

As always, the safety of U.S. personnel isof paramount concern. U.S. forces assignedto UNPROFOR Macedonia have encoun-tered no hostilities, and there have been noU.S. casualties since the deployment began.The mission has the support of the govern-ment and the local population. Our forceswill remain fully prepared not only to fulfilltheir peacekeeping mission but to defendthemselves if necessary.

On December 14, 1993, elements of theU.S. Army Berlin Brigade’s reinforced com-pany team (RCT) assigned to UNPROFORMacedonia began redeploying to Germany aspart of the normal rotation of U.S. forces.Lead elements of a similarly equipped andsized RCT began arriving in Macedonia onDecember 27, 1993. The approximately 300-person replacement unit—Task Force 1–6,from 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment,3d Infantry Division (Mechanized), Vilseck,Germany—assumed the mission on January6, 1994.

The U.S. contribution to the UNPROFORMacedonia peacekeeping mission is but onepart of a much larger, continuing commit-ment towards resolution of the extremely dif-ficult situation in the former Yugoslavia. I amnot able to indicate at this time how longour deployment to Macedonia will be nec-essary. I have continued the deployment ofU.S. Armed Forces for these purposes in ac-cordance with section 7 of the United Na-tions Participation Act and pursuant to myconstitutional authority as Commander inChief and Chief Executive.



I am grateful for the continuing supportof the Congress for U.S. efforts, includingthe deployment of U.S. Armed Forces toMacedonia, towards peace and stability in theformer Yugoslavia. I remain committed toconsulting closely with the Congress on ourforeign policy, and I look forward to contin-ued cooperation as we move forward towardattainment of our goals in the region.

Sincerely,

William J. Clinton

NOTE: Identical letters were sent to Thomas S.Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives,and Robert C. Byrd, President pro tempore ofthe Senate. This letter was released by the Officeof the Press Secretary on January 10.

Remarks to the North AtlanticCouncil in BrusselsJanuary 10, 1994

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary Gen-eral, and distinguished leaders. I am deeplyhonored to represent my Nation at the NorthAtlantic Council this morning, as eight pre-vious Presidents have done before me. Eachof us came here for the same compelling rea-son: The security of the North Atlantic regionis vital to the security of the United States.The founders of this alliance created thegreatest military alliance in history. It was abold undertaking. I think all of us know thatwe have come together this week becausehistory calls upon us to be equally bold onceagain in the aftermath of the cold war. Nowwe no longer fear attack from a commonenemy. But if our common adversary hasvanished, we know our common dangershave not.

With the cold war over, we must confrontthe destabilizing consequences of theunfreezing of history which the end of thecold war has wrought. The threat to us nowis not of advancing armies so much as ofcreeping instability. The best strategy againstthis threat is to integrate the former Com-munist states into our fabric of liberal democ-racy, economic prosperity, and military co-operation. For our security in this generationwill be shaped by whether reforms in thesenations succeed in the face of their own very

significant economic frustration, ethnic ten-sions, and intolerant nationalism.

The size of the reactionary vote in Russia’srecent election reminds us again of thestrength of democracy’s opponents. The on-going slaughter in Bosnia tallies the pricewhen those opponents prevail. If we don’tmeet our new challenge, then most as-suredly, we will once again, someday downthe road, face our old challenges again. Ifdemocracy in the East fails, then violenceand disruption from the East will once againharm us and other democracies.

I believe our generation’s stewardship ofthis grand alliance, therefore, will most criti-cally be judged by whether we succeed inintegrating the nations to our east within thecompass of Western security and Westernvalues. For we’ve been granted an oppor-tunity without precedent: We really have thechance to recast European security on his-toric new principles: the pursuit of economicand political freedom. And I would argue toyou that we must work hard to succeed now,for this opportunity may not come to usagain.

In effect, the world wonders now whetherwe have the foresight and the courage ourpredecessors had to act on our long-term in-terests. I’m confident that the steel in thisalliance has not rusted. Our nations haveproved that by joining together in the com-mon effort in the Gulf war. We proved itanew this past year by working together, after7 long years of effort, in a spirit of com-promise and harmony to reach a new GATTagreement. And now we must do it onceagain.

To seize the great opportunity before usI have proposed that we forge what we haveall decided to call the Partnership For Peace,opened to all the former Communist statesof the Warsaw Pact, along with other non-NATO states. The membership of the Part-nership will plan and train and exercise to-gether and work together on missions ofcommon concern. They should be invited towork directly with NATO both here and inthe coordination cell in Mons.

The Partnership will prepare the NATOalliance to undertake new tasks that the timesimpose upon us. The Combined Joint TaskForce Headquarters we are creating will let



us act both effectively and with dispatch inhelping to make and keep the peace and inhelping to head off some of the terrible prob-lems we are now trying to solve today. Wemust also ready this alliance to meet newthreats, notably from weapons of mass de-struction and the means of delivering them.

Building on NATO’s creation of the NorthAtlantic Cooperation Council 2 years ago, thePartnership For Peace sets in motion a proc-ess that leads to the enlargement of NATO.We began this alliance with 12 members.Today there are 16, and each one hasstrengthened the alliance. Indeed, our treatyalways looked to the addition of new mem-bers who shared the alliance’s purposes andwho could enlarge its orbit of democratic se-curity. Thus, in leading us toward the addi-tion of these Eastern states, the PartnershipFor Peace does not change NATO’s originalvision, it realizes that vision.

So let us say here to the people in Europe’seast, we share with you a common destiny,and we are committed to your success. Thedemocratic community has grown, and nowit is time to begin welcoming these new-comers to our neighborhood.

As President Mitterrand said so elo-quently, some of the newcomers want to bemembers of NATO right away, and somehave expressed reservations about this con-cept of the Partnership For Peace. Somehave asked me in my own country, ‘‘Well,is this just the best you can do? Is this sortof splitting the difference between doingnothing and full membership at least for theVisegrad states?’’ And to that, let me answerat least for my part an emphatic no, for manyof the same reasons President Mitterrand hasalready outlined.

Why should we now draw a new linethrough Europe just a little further east?Why should we now do something whichcould foreclose the best possible future forEurope? The best possible future would bea democratic Russia committed to the secu-rity of all of its European neighbors. The bestpossible future would be a democraticUkraine, a democratic government in everyone of the newly independent states of theformer Soviet Union, all committed to mar-ket cooperation, to common security, and to

democratic ideals. We should not foreclosethat possibility.

The Partnership For Peace, I would argue,gives us the best of both worlds. It enablesus to prepare and to work toward the en-largement of NATO when other countriesare capable of fulfilling their NATO respon-sibilities. It enables us to do it in a way thatgives us the time to reach out to Russia andto these other nations of the former SovietUnion, which have been almost ignoredthrough this entire debate by people aroundthe world, in a way that leaves open the possi-bility of a future for Europe that totallybreaks from the destructive past we haveknown.

So I say to you, I do not view this as somesort of half-hearted compromise. In sub-stance, this is a good idea. It is the right thingto do at this moment in history. It leavesopen the best possible future for Europe, andleaves us the means to settle for a future thatis not the best but is much better than thepast. And I would argue that is the coursethat we all ought to pursue.

I think we have to be clear, in doing it,about certain assumptions and con-sequences. First, if we move forward in thismanner, we must reaffirm the bonds of ourown alliance. America pledges its efforts inthat common purpose. I pledge to maintainroughly 100,000 troops in Europe, consistentwith the expressed wishes of our allies. Thepeople of Europe can count on America tomaintain this commitment.

Second, we have to recognize that this newsecurity challenge requires a range of re-sponses different from the ones of the past.That is why our administration has brokenwith previous American administrations ingoing beyond what others have done to sup-port European efforts to advance their ownsecurity and interests. All of you have re-ceived our support in moving in ways beyondNATO. We supported the Maastricht Treaty.We support the commitment of the Euro-pean Union to a common foreign and secu-rity policy. We support your efforts to refur-bish the Western European Union so thatit will assume a more vigorous role in keepingEurope secure. Consistent with that goal, wehave proposed making NATO assets availableto WEU operations in which NATO itself is



not involved. While NATO must remain thelinchpin of our security, all these efforts willshow our people and our legislatures a re-newed purpose in European institutions anda better balance of responsibilities within thetransatlantic community.

Finally, in developing the Partnership ForPeace, each of us must willingly assume theburdens to make that succeed. This must notbe a gesture. It is a forum. It is not just aforum. This Partnership For Peace is also amilitary and security initiative, consistentwith what NATO was established to achieve.There must be a somber appreciation thatexpanding our membership will mean ex-tending commitments that must be sup-ported by military strategies and postures.Adding new members entails not only harddecisions but hard resources. Today those re-sources are not great, but nonetheless, as theSecretary General told me in the meetingthis morning, they must be forthcoming inorder for this to be taken seriously by ourallies and our friends who will immediatelysubscribe to the Partnership.

Let me also—in response to somethingthat President Mitterrand said and that is onall of our minds, the problem in Bosnia—say that when we talk about making hard de-cisions, we must be prepared to make them.And tonight I have been asked to talk a littlebit about the work I have been doing withRussia and what I believe we all should bedoing to support democracy and economicreform there. But I’d like to make two pointsabout Bosnia.

First, I want to reaffirm that the UnitedStates remains ready to help NATO imple-ment a viable settlement in Bosnia volun-tarily reached by the parties. We would, ofcourse, have to seek the support of our Con-gress in this, but let me say I think we canget it if such an operation would clearly beunder NATO command, that the means ofcarrying out the mission be equivalent to itspurposes, and that these purposes be clearin scope and in time.

Second, I welcome the reassertion by thealliance in this declaration of our warningagainst the strangulation of Sarajevo and thesafe areas. But if we are going to reassertthis warning it cannot be seen as mere rhet-oric. Those who attack Sarajevo must under-

stand that we are serious. If we leave thesentence in the declaration we have to meanit.

Those of us gathered here must under-stand that, therefore, if the situation does notimprove, the alliance must be prepared toact. What is at stake is not just the safetyof the people in Sarajevo and any possibilityof bringing this terrible conflict to an endbut the credibility of the alliance itself. Andthat, make no mistake about it, will havegreat ramifications in the future in other con-texts.

Therefore, in voting for this language, Iexpect the North Atlantic Council to take ac-tion when necessary. And I think if anyonehere does not agree with that, you shouldn’tvote for language. I think it is the appropriatelanguage, but we have to be clear when weput something like this in the declaration.

Let me say finally that I ran across thefollowing quotation by a distinguished andnow deceased American political writer, Wal-ter Lippmann. Three days after the NorthAtlantic Treaty was signed Lippmann wrotethis, prophetically, ‘‘The pact will be remem-bered long after the conditions that have pro-voked it are no longer the main business ofmankind. For the treaty recognizes and pro-claims a community of interest which ismuch older than the conflict with the SovietUnion and, come what may, will survive it.’’

Well, this meeting will prove him right.The Soviet Union is gone, but our commu-nity of interest endures. And now it is upto us to build a new security for a new futurefor the Atlantic people in the 21st century.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

NOTE: The President spoke at approximately10:15 a.m. at NATO Headquarters. A tape wasnot available for verification of the content ofthese remarks.

The President’s News Conference inBrusselsJanuary 10, 1994

Initiatives in EuropeThe President. Good evening. Ladies and

gentlemen, I came to Europe to helpstrengthen European integration, to createa new security for the United States and its



Atlantic partners, based on the idea that wehad a real chance to integrate rather thanto divide Europe, both East and West, anintegration based on shared democracies,market economies, and defense cooperation.

Today we have taken two giant steps to-ward greater security for the United States,for Europe and the world. First, this after-noon I joined our NATO allies in signing thedocuments that create the Partnership ForPeace. The United States proposed this Part-nership to lay the foundation for intensivecooperation among the armed forces of ourNATO members, all former Warsaw Pactstates, and other non-NATO European stateswho wish to join the Partnership. By provid-ing for the practical integration and coopera-tion of these diverse military forces, the Part-nership For Peace will lead to the enlarge-ment of NATO membership and will supportour efforts to integrate Europe.

I’m also pleased to announce that on Fri-day the United States will sign with Ukraineand Russia an agreement which commitsUkraine to eliminate nuclear weapons fromits territory. These include 176 interconti-nental ballistic missiles and some 1,500 war-heads targeted at the United States. This isa hopeful and historic breakthrough that en-hances the security of all three parties andevery other nation as well.

When I came into office, I said that oneof my highest priorities was combating theproliferation of nuclear weapons and otherweapons of mass destruction. The issue ofnuclear weapons in the former Soviet Unionwas the most important nonproliferationchallenge facing the world. With the SovietUnion dissolved, four countries were leftwith nuclear weapons: Russia, Ukraine,Kazakhstan, and Belarus. I have sought toensure that the breakup of the Soviet Uniondoes not result in the birth of new nuclearstates which could raise the chances for nu-clear accident, nuclear terrorism, or nuclearproliferation.

In just one year, after an intensive diplo-matic effort by the United States, bothKazakhstan and Belarus agreed to accede tothe Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and tojoin the ranks of nonnuclear nations. Muchcredit for these actions goes to PresidentNazarbayev of Kazakhstan, whom I will be

welcoming to Washington in February, andChairman Shushkevich of Belarus, whom Iwill meet in Minsk later this week, as wellas to the people and Parliaments of thosetwo countries.

My administration has been working withthe Governments of Ukraine and Russia toaddress Ukraine’s security concerns so thatit could follow suit. The trilateral accord wewill sign will lead to the complete removalof nuclear weapons from Ukraine.

I want to congratulate both PresidentYeltsin and President Kravchuk of Ukrainefor their statesmanship in negotiating this ac-cord with us. I want to commend PresidentKravchuk and to thank him for his leader-ship. I look forward to consulting with himpersonally during the brief stop at BorispolAirport in Kiev on Wednesday evening.President Kravchuk will later join PresidentYeltsin and me in Moscow on Friday to final-ize the agreement in a trilateral meeting.

This agreement opens a new era in ourrelationship with Ukraine, an importantcountry at the center of Europe, a country,I might add, which was mentioned frequentlyduring our meetings today. We expect to ex-pand our cooperation with Ukraine, espe-cially in the economic area. We look forwardto Ukraine’s playing an important role in ef-forts to move toward the integration of abroader Europe.

Today I spent the day at NATO Head-quarters, one of the pillars of our securityin the post-World War II era. Throughoutthat era, our security was defined by the sta-bility of Europe’s division. But with the twobreakthroughs for peace announced today,we can begin to imagine as well as to definea new security for the post-cold-war erafounded not on Europe’s division but insteadon its integration. Throughout the 20th cen-tury, now drawing to a close, Europe hasseen far too much bloodshed based on thesedivisions. But with strong democracies,strong market economies, strong bonds ofdefense cooperation, and this strong step tocombat nuclear weapons proliferation, wecan make the next century far more securefor all of our people by building a unitedEurope.

Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News]?



RussiaQ. Mr. President, there are some who

have suggested that even this PartnershipFor Peace is going to be too much of an exac-erbation to the nationalist tendencies in Rus-sia. And today Mr. Zhirinovsky said that ifNATO troops are ever stationed near theborders of Russia, it’s a mistake, it’s finishedfor NATO and/or other forces who have sup-ported this organization, it’s the beginningof a third world war if the NATO or otherforces are along those borders. How do yourespond to that and to the concerns thatthere are people in Russia who will not eventake this step kindly?

The President. My response to that is thathis, thank goodness, is not the governingvoice in Russia and that we have offered tothe Russians, to all the states of the formerSoviet Union, and to all the Eastern Euro-pean countries which were in the WarsawPact the opportunity to participate in thisPartnership For Peace.

The reason I wanted the Partnership ForPeace rather than nothing, which perhapsMr. Zhirinovsky would have preferred, or im-mediate membership, which others wouldhave preferred, is that I thought it gave usthe best chance, first, to develop substantivemilitary and defense cooperation for thesecountries; second, to give nations who wishto be members, full members, of NATO thechance to develop the capacity to assumetheir responsibilities; and third, to give us thechance, most importantly of all, to create aEurope that really is integrated, that is basedon unity and not some dividing line that atleast is further east than the cold war dividingline was.

So I simply—I disagree with the positionthat he’s taken, but that is not the positionthat governs Russia, thank goodness.

Q. Do you think, just to follow, that Russiawould be joining the Partnership For Peace?

The President. They’re certainly welcometo do so. We’ve issued——

Q. Could that happen in the next fewdays?

The President. I think that all the nationsto whom the welcome mat has been put outmay want to take some—some may want totake more time than others to think aboutit. But we certainly expect to have some sort

of continuing defense cooperation with Rus-sia, and they are certainly welcome to be apart of this.

Go ahead, Rita [Rita Braver, CBS News]?

BosniaQ. On the subject of Bosnia, earlier today

you said that NATO would be reasserting itswarning against the strangulation of Sarajevo.You said if we’re going to reassert this warn-ing, 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 UnitedNations has asked it to do. With our allies,we have conducted the longest airlift in his-tory to bring supplies to the people of Bosnia.We have supported working with our allies’operations in the Adriatic and other oper-ations designed to support the embargo. Wehave supported the no-fly zone. We havedone everything the United Nations hasasked us to do.

What we are going to discuss tonight ingreater detail—let me say, I don’t want tosay any—I’ll be glad to talk about my com-ment today, but I do want to tell you we’regoing to have more discussions about this to-night at dinner.

The point I was trying to make today thatSecretary General Woerner also wanted tomake was that if we were going to restate,in effect, the warning we adopted in Augustthat if Sarajevo were subject to undue andcontinued shelling in a way that threatenedit significantly—and there was more shellingtoday—that we would consider having airstrikes, that we had to be prepared to do that.And I can tell you that on behalf of theUnited States that if the facts warrant that,we would certainly ask the North AtlanticCouncil to take it up. That is, we would askall of our allies and NATO to consider anappropriate response. Now, there’s still theU.N. to deal with and other things, but webelieve we should go forward.

The question of what we can do to geta peace in Bosnia, however, I want to cautionyou, goes far beyond that. That is, it dependsupon the willingness of all the parties toagree to a reasonable settlement, and whatmay be appropriate in dealing with relieving



the siege of Sarajevo may or may not actuallyhasten an end to the war. So we’ll be discuss-ing that in greater detail.

Helen [Helen Thomas, United PressInternational]?

Q. You’re not ready for the air strikes yet,sir?

The President. Well, let me say, what Iwant to do at this meeting—this meeting isnot about air strikes. This meeting is aboutwhether we’re going to reaffirm our position.I can just tell you that the United Stateswould be prepared to ask the North AtlanticCouncil to consider that if the siege of Sara-jevo continues and the facts warrant it.

Partnership For PeaceQ. You made one of the toughest state-

ments you ever have made for an inter-national group. What was the response of theallies? I mean, how did they take it? Did theysay they would go along?

The President. Well, we’re going to talkabout it tonight. Some did; some have notcommented yet. But let me say today themost important thing and the thing we talkedabout today was our agreement on the strat-egy for reaching out to the East. Over thelong run, that will have a greater significance,in my judgment, for the future of Europethan whatever is or is not done with the trag-edy in Bosnia at this late date. So we spentmost of our time today fleshing out, dealingwith, working through this whole concept ofthe Partnership For Peace. And I was, frank-ly, very gratified that so many of the leadersof the other countries believe that it is theright way to go and understand it’s not justa compromise but it’s a vibrant concept thatgives us a chance to build the best possiblefuture for Europe. That to me was the bestthing we were doing.

Terry [Terence Hunt, Associated Press]?

UkraineQ. Mr. President, what assurances do you

have from President Kravchuk that he cansell this arms deal to his Parliament thistime? There have been difficulties in thepast. And what are the costs, sir?

The President. Well, let me say, first ofall, that—let me deal with the cost first. Asyou all know—and then I’ll get to the other

point—you all know how the Nunn-Lugarfunds work. The only cost to the UnitedStates taxpayers in this agreement will be thecontinuation of the Nunn-Lugar program,that is, the funds that we provide to helppeople dismantle their nuclear weapons.What does Ukraine get out of this? They getsecurity assurances that go with this sort ofagreement. That is, once you become a non-nuclear state, the states that have nuclearweapons promise not to use them against youever, under any circumstances. They get var-ious kinds of technical assistance to carry outthis. And they get paid for their highly en-riched uranium. They are compensated. Thatis a commercial transaction involving no costto the American taxpayer. So there is no cost.

In terms of the assurances, let me say thatPresident Kravchuk has continued to workon—progress on previous agreements he hasmade. He has shown, I think, great couragein the last few months in working throughthis very difficult and complex set of negotia-tions with us that has involved me, the VicePresident, the State Department, and every-body else that’s appropriate on our side. Andwe have no reason to doubt the ability ofthe President to keep the commitment thathe is prepared to make.

Middle East Peace Process

Q. Mr. President, now that you have a dealwith Ukraine, what can we anticipate Sundaywhen you meet with Syrian President Assad?Will there be some sort of dramatic an-nouncement there, as well?

The President. I’ve already got—youknow, we’ve already bunched too many sto-ries in one day, haven’t we? [Laughter] I real-ly can’t—I can’t say any more at this pointthan you already know about that. We’regoing to try to keep the Middle East peaceprocess going.


NOTE: The President’s 39th news conferencebegan at 6:42 p.m. at the Conrad Hotel. In hisremarks, he referred to Vladimir Zhirinovsky,leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in Russia.



Letter Accepting Morton H.Halperin’s Withdrawal as a NomineeTo Be an Assistant Secretary ofDefenseJanuary 10, 1994

Dear Mort:I have received your letter asking that I

not resubmit your nomination to be AssistantSecretary of Defense for Democracy andPeacekeeping. With deep appreciation foryour willingness to serve our country andwith real regret, I accept your request.

Yours is a superb record of service and ac-complishment dating back over 30 years.Your qualifications speak for themselves, andI am pleased to hear that your willingnessto serve my Administration continuesunabated.

At the same time, I appreciate your under-standing of the circumstances involved in anew Secretary of Defense coming on boardand the tradition of Cabinet officers havingthe freedom to select subordinates.

I am confident that this Administrationwill continue to benefit from your talent andcounsel and hope that you will be availablefor other suitable assignments.

Sincerely,Bill Clinton

NOTE: The Office of the Press Secretary alsomade available Mr. Halperin’s letter requestingthat his nomination to be Assistant Secretary ofDefense for Democracy and Peacekeeping bewithdrawn.

Remarks to the American BusinessCommunity in BrusselsJanuary 11, 1994

Thank you very much. Thank you, Jim, andgood morning ladies and gentlemen. I gothere in time to hear the last several momentsof the Secretary of State’s remarks and allthat stuff where he was bragging on me, andit reminded me of Clinton’s fourth law ofpolitics, which is whenever possible, be pre-ceded on the platform by someone you’veappointed to an important position. [Laugh-ter]

Nonetheless, we did have a good day yes-terday—the United States did—and I think

the Atlantic alliance did. I came here to Eu-rope hoping that together we might beginto realize the full promise of the end of thecold war, recognizing clearly that this is a dif-ficult economic time in Europe, there arestill profound difficulties in the UnitedStates, and that is having an impact on thepolitics of Europe and of the United Statesand of what we might do.

Nonetheless, it seemed to me that the timehad come to try to define, here on the vergeof the 21st century, what the elements of anew security in Europe and in the UnitedStates should be in the aftermath of the coldwar, one premised not on the division of Eu-rope but on the possibility of its integration,its political integration around democracies,its economic integration around market eco-nomics, and its defense integration aroundmutual defense cooperation.

Yesterday when the NATO alliance adopt-ed the concept of the Partnership For Peace,we did what I believe history will record asa very important thing. We opened up thepossibility of expanded NATO membershipto nations to our East, not only all the formerWarsaw Pact countries but also other non-NATO members in Europe, all who wish tobegin to work on joint planning and oper-ations with us and to work toward being ableto assume the full responsibilities of mem-bership. But we did it in a way by openingup the possibility to everyone and making nodecisions now. We did it in a way that didnot have the United States and NATO pre-maturely drawing another line in Europe todivide it in a different way but instead gaveus a chance to work for the best possible fu-ture for Europe one that includes not onlythe countries of Eastern Europe but alsocountries that were part of the former SovietUnion and, indeed, Russia itself. So we havemade, I think, a very good beginning in theright way.

We also are going to have today the firstsummit with the European Union after theratification of the Maastricht Treaty to beginto talk about what we can do together to re-build the rate of economic growth and oppor-tunity here and throughout the world.

Our firms, our American firms, are deeplywoven 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 in-vested here, employing nearly 3 millionWestern Europeans alone. And back home,trade with Europe generated $120 billionworth of exports and about 21⁄2 million jobsin 1993. We all know—you know better thanI—that this continent favors—excuse me—faces high unemployment and very sluggishgrowth rates. We also see that in Japan. Andeven though in our country the unemploy-ment rate is coming down, we see in everyadvanced economy great difficulty today increating jobs and generating higher incomeseven when people are working harder andworking smarter.

The renewal of the Atlantic economies iscritical to the future of America and, I wouldargue, critical to the future of our alliance.For in a democracy, as we have seen timeand time again in votes at home, in votesin Europe, and in votes in Russia, when peo-ple feel that they are anchored and stableand secure, when they believe they will berewarded for their work, when they believethat the future will be better than the past,they vote in a certain way. When they arein economic and emotional free fall, whenthey feel disoriented, when they don’t knowwhether the future will be better than thepast, they often vote in another way and inways that, indeed, make their futures moredifficult and life for all peoples more difficult.

When I became President, it seemed tome that my first order of business ought tobe to put our own economic house in order.And so we worked hard to reverse the ex-ploding deficits of the last 12 years, to beginto invest in our own people, to try to do itin a way that would keep interest rates lowand inflation low and turn the tide of privateinvestment in the United States. We havebegun to do that. Last year more new jobscame into our economy than in the previous4 years. Millions of Americans refinancedtheir homes and businesses. Consumer con-fidence at the end of the year rose to its high-est level in many years, and people beganto believe that they could pay their debts andcontrol their lives. In November, delin-quencies on home mortgage payments inAmerica reached a 19-year low. So we are

beginning to believe that we have some dis-cipline, some control of our own destiny.

We also had to make a tough decision inAmerica last year as a people, and that iswhether we could grow internally or whetherwe could continue to grow by reaching outto compete and win in a global economy andhelping our friends and neighbors to grow.That debate was, I suppose, captured moreclearly for the people of our Nation and thepeople of the world in the congressional de-bate over NAFTA than in any other thing.

But the issue was bigger and, in someways, simpler than that. It seems to me clear-ly that there is no way in a global economyfor a wealthy country to grow wealthier, togenerate more jobs, and to raise incomes un-less there are more customers for its goodsand services and customers beyond its ownnational borders, and that the United Statescan ill afford to be in the vanguard of thoserunning away from that idea and, instead,should be in the vanguard of those promotingit. That’s really what the NAFTA vote wasall about.

To be sure, those who voted againstNAFTA were responding to very legitimatepressures and very real fears. While workersall over the world believe now that they aretoo fungible, relatively unimportant to peoplewho control their jobs and their lives, andthat in the flash of an eye, their jobs andtheir livelihoods could be taken away bysomeone who could move money, informa-tion across the globe in a millisecond and,indeed, who could move management andtechnology across the globe in a shortamount of time.

And so it is going to be a continuing chal-lenge for us to keep Americans outward look-ing, committed to open trade and more openmarkets and still, at the same time, to makeour working people more secure in the sensenot that they will be able to hold the jobthey have, because they won’t—the averageAmerican will now change jobs seven or eighttimes in a lifetime—but they must know thatthey are employable, that they will have theirbasic health care needs and the needs of theirfamilies taken care of, and that they will havea chance to make the changes that will domi-nate at least the foreseeable decades of the21st century, changes that are friendly, not



hostile, to them. And that is our challengeas we begin the next session of Congress in1994.

But because of the NAFTA agreement andbecause of the meeting that we had in Wash-ington State with the leaders of the Asian-Pacific region, there was a new energy givento the prospect of successfully concluding theGATT round. And after 7 years of frustrationand progress, we were able to do that. I wasnot fully satisfied with the round. It was obvi-ously not perfect from any nation’s point ofview, and there are clearly many things thatstill have to be done. But there is no doubtin my mind that it was in the interest of theUnited States to conclude the GATT roundsuccessfully, that it will lead to the creationof hundreds of thousands of jobs in our Na-tion alone and millions worldwide by the endof the decade. [Applause]

One person believed that. [Laughter]And I think now we have to ask ourselves

where we go beyond GATT. There are sev-eral issues, of course, that we need to takeup with our European friends and with oth-ers around the globe. And we will take themup.

We also have to deal with the structuralchallenges facing our economies, the econo-mies of the advanced nations. In March we’regoing to have a jobs conference in the UnitedStates. We have a lot to learn from some Eu-ropean countries about training and retrain-ing of the work force. They have somethingto learn, perhaps, from us in flexibility of thework force and mobility of the work forceand the creation of an entrepreneurial envi-ronment that will enable unemployment tobe driven down to lower levels. But it is clearthat together, along with our friends in Japan,we all have to learn something about howto make technological and other changes thatare going on, lead not only to higher produc-tivity but the ability of working people to berewarded for that productivity and the abilityof nations to create more employment withintheir national borders.

Beyond that, let me emphasize that whenI leave here today after the European Unionsummit, I am going on to Prague to meetwith the leaders of the Visegrad countries.And it seems to me that it is folly to believethat we can integrate Europe through NATO

or just on the basis of affinity for democ-racies, unless we are also committed to theeconomic integration of all of Europe andto reaching out to our east.

I will be urging the leaders of the Euro-pean Union today to work with the UnitedStates to further reduce trade barriers andincrease trade and investment to our east.Today I say to all of you, I hope that youare representing companies that as a resultof the activities taking place in these few dayswill take another and harder look about yourprospects in central and Eastern Europe andbeyond, because without private investment,we cannot hope to have private economic de-velopment.

Oh, I know we have a lot to do in Russia.I know we have a lot to do in the other statesof the former Soviet Union and still somework to do in Eastern Europe. And we aredoing that. I am going on to Russia after Ileave Prague. But in the end, private invest-ment and the development of successful pri-vate sectors will determine the future of Eu-ropean integration economically. And with-out it, I don’t believe we can hope to sustainthe military and political ties that we arebuilding up.

So I ask you to do that. The United StatesGovernment has worked hard to eliminateoutdated export controls and to supportAmerican companies in Europe. We hopethat in turn you will feel emboldened to makemore investments further east and to do whatyou can to improve our prospects to generatehigher levels of trade and investment acrossnational borders in ways that benefit peopleeverywhere. For in the end, governments donot create wealth, people like you do.

Soon, your efforts will be sending goodsback and forth through the channel. Yourcapital already is building bonds of com-merce and culture across the Atlantic. Youare in many ways the pioneers of the newEurope we are trying to ensure. Just by in-stinct, you will want the kind of integrationthat we have to work for around the politicalconference tables. Your determination toenter new markets is a hallmark of the Amer-ican spirit and can help make the 21st cen-tury an American century as well.

I hope you will do that. I assure you thatwe will work hard to do our part.




NOTE: The President spoke at 8:06 a.m. at theConrad Hotel. In his remarks, he referred to JimProuty, president of the American Chamber ofCommerce. A tape was not available for verifica-tion of the content of these remarks.

The President’s News Conference inBrusselsJanuary 11, 1994

The President. Good morning. As all ofyou know, this historic summit meeting ofthe North Atlantic Council was my firstNATO meeting. I’m glad we were able toaccomplish as much as we did here. I’m con-vinced that history will record this meetingas a major step in building a new securityfor the transatlantic community.

I’m very pleased that our NATO allies ap-proved our proposal for the Partnership ForPeace. I believe it will help our alliance tomeet Europe’s new challenges, and I’mpleased by the response the Partnership hasalready generated from nations who havecontacted us and said they are interested inbeing a part of it.

Ultimately, the Partnership will lead to theenlargement of NATO and help us to builda security based not on Europe’s divisionsbut on the potential of its integration. I lookforward to working with NATO leaders inthe coming months to prepare for exerciseswith the states that join the Partnership andto work on the next steps towards NATO’senlargement.

Today NATO also took dramatic steps toprepare for its new post-cold-war missionsby calling for the creation of combined jointtask forces. These task forces will makeNATO’s military structures more flexible andwill prepare the alliance for nontraditionalmissions. They will also help us to put thePartnership For Peace into action by servingas the vehicle for Eastern militaries to oper-ate with NATO forces, something that Gen-eral Joulwan will begin to prepare for imme-diately.

I’m pleased that during this summit NATObegan to address the threat posed by the pro-liferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The agreement that the United States willsign with Ukraine and Russia this Friday willalso make a major contribution to reducingthat threat. With the end of the cold war weno longer face the threat of confrontation be-tween nuclear powers, but we do face con-tinuing conflicts, including the reality of themurderous conflict in Bosnia. At this meetingwe discussed candidly and at some lengthNATO’s policy towards Bosnia. We re-affirmed our commitment to respond to thestrangulation of Sarajevo and to help to im-plement an enforceable peace agreement ifone is reached by all the parties.

I want to discuss this with some precision,if I might. The United States last eveningin our discussions took a very strong positionthat we ought to reaffirm our air warning,that is, the possibility of the use of air power,to relieve the strangulation or in retaliationfor the strangulation of Sarajevo, but that thelanguage ought to be left in our policy if,and only if, we were prepared to followthrough. And I made it clear that for ourpart, we were prepared to follow through,and therefore, we supported leaving the lan-guage in. But along with the Secretary Gen-eral, I urged our allies not to leave it in unlesswe were prepared to follow through, on thetheory that we should not say things that wedo not intend to do.

In addition to that, I supported the UnitedKingdom and France and their call for plansto ensure that we can complete the bloc rota-tion of troops to Srebrenica, so that that cantake place, the exchange of the Canadiansfor the Dutch forces, and to explore howTuzla airstrip might be opened. Now, eitherof these activities could require the use ofNATO, including United States air power.We also had a continuing commitment to andthe opportunity to use air power to protectthe United Nations troops there if that isneeded for close air support.

Now, these are the actions which havebeen taken. In other words, we have re-affirmed our position of last August, whichis an important thing to have done in lightof the recent shelling of Sarajevo. We haveinstructed our military command to come upwith plans to see what can be done to ensurethe rotation of the troops in Srebrenica andthe opening of the Tuzla airstrip. And those



plans, as has been said by the Secretary Gen-eral, can include the use of air power.

Let me just mention one or two otherthings. While the WEU and other Europeaninternational bodies would play an importantrole in meeting the security challenges in Eu-rope in the coming years, I still believe thatNATO remains the linchpin of our mutualsecurity. And so, as we finish this summit,I want to say a special word of thanks to Sec-retary General Woerner for his remarkableleadership. I have had the opportunity nowto meet and work with many leaders aroundthe world. He is a genuine statesman. Heunderstands what is at stake here. He hasa vision of the future, and he leads this alli-ance with great vision and discipline. And Ithank him for that.

I also want to thank the other NATO lead-ers for their hospitality, and especially thePrime Minister of Belgium and the peopleof Belgium and Brussels for their hospitalityto us. I believe this was a very successfulmeeting. They had accomplished everythingthat I hoped, and I think as the years go bywe will be glad that it occurred.

BosniaQ. Could you please tell us whether or

not there was unanimous belief by the NATOallies that these air strikes could go forward,or is there something that still needs to bedone before you can actually commit tomovement?

The President. There was unanimous—and I want to be very clear on this—therewas unanimous support for the policy as itis written. Everybody voted for it. In orderto trigger the air strikes, what must happen?I want to emphasize two things. One is,whether they occur or not depends upon thebehavior of the Bosnian Serbs from this mo-ment forward. Secondly, based on that be-havior, our military personnel will take thisissue back to the NAC in our absence, andwe will deal with it. And of course, we willconsult with the U.N. if it is something thatinvolves the use of air power other than togive support to the U.N. forces as alreadyapproved.

So that is what I think—at that point, we’lldeal with the facts. Some of us, I think it’sclear, were stronger than others about the

appropriateness of it under the cir-cumstances that we now know about or couldimagine. But I think the accurate thing isthere was unanimous support for the policy,which means everybody who voted for it rec-ognized that air power might well be used.What happens now depends upon the behav-ior of the combatants, principally the BosnianSerbs, and what the military commanderscome back and recommend.

The Visegrad StatesQ. 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 at least someof the Visegrad leaders that they are in facton a fast track toward membership inNATO?

The President. I think I’ll be in a positionto tell them, number one, the purpose of thePartnership For Peace is to open the possibil-ity of NATO’s enlargement as well as to giveall the former Warsaw Pact countries andother non-NATO nations in Europe thechance to cooperate with us militarily, thatNATO is an alliance with mutual responsibil-ities as well as the security guarantee. Andwe are clearly serious about pursuing this,including ultimate membership, as evi-denced by the fact that the Secretary Generalsaid in his closing remarks—I don’t knowwhat he said here in the press conferencebecause I didn’t hear it—he said in his clos-ing remarks that General Joulwan would im-mediately contact the military leaders ofthese countries, including the Visegrad coun-tries, to talk about how we could begin plan-ning for mutual operations in training andexercise.

So I think that they will clearly understandthat this is a very serious proposal that opensthe possibility of membership, not one thatlimits it.

BosniaQ. Mr. President, the Secretary General

said in his remarks that the instrument isthere regarding Bosnia and other threats, buthe’s not sure that the will is there. Now, youjust mentioned unanimity. It was a unani-mous vote, as we understand it, last Augustfor the same policy, yet many attacks havetaken place in Sarajevo and have been unan-



swered by NATO. So first, do you think thatthere is a greater will now; do you sense agreater determination despite the misgivingsof those peacekeepers on the ground? Andsecondly, is there a lower threshold, do youthink, given this language that the British andthe French, we understand, proposed onTuzla and Srebrenica? Is there a lowerthreshold to use air power in those instancesthan for the wider air attacks regarding Sara-jevo?

The President. I would make two pointsin response to your question. One is, I don’tknow that the threshold is lower, but thereare more instances in which air power canbe used now under the NATO policy. Thatis, clearly, the policy asks our military com-mand to explain how we can guarantee thetroop rotation in Srebrenica and how we canopen the airstrip at Tuzla, including the useof air power. So there are clearly more op-portunities for it.

Secondly, is there still a difference of opin-ion about whether and how quickly weshould use air power especially to relieve ashelling of Sarajevo? I think on today’s factsthere are clearly some differences among theallies. And let me just mention one consider-ation. Those countries that have troops thereare understandably concerned about the dan-ger to their troops. If we use air power, arethey more likely to be retaliated against? Onthe other hand, I think they’re closer to beingwilling to use it than they were in Augustbecause a lot of them are very sensitive tothe fact that their troops seem to be in moredanger now than they were in August andthat their casualties are increasing.

So do I think we are closer to real unanim-ity than we were in August? I do. Would theyall vote the same in a given-fact situation?I don’t know. That’s why I think it dependslargely on what the Bosnian Serbs do.

Q. Given the fact that there is still somedifference of opinion, doesn’t this come closeto failing your own test from your interven-tion, that why threaten if you’re not goingto have the will to——

The President. But I believe, based onwhat several of them said to me privately,they are more prepared to deal with this thanthey were in August. That is, Secretary Gen-eral Woerner and I both said, ‘‘Let us not

put this language back in unless we meanit. Let us clearly understand that we mustmean it if we put it in this time.’’ And theyvoted unanimously to put it in. And afterwardseveral of them came to me privately andsaid, ‘‘Of course, we have reservations aboutwhat happens to our troops, but we have res-ervations about what happens to our troopsunder the status quo, and we are preparedto go forward with this.’’

Q. Concerning Bosnia, can we say todaythat you and President Mitterrand are on thesame wavelength; do you agree, no morebones of contention?

The President. Yes. I’ve been a little sur-prised by the press reports that indicate tothe contrary. I strongly supported PresidentMitterrand and Prime Minister Major’samendment adding Tuzla and Srebrenica tothe resolution. I did not support substitutingTuzla and Srebrenica for the general com-mitment to use air power to relieve the siegeof Sarajevo, for a very important reason. Ithink that it will be very hard for the U.N.mission to succeed. That is, keep in mindwhat the U.N. mission is doing, by the way,folks. We have the longest airlift in historythere. We are trying to enforce the embargo.We are trying to enforce the no-fly zone. Inother words, we are trying to contain thecombat and the loss and trying to keep openhumanitarian aid, hoping that we can all dosomething to convince all three sides thatthey have a real interest in stopping killingeach other and taking whatever agreementthey can get now.

Now, I believe if Sarajevo is destroyed andcannot function as a center for all kinds ofactivities, it will be very difficult for the U.N.mission to succeed. The French and the Brit-ish have troops on the ground there. Theynaturally have more reservation about theuse of air power in response to the shellingof Sarajevo than nations that may not havetroops on the ground there. I understandthat. They agreed with my position, and Istrongly agreed with theirs. I do not believethere is a difference of opinion between uson this policy now.

UkraineQ. 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 Ukrain-ian officials who are saying that the termsof a final agreement are yet to be deter-mined. How sure are you at this point thatthis deal will not fall apart?

The President. Well, I believe PresidentKravchuk will honor the deal. They’ve al-ready started to dismantle the missiles. AndI think that the other thing that’s very impor-tant to emphasize here is that this agreementguarantees compensation for Ukraine fortheir highly enriched uranium, somethingthey have wanted and demanded. And so Ithink, as the details of it become known inthe Rada, there will be more support for it.

Let me just try to give you an Americananalogy here, if I might. It’s not an exact anal-ogy, but when President Bush signed theoriginal NAFTA treaty—or when we ap-proved the side agreements with NAFTA, wedidn’t know at the time whether everybodyin Congress would think it was a wonderfulidea or ratify it or try to derail it. But wewent through with it and, eventually, theUnited States stood firm behind it. Execu-tives often have to sell to their legislativebranches what they know is in the nationalinterest of their country.

This agreement, reached by PresidentKravchuk, I think, was reached with the fullunderstanding in his mind that he wouldhave to sell it, but that it contained advan-tages for Ukraine far more than had pre-viously been recognized. And I think as theyknow more about the details and the facts,that he will prevail there. And I expect theagreement to stand up, because it’s clearlyin the interest of the country. They get farmore than they give up on this.

RussiaQ. Have you spoken with President Yeltsin

about Bosnia and does he agree with whatyou describe as a new resolve to deal withit?

The President. No, we have not had thisdiscussion. But last August when all thiscame up, the Russians knew that what wewere doing was taking a position with regardto the use of air power that was clearly tiedto behavior by the Bosnian Serbs. And at thetime, and I think still, no one considered that

the United Nations mission could proceedand could function if Sarajevo were com-pletely destroyed. No one believed that. SoI don’t believe that anything that happenedtoday, once fully understood—I’m sure we’llhave the chance to talk about it in some de-tail—I don’t believe that anything that hap-pened today will undermine the understand-ings that we have with the Russians.


UkraineQ. [Inaudible]The President. I don’t want to say that.

What I’m trying to tell you is, that that’s whyI said it was not an exact analogy. What I’msaying is that any time an executive makesa deal in any country in the world with alegislative branch, there are going to be peo-ple in the legislative branch who don’t agreewith it or who just don’t know if they canagree with it until they know what the factsof it are. That’s the only point I’m trying tomake. I am not making any judgment abouthow the Ukrainian Government works butsimply that this always happens. Thisshouldn’t surprise anybody. This always hap-pens. Every decision every executive makesis going to be second-guessed by people ofthe legislature. It’s almost the way the sys-tem’s set up.

NOTE: The President’s 40th news conferencebegan at 10:50 a.m. in the Joseph Luns Theatreat NATO Headquarters. In his remarks, he re-ferred to Gen. George A. Joulwan, Supreme Al-lied Commander, Europe. A tape was not avail-able for verification of the content of this newsconference.

The President’s News ConferenceWith European Union Leaders inBrusselsJanuary 11, 1994

President Clinton. Thank you very much.We have just had a very productive meeting,President Delors and Prime MinisterPapandreou and I. As I have said many timesin the last few days, I came to Brussels inthe hope of working with the leaders of Eu-rope to build a broader and more integratedEurope. At the heart of this new concept of



security is the economic vitality of the rela-tionship between the United States and theEuropean Union. The EU remains America’smost valued partner in trade and investment.A strong relationship between us is good forAmerica. It can help to generate more jobs,more growth, more opportunities for workersand businesses at home as well as for thosehere in Europe.

That is one of the reasons that our admin-istration strongly supported the MaastrichtTreaty. We believe a strong and more unifiedEurope makes for a more effective economicand political partner. I think we proved thatthrough our combined efforts to lead theworld to a new GATT agreement in Decem-ber.

One key to achieving that accord came lastspring when President Delors agreed to joinme in focusing on market access at last year’sG–7 summit. I’m committed to deepeningour relationship with the EU through regularmeetings at all levels to continue to addressother concerns as we address the market ac-cess concern and as we work together to geta new GATT agreement.

I have argued in my own country that toadvance the global economy and to advancethe interests of American workers as well,we must compete, not retreat. All advancedeconomies can only generate more jobs andhigher incomes when they have more peoplebeyond their borders to buy their goods andservices. Therefore, we must continue our ef-forts to expand global growth and world mar-kets. The GATT agreement will help in thatregard. I am convinced it will create millionsof jobs in the global economy between nowand the end of the decade. But we also haveresponsibilities, the United States, the EU,and others, to continue our own efforts to-ward open trade and more global growth.

In today’s meeting, we discussed four waysin which we can build on the momentumgenerated by the GATT agreement. First, westressed the need to finalize and ratify theagreement. The agreement itself was an im-pressive breakthrough, but there are severalareas in which we did not reach full agree-ment. I emphasized today our strong desireto resolve our outstanding differences. Wealso agreed that further market access offersfrom Japan and from other countries are also

needed to meet the ambitious goals on whichwe agreed. The U.S. and the EU cannotalone create the open markets the worldneeds. We think it is clearly time for theother great economic power, Japan, to joinus in this effort to open markets.

Second, we agreed on the importance ofputting jobs at the center of our trade andeconomic agenda. Today, the nations of theEuropean Union are facing high and persist-ent rates of unemployment and sluggishgrowth. In the United States, we have begunto generate more jobs, but our Nation stillhas a long way to go before our unemploy-ment is at an acceptable level and before ourworkers begin to generate more incomewhen they work harder. The renewal of eachof our economies will benefit all of them.We discussed some of the innovative ideascontained in the Delors white paper. Presi-dent Delors and Prime Minister Papandreouboth make very thoughtful comments aboutthe kinds of things we could do to generatemore job growth both in Europe and theUnited States. And we look forward to pursu-ing those ideas at the jobs conference inWashington this spring, and again at theG–7 summit this July.

Third, we agreed to explore the next gen-eration of trade issues. I suggested that thesuccessor agenda to the Uruguay roundshould include issues such as the impact ofenvironmental policies on trade, antitrust andother competition policies, and labor stand-ards, something that I think we must, frankly,address. While we continue to tear downanticompetitive practices and other barriersto trade, we simply have to assure that oureconomic policies also protect the environ-ment and the well-being of workers. And aswe bring others into the orbit of global trade,people who can benefit from the investmentand trading opportunities we offer, we mustensure that their policies benefit the interestof their workers and our common interestin enhancing environmental protectionthroughout the globe. That is exactly whatwe tried to do with the North American FreeTrade Agreement. And in the coming monthsI look forward to continuing discussions onthese issues with our EU partners.

Finally, we discussed the imperative ofhelping to integrate the new market democ-



racies of Europe’s eastern half into the trans-atlantic community. Yesterday, NATO tookan historic step in this direction with thePartnership For Peace. We must match thateffort by helping to ensure that our marketsare open to the products of Eastern Europe.Ultimately, the further integration of Europecan be a future source of jobs and prosperityfor both the United States and Western Eu-rope as these nations become increasinglyproductive and, therefore, increasingly ableto serve as consumers in the global economy.

We have already begun to open our mar-kets to these new democracies. And I haveurged that both the United States and theEU explore additional ways in which we canfurther open our markets to the nations toour east. Our trade is a source of strength,the source of jobs, a source of prosperity.

I look forward to continuing these discus-sions in the future. We had a lot of very goodspecific discussions this morning on the jobsissue in particular. And we intend to continueto work together and to make progress to-gether.

Thank you very much.President Papandreou. President Clin-

ton, in this very brief presentation, has cov-ered the issues that we discussed today. Hehas done so in a very complete way, so Iwill make two or three comments and notmore. To begin with, we have the revitaliza-tion of transatlantic relations, relations be-tween Europe, the European Union, and theUnited States of America.

It is very important for President Clintonthat European integration, the great objec-tive of a united Europe, is very important.Now, the other important issue is an openingtowards Eastern Europe. The wall separatingthe East from the West has been dismantled.We do not want any further divisions in Eu-rope. But we should not ignore the dangersthat may confront us on this road.

Russia is involved in a very difficult eco-nomic, political, and social reform. And wewould like to contribute in any way we canso that this road will lead to a modern econ-omy, to a peace policy, and to a just society.We hope that that will be the final outcomeof this process.

Now, the third point which is directlylinked to what we have mentioned so far is

a Partnership For Peace. We have to worktogether for peace. This is a great concept.We should consider ways of working togetherin the area of defense in connection withproblems arising due to crises, due to nation-alist fanaticism, due to conflicts in Europeor at the periphery. Crisis management is avery important objective. Military coopera-tion without Eastern European countriesbeing members of NATO but cooperationbetween them and NATO is not a threat forRussia but rather an invitation to Russia tocontribute constructively.

I will not embark on the problem of theEuropean economy. Mr. Delors will speakabout this problem. But the truth is thatthere are three regions in which we haveboth unemployment and recession: Europe,Japan, and the United States. Now, theUnited States has started an upswing.

We are faced with a very serious problemin connection with employment, and we willhave to live with this problem for many yearsunless we manage to find a radical solution.It is not the right time to go into the detailsof these solutions. Now, this is what I wantedto say at the present juncture.

So, President Delors.President Delors. Questions imme-

diately, because this is more interesting thanwhat I could add to what Prime MinisterPapandreou has spoken on behalf of thecommunity.

BosniaQ. Back to NATO, Mr. President. What

makes you think that the Serbs will take thethreat seriously now since NATO has beenthe boy crying wolf in the past? And whatreally has stiffened everybody’s spine nowafter 2 years of shelling, bombing, slaughter?

President Clinton. Well, keep in mindnow the resolution was directed toward aspecific set of circumstances. NATO re-affirmed the August position that if Sarajevowas subject to strangulation, defined as large-scale shelling, that air power from NATOcould be used as a response to that. And thentoday, there were added two conditions thatwe asked our military leadership to come upwith, plans to ensure that the troop replace-ment in Srebrenica could pro-



ceed and to see whether the airstrip at Tuzlacould be opened.

I can only tell you what happened in themeetings. The Secretary General of NATOand I both said that these steps should notbe called for unless everyone voting in theaffirmative was prepared to see themthrough. And there was an explicit discussionof that. So I think that the continued deterio-ration of conditions, the frustration of all ofus that no peace agreement has been made,and that explicit debate should give this votethe credibility that I believe it deserves.

The Global EconomyQ. Listening to what you said about

growth and jobs and also defense of the envi-ronment and social rights, I’m very struck byhow similar your language is to the proposalswhich President Delors recently put to theEuropean heads of government. Would youacknowledge that your thinking on theseissues is very largely convergent? And whatwould you say to some people who re-sponded in this Union by saying now is notime to be unduly concerned about workers’rights or the environment, that this can beno priority when we are tackling mass unem-ployment? It’s a debate we’ve had here inthe Union. I wonder how you would advisepeople in that respect here.

President Clinton. First of all, I think itis fair to say that President Delors and I sharea lot of common ideas. Prime MinisterPapandreou and I have shared some ideas.I’ve read some of his thoughts and inter-views. I think any person who seriously stud-ies this issue, who studies income trends inthe United States, who studies job trends inEurope, who studies now what is happeningin Japan, will reach the conclusion that everywealthy country in the world is having greatdifficulty creating jobs and raising incomes,and that there are some common elementsto this malady which have to be addressed.

Now, let me say in response to the twoissues you’ve raised, first of all, with regardto the environment, I believe that dealingwith the environment creates jobs, doesn’tcost jobs if you do it in the right way. AndI think we now have about 20 years of evi-dence that supports that—that if you havethe right sort of sensible environmental pol-

icy and if you finance it in the right way,you will create jobs, not cost jobs. Much ofthe environmental cleanup that is sensible re-quires the development of technologies andthe generation of high-wage jobs which willbe virtually exclusively the province of thesame countries that are having trouble creat-ing jobs.

With regard to workers’ rights, I would re-spond in two ways. First of all, if in orderto create jobs we have to give up all the sup-ports that we have worked hard for over dec-ades for working families, then we may windup paying the same political price and socialprice. That is, we do not want to see thecollapse of the middle class in Europe or inthe United States. What we want to do isto rebuild and strengthen the middle class.

If you look at the vote in Russia, if youlook at the recent vote in Poland, you seewhat happens in democracies when middleclass people feel that the future will be worsethan the present. So if you’re going to askfor changes in the system of support, thosechanges have to be done in a way that in-crease the sense of security of middle class,working class families in all these countries.

Secondly, the issue of worker rights andthe issue of the environment should be seenfrom our prospective as a global one. Thatis, if you look at what Ambassador Kantornegotiated with Mexico in the NAFTA treaty,the first trade agreement ever to explicitlydeal with environmental and labor issues, wedid it because we said, okay, if we’re goingto open our borders and trade more and in-vest more with developing nations, we wantto know that their working people will re-ceive some of the benefits and a fair shareof the benefits of this trade and investment.Otherwise, they won’t have increasing in-comes, and they won’t be able to buy ourproducts and services.

So I see this whole worker rights issue asmore a function of the global economy andone that will help us to build up ordinarycitizens everywhere, which I think should beour ultimate objective.

BosniaQ. Mr. President, back on Bosnia, you

mentioned that this threat of military actionis not a new threat. How long can NATO



keep on making these threats without carry-ing them out, without delivering? At whatpoint does it become, as you warned aboutyesterday, an empty threat?

President Clinton. Well, first of all, wehave two different issues here. The Frenchand the British proposed the motion to askour military planners to come up with a strat-egy to ensure the rotation of troops inSrebrenica and to see whether with the useof air power or some other device we mightsecure the opening of the airstrip at Tuzlato continue the U.N. mission, the humani-tarian mission. So we’ll await the plan andsee what happens.

On the question of the use of air strikesin retaliation for the strangulation of Sara-jevo, that is largely going to be a functionof the behavior of the people who have beenshelling Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serbs. Whenyou say how long, it depends on what is theirbehavior. Is the shelling going to abate now,as it did after August when we adopted theresolution? And then it basically escalateddramatically only relatively recently. Or willthey continue to do it? And then we’ll seeif our resolve is there. My resolve is there.That’s all I can tell you. And I believe thepeople in that room knew what they weredoing when they voted for this resolution.When you say how long, it depends in parton what will be the conduct from this dayforward of those who have been responsiblefor shelling Sarajevo.

Integration of East and WestQ. I had a question on Partnership For

Peace. And I’d be grateful if, Mr. President,you could answer, and perhaps PresidentDelors, too. With hindsight, I wonder wheth-er you don’t think you missed a trick by mak-ing entry into NATO for the former Com-munist countries of Central and Eastern Eu-rope work on the same track as entry intothe European Union. Would this not havebeen a more credible approach for Partner-ship For Peace?

President Clinton. I’ll be glad to answerthat question, but I think perhaps I shoulddefer to President Delors since he has amuch better sense of how the membershiptrack for the European Union works and lethim answer the question that you specifically

posed, and then I’ll also respond. And per-haps Prime Minister Papandreou will re-spond.

President Delors. Back in 1989, alreadywith the event that took place then, the Sum-mit of Industrialized Nations dealt at lengthwith this question: How, after the fall of theBerlin Wall and the collapse of communism,could we make it possible for the countriesin question to get back onto the track of plu-ralist democracy and open economy? Andthen, it seemed to us that immediate entryby the countries in question into the Euro-pean Union would be more damaging forthem than would be a period of preparationand adaptation.

We were afraid then that there would bea clash between the strong and the weak,however much aid we could give them. Soa period of transition was necessary. It wasin the context of the mission that was en-trusted to the European Community and tothe Commission that we endeavored to helpthem in order to make it possible for themto progress in parallel along the two tracksthat I have indicated today. After 4 years ofexperience and speaking in my personalname, I am ready to take stock of this aidto which the Community has contributed alot.

May I recall that in 1989, the EuropeanUnion only represented 25 percent of the ex-ternal trade of the countries of Eastern Eu-rope. Now we represent 60 percent. And sowe have replaced COMICON, and that wasabsolutely necessary. We have doubled ourimports over 3 years from these countries.We represent 60 percent of total aid, includ-ing the aid from the international financialorganizations.

But we cannot replace them. These coun-tries are responsible countries. They have tolearn the workings of an open economy anddemocracy. Of course, there are claims in ourcountries. There are also people that are rec-ommending other solutions, but I still thinkthat immediate entry to the European Unionwould have been very damaging to them, ir-respective of what our leaders would havehad to explain to our citizens who are tax-payers.

For today, we have to take stock of what’shappened, but not do this having in mind



the idea that we could substitute for them.They are responsible for the fates. Some ofthem have chosen the ‘‘big bang’’ approachin order to reform their economies. I deplorethis, and I feel that this was one of the rea-sons for the return of the former Com-munists and others. Others have taken amore gradualist approach. But each countrywas different. Czechoslovakia was tradition-ally an industrial country. Hungary, even outof communism, had begun experiments indecentralization way back in 1970. So wecannot act in their stead. Today, they haveto face a growing problem of security. ThePartnership For Peace is there to deal withthis, but there is also a need for economicsecurity.

But I’m a pragmatist. I’m open to any solu-tion. But when I hear some leaders withinEurope saying that we should have acted oth-erwise, I remain convinced that we did optfor the right solution. Now, have we alwayssupplied it with the desirable efficacy? That’sanother question. It remains open. But again,with the commissioners responsible, we shalltake stock of all of this.

But we have to be careful. All of the mir-acle solutions that have been proposed wouldnot have resolved the problems, and anyway,we can see this with German unification. Itis not this that in any way has diminishedthe frustration of the populations concerned,or filled the psychological gap, or even madeit possible to get onto the ideal road towardsmodernization. There are all sorts of prob-lems. Besides, I’m very respectful of whatis happening in Germany. But it is an experi-ence contrary to the other one. You can seewhat problems remain to be resolved.

President Papandreou. Just a few words,because I think President Delors has statedvery clearly our stand. There is a very delicaterelationship between deepening of the Euro-pean Union and enlargement of the Union.They must go together in a careful relation-ship. Otherwise, the Union itself may not beable to achieve its fundamental goals. Sosome delays are necessary, both from thepoint of view of the countries petitioning theentry and also from the Union itself. But Ithink I’ve said enough, in view of what Presi-dent Delors has already said in such detail.

President Clinton. I’d like to go back toyour original question. What you asked, Ithink, was since there will be—since thereis sort of a phased-in possibility for additionalmembership to the European Union and aphased-in possibility for membership inNATO, should the criteria and timetableshave been reconciled. I think that’s the ques-tion you’re asking.

I can’t give you a yes or no, except to saythat I think it would have been difficult todo that for a couple of reasons. First of all,NATO and the European Union are fun-damentally different organizations. Member-ship in NATO means that each member hasa solemn obligation to defend the securityof each other—any other member from at-tack. And membership in NATO includes aguarantee, therefore, coming from theUnited States and from Canada, somethingthat is not the same with the EuropeanUnion.

On the other hand, membership in the Eu-ropean Union now involves a commitmentto a level of economic and political integra-tion that some who may want to be a partof NATO may or may not want to committo. So I think as a practical matter, it wouldhave been very difficult to reconcile thesetwo timetables since the organizations aredifferent. Some may be more interested inbeing in the European Union. I can conceiveof some countries who want to be in theUnion who may not want to be in NATO.Some may wish to be in NATO beforethey’re able to meet the responsibilities ofthe European Union.

President Delors. I would just like to addone sentence. In my humble opinion, thegeneration that I belong to and which holdsresponsibility at present has two obligations,and to reconcile these is not easy. On theone hand, we want to create a political unionwith the European countries that desire this,because we think that none of our countriesis capable of coping with these problems andwith world responsibilities. And secondly,given the events that have occurred in theEast, we have another obligation which isequally important; that is to extend our valuesof peace, cooperation, and mutual under-standing to the wider Europe. Believe me,to combine the two is no easy task.



And again, I criticize those who put forthsimplistic solutions in this area. Life is dif-ficult. No one can prevent such events beingconflictual. A little modesty on the part ofthose proposing miracle solutions will benecessary.

GreeceQ. Mr. President, Germany recently re-

quested that the famous Article 5 of theNATO Pact should apply for the security forthe Czech Republic, not a NATO member,in order to face a threat not been definedyet. Since Greece is a NATO member, ac-cording to the report many of them are facinga real threat in her northern border from anexpected movement of Albanian refugeesfrom Kosovo via Skopje. If the same articlecould apply on that case, keep also into ac-count that European Union and Western Eu-ropean Union are not guaranteeing theGreek borders. And I’m taking this oppor-tunity, Mr. President, to ask directly if Amer-ica will be in the position to guarantee thesecurity of Greece from such a threat on abilateral basis?

President Clinton. Frankly, that’s a con-versation I think I ought to have with PrimeMinister Papandreou before I have it in pub-lic in some ways. But let me respond in twoways. First of all, the United States has takentwo strong steps to try to make sure that thedire situation you described does not occur.We have sent 300 troops to be located inMacedonia, or Skopje as the Prime Ministerdescribes it, as a part of a NATO effort ora U.N. effort to contain the conflict in Bos-nia.

In addition to that, shortly before I becamePresident but after I was elected President,the previous administration with my strongsupport sent a very strong and firm warningabout involving Kosovo in the conflagrationin Bosnia. And we made it very clear thatwe would have very strong views about thatand a strong reaction to it.

So I think the real issue is, are we tryingto protect the interests of Greece and othernations from being embroiled in the conflictnow in the Balkans. And the answer is yes,and I think we’ve taken two strong steps todo that. I believe we will be successful indoing that.

NOTE: The President’s 41st news conferencebegan at 12:49 p.m. in the News Conference The-atre at the headquarters of the Commission of theEuropean Union, where he met with Greek PrimeMinister Andreas Papandreou in his capacity asPresident, European Council, and Jacques Delors,President, European Commission. A tape was notavailable for verification of the content of thisnews conference.

Remarks and an Exchange WithReporters Following DiscussionsWith President Vaclav Havel of theCzech Republic in PragueJanuary 11, 1994

President Clinton. Thank you very much.First, I want to express my thanks to Presi-dent Havel for his warm welcome. I’m com-ing back to Prague only for the second timein my life. I was here 24 years ago in thissame week, in a very different role in life.

I have been deeply impressed by theprogress made by the Czech Republic, andwas deeply impressed by the meeting I hadtoday with the President and the Prime Min-ister and with other leaders of the govern-ment. I reaffirmed the fact that the securityof this Republic, and of the nations of Centraland Eastern Europe are important to the se-curity of the United States and to Europeand to the Atlantic alliance, that the Partner-ship For Peace is the beginning of a genuinesecurity relationship which can lead to fullmembership in NATO, and that we must alsobe mindful of the economic dimension of se-curity. For it is difficult for nations to pursuegood policies and to reflect democratic valuesunless they can also offer the hope of successto the people within their borders who workhard, obey the law, and try to contribute tothe welfare of society.

So we talked about these things, and I lookforward to talking tomorrow with all the lead-ers, who will be here together, in perhapssomewhat more specific terms about what wecan do to further both these objectives. ButI am very encouraged by this meeting to-night, and I thank President Havel for hissupport for the Partnership For Peace.

[At this point, a question was asked in Czech,and no translation was provided.]



President Clinton. That issue has notbeen resolved, so since it was not discussedone way or the other, I suppose it is theoreti-cally possible. NATO is a security alliancein which all the members undertake to as-sume certain responsibilities for the welfareof the entire group. One of the things I wantto emphasize about the Partnership ForPeace is a security relationship that will per-mit immediately the military commanders ofNATO to begin to work with the militaryleaders of each country involved in the Part-nership, to look at joint training, to look atjoint exercises, to deal with the whole rangeof issues which will help to move towardmembership.

Q. President Havel, sir, can you tell us howconcerned are you about the rise ofultranationalists and Communists in the par-liamentary elections in Russia? Does that casta cloud over this region?

[President Havel answered the question inCzech, and no translation was provided.]

NOTE: The President spoke at 6:50 p.m. in theFirst Courtyard at Prague Castle. A tape was notavailable for verification of the content of theseremarks.

Appointment of Director ofPresidential Personnel

January 11, 1994

The President today announced the ap-pointment of J. Veronica Biggins to be Direc-tor of Presidential Personnel.

‘‘I am very pleased that Veronica Biggins,a highly regarded executive and recognizedleader of both her corporation and her com-munity, will be joining our team,’’ the Presi-dent said.

‘‘Her experience in human resources man-agement, community relations, and business,as well as her commitment to improving thelives of all Americans, will enable her to makea significant contribution to this administra-tion.’’

NOTE: A biography of the appointee was madeavailable by the Office of the Press Secretary.

Nominations for the United StatesAdvisory Commission on PublicDiplomacyJanuary 11, 1994

The President today announced his inten-tion to nominate Lewis Manilow, Charles H.Dolan, Jr., and Harold C. Pachios as mem-bers of the U.S. Advisory Commission onPublic Diplomacy. Upon Mr. Manilow’s con-firmation by the Senate, the President in-tends to designate him Commission Chair.

‘‘The Advisory Commission on Public Di-plomacy plays an important role in directingthe USIA as it works to promote democracyabroad,’’ the President said. ‘‘I am pleasedto announce the addition of these three ac-complished professionals to our team.’’

NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were madeavailable by the Office of the Press Secretary.

Nominations for the InternationalJoint Commission, United States andCanadaJanuary 11, 1994

The President today announced his inten-tion to nominate Thomas L. Baldini andSusan B. Bayh as members of the Inter-national Joint Commission, United Statesand Canada. Upon Mr. Baldini’s confirma-tion by the Senate, the President intends todesignate him Chair.

‘‘I am pleased today to name these twohard-working individuals to the InternationalJoint Commission,’’ the President said.

NOTE: Biographies of the nominees were madeavailable by the Office of the Press Secretary.

Exchange With Reporters Prior ToDiscussions With President MichalKovac of the Slovak Republic inPragueJanuary 12, 1994

Partnership For PeaceQ. President Clinton, what’s been the re-

ception so far to what you have brought tothese 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 thefourth. And each of them, although leaderscan characterize them for themselves, but Ihave been very pleased so far.

Q. Have they raised security issues withyou, that they are worried that if there shouldbe some kind of resurgence in Russia thatthey feel protected, or are they still worriedabout this?

The President. No one has said that theyexpect something like that in the near future.What no one knows is whether the futureof Europe will be like its past or if it willbe different.

Q. Are you saying that all have acceptedthe Partnership so far?

The President. You’ll have to ask themwhen we do the press conference.

NOTE: The exchange began at 11:06 a.m. in thelibrary at the U.S. Ambassador’s Residence. Atape was not available for verification of the con-tent of this exchange.

The President’s News ConferenceWith Visegrad Leaders in PragueJanuary 12, 1994

President Clinton. Good afternoon, la-dies and gentlemen. Welcome to the verybeautiful American Embassy.

I have just finished a very productive andenjoyable working lunch with the leaders ofthe Visegrad states: President Vaclav Haveland Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus of theCzech Republic; President Arpad Goenczand Prime Minister Peter Boross of Hungary;President Lech Walesa and Prime MinisterWaldemar Pawlak of Poland; and PresidentMichal Kovac and Prime Minister VladimirMeciar of Slovakia.

I want to, at the outset, stress my apprecia-tion to President Havel, Premier Klaus andthe Czech people for their hospitality andcontributions to our meeting, and I thankagain all the Visegrad leaders for joining heretoday.

This region, where the great democraticrebirth of Europe began 5 years ago, holdsa special place in my own affections. I firstcame to this city 24 years ago this week, and

two of my senior national security adviserswere born in this region: the Chairman ofour Joint Chiefs of Staff GeneralShalikashvili, who spent most of his earlyyears in Poland, was born there; and my U.N.Ambassador Madeleine Albright who wasborn here in Prague. I told President Havelyesterday that the Czech Republic is the onlynation in the world that has two ambassadorsin the United Nations.

I have come to Europe to help build anew security for the transatlantic communityfor the 21st century. During the cold warthe security of the Western alliance was de-fined by the division of Europe. Our newsecurity must be defined by Europe’s inte-gration, the integration of a broader Europebased on military cooperation, robust democ-racies, and market economies. That was mymessage in Brussels, where I met with ourNATO and European Community allies. Andit will be my message as I travel to Moscow.

I am mindful of an old Polish saying, whichI have, I hope, learned to pronounce prop-erly: Nits o nas bez nas; Nothing about uswithout us. And so I have come to this regionto share my thoughts directly with your lead-ers and your people. I believe the UnitedStates must make clear to all of you first thatwe are committed to helping you continueyour work of reform and renewal in peace.That commitment derives from more thanour shared values and our admiration foryour efforts. It also derives from our own se-curity concerns. Let me be absolutely clear:The security of your state is important to thesecurity of the United States.

At today’s lunch I discussed three ways inwhich my nation is prepared to advance Eu-rope’s democratic integration by supportingyour region’s continued renewal and security.First, we discussed the Partnership ForPeace, the American proposal NATO has justadopted. The Partnership invites all formerWarsaw Pact and former Soviet states, plusother non-NATO members in Europe, tojoin in military cooperation with NATO intraining exercise and operations jointly.

While the Partnership is not NATO mem-bership, neither is it a permanent holdingroom. It changes the entire NATO dialog sothat now the question is no longer whetherNATO will take on new members but when



and how. It leaves the door open to the bestpossible outcome for our region, democracy,markets, and security all across a broader Eu-rope, while providing time and preparationto deal with a lesser outcome.

Second, we discussed ways in which theUnited States can help to solidify your demo-cratic and market reforms. I stressed that Ihave ordered our programs to give greateremphasis to helping this region tend to re-form’s impacts on your workers and yourcommunities. I talked about the ways we areworking to expand trade and investment be-tween your region, the rest of Europe, andthe United States. I also discussed the stepswe are taking to help the Visegrad region andother parts of Central and Eastern Europebolster their new democracies.

We’re supporting the development of athriving civil society. And in our meeting Iannounced the creation of the democracynetwork, an initiative to bring new resourcesto grassroots and independent groupsthroughout the region. I stressed our interestin fostering regional cooperation among yourcountries, practical things that can advanceyour integration into a broader Europe.

Finally, I salute all those leaders here inPrague today who have worked to build prac-tical regional cooperation and consensus inCentral Europe at this pivotal moment in his-tory. I congratulate them on having this re-gional meeting. And I suggested several wayswe can help to support regional integration,including support for regional infrastructureprojects like highways and communicationsnetworks and air traffic systems.

I have greatly enjoyed my discussionstoday here. I assure you I will follow up onthem. The United States will have a specialconference this year on trade and investmentin the countries represented here on whatwe can do to increase American investmentand to increase the purchase of the productsmade by the people who are working hardin all of these thriving democracies.

I come away convinced that, together, wecan place Central and Eastern Europe at theheart of a new Europe, an integrated Eu-rope, democratic, prosperous, secure, andfree. That is my commitment; I believe itis our joint commitment.

Thank you very much, and I’d like nowto turn the microphone over to PresidentHavel.

President Havel. Distinguished Presi-dent, ladies and gentlemen, we are living ina time of a dramatic searching for a neworder, an order in which no one would besubjugated or endangered and which wouldmake it possible for all European people andstates to live in an atmosphere of peacefulcooperation.

Our today’s meeting in Prague bears wit-ness to the great importance which theUnited States and the North Atlantic allianceattach to stability, security, and peace in Cen-tral Europe, in relation to peace in all of Eu-rope as well as to the security of the UnitedStates.

We welcome the Partnership For Peaceproject as a good point of departure inNATO’s quest for a new identity of the alli-ance as a true stabilizing core of Europeansecurity. We appreciate that it allows individ-ual approaches from the various countries.At the same time, however, it depends onhow energetically and how quickly the dif-ferent countries will move to instill in Part-nership For Peace contents meeting their in-terests and their possibilities. For our part,we want to do everything in our power inorder that our partnership results in our fullmembership in the alliance. We do not re-gard Partnership For Peace as a substitutefor that but rather as a first step towardNATO.

The reason why we want to join the alli-ance is that we share the values of civilizationwhich it protects, and that we want to takepart in protecting them. We realize that itis neither possible nor desirable to isolateRussia. However, we are independent states,and we decide ourselves about our affiliationsand our policies.

Ladies and gentlemen, as we agreed in ourconversations with the representatives of theCentral European nations that are rep-resented at this meeting in Prague, our coun-tries 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 expressingmy firm conviction that this meeting has be-come an important landmark on the road to-



ward a new democratic and truly peacefulEurope, sharing firm and natural ties withthe North American continent. At one time,the city of Yalta went down in history as asymbol of the division of Europe. I wouldbe happy if today the city of Prague emergedas a symbol of Europe’s standing in alliance.

Thank you.

Russia

Q. Mr. President, there are nationalists inRussia who look at these four countries andother nations that were under the grip ofMoscow, and they dream of rebuilding theSoviet empire. What will you tell RussianPresident Boris Yeltsin about the securityneeds of these countries, and how far itshould go in guaranteeing their territorial in-tegrity and their borders?

President Clinton. First of all, I wouldsay that based on their past statements, he’sright, and they’re wrong. That is, I think thatthe Russian position, the position of thepresent administration there that they will re-spect the territorial boundaries of theirneighbors is the proper position.

You know, each nation at critical periodshas to imagine again what its future is goingto be, and it has to define itself—how it willdefine itself as a nation and how it will definea standard of greatness. The United States,in very different ways, is going through sucha period today. And Russia must do that.

In the 21st century can anyone seriouslybelieve that we will define greatness bywhether one country can physically occupyanother, since we all know that wealth andopportunity will be determined by thingsother than physical possession of land mass?I don’t think so.

And my urgent task will be to try to con-tinue to press the path of democracy and re-form and America’s support for it in Russia.They are a great people with a great historyand a great future. But the future must bedifferent from the past, and the way great-ness is defined must be different. And that,I think, is a struggle plainly going on therenow that will play itself out over the nextfew years. And I’m hoping and will be work-ing for the best possible impact.

Security of Visegrad StatesHelen [Helen Thomas, United Press

International]?Q. Mr. President, it’s obvious that the

leaders have accepted something short ofwhat they really wanted. And in a way they’rebeing treated as second cousins. They reallywanted security guarantees, and you and allthe NATO allies have told them that that’snot in the package. In view of——

President Clinton. Let me just—I dis-agree that they’re being treated as secondcousins. This is something NATO has neverdone before. We will have people out in thenext few days talking about how we’re goingto begin all kinds of joint security operations.To say that 16 nations of NATO made a mis-take not to immediately issue security guar-antees to some nations of Europe and notothers, without knowing in any way, shape,or form whether the reciprocal obligationsof NATO could be met by new members,I think is an unfair characterization of theNATO alliance.

Q. My question is, in view of the lessonsof World War II, is it conceivable if any ofthese nations were invaded or aggressedagainst that NATO would not come to theiraid?

President Clinton. I think it is doubtful;that’s right. I think our reading of history isright. But frankly, I think none of us believethat—I can’t speak for the other Presidentsexcept based on our conversations—that thatis imminent. I think—what I was impressedby from these leaders is that they very muchwant to be a part of Europe, of the Westernalliance, in an economic and social and politi-cal, as well as a military way, and that thebroad definition of security is in that.

Of course, there are always concerns thatin the future, the darker past might be recre-ated, that there could be an expansionismagain. But what we need to do is—again,what I’m trying to do is to reach out andenhance the security of these nations in waysthat also permit other nations to enhancetheir security and partnership with us, andthat does not now draw a new line of divisionacross Europe. Maybe there will be a newline drawn some day, and if so, we want todo what we can to support the security ofthese nations. But we hope that we are giving



Europe the possibility for the best possiblefuture.

Mr. Blitzer [Wolf Blitzer, Cable NewsNetwork] I think had a question for Presi-dent Walesa, and then I’d like a questionfrom the foreign press next. But, Wolf, goahead.

Poland

Q. President Walesa, I’m sorry I can’t askyou this question in Polish. But Poland seemsto be the least enthusiastic among theVisegrad countries for the Partnership ForPeace proposals. Is that accurate? And canyou describe exactly how you feel about thisproposal and whether Poland will seek mem-bership in the Partnership For Peace pro-posal.

President Walesa. I can answer in twowords: Sometimes small is beautiful. And wedo believe that this is a step in the right direc-tion. It’s been decided by the powers of theworld, and we shall try to make good useof this.

Prague Visit

Q. What about your next part of your unof-ficial program in Prague with PresidentHavel? Did public radio give you a tape ofyour saxophone concert? [Laughter]

President Clinton. I think the best partof my unofficial time in Prague was becom-ing reacquainted with the city, walking acrossthe bridge again after 24 years and seeingthe family I stayed with 24 years ago andjust meeting the people. I was very pleasedby the large number of people who came outyesterday to see me and say hello. And seeingthe changes here, it was very rewarding, andit stiffened my determination to continue tosupport these kinds of changes.

Now, I had a lot of fun playing the saxo-phone, and the President gave me a saxo-phone, you know, with his name inscribedon it, so it’s a gift I will always treasure. Thenice thing about the little music we playedlast night was that the Czech musicians withwhom I played were so good that they cov-ered up all my shortcomings.

Is there another question from the foreignpress?

BosniaQ. What is the next American step in the

Bosnia war?President Clinton. Well, the next thing

that we are doing now is what we are doingwith NATO. NATO adopted a new resolu-tion and our military commanders in Europenow are looking into the instruction they gotfrom the NATO commanders, which is to ex-amine what plans can be developed to ensurethe rotation of the troops at Srebrenica andto ensure that the airstrip at Tuzla is open.

Now, in addition to that, I have been ac-tively consulting with all the people withwhom I have met. I have asked all the leadershere what further steps that they thoughtought to be taken. Everyone recognizes thatthe peace prospects have been diminishednow because, for the first time in a goodwhile, all three parties seem to believe theyhave something to gain by fighting. And aslong as that circumstance continues, it’sgoing to be difficult for us to convince themthrough a political process to stop. But thereare some ideas floating around, and I’m goingto solicit some more.

Yes, sir, go ahead. Well, I’ll take two more.Go ahead—three more.

UkraineQ. Mr. President, already there are voices

in Ukraine’s Parliament suggesting thatPresident Kravchuk went beyond his author-ity in negotiating the agreement to eliminatenuclear weapons. And even a Foreign Min-istry spokesman there today said there maynot be an agreement ready for you and Presi-dent Yeltsin and President Kravchuk to signin Moscow on Friday. Is that your under-standing, and is this causing concern aboutthis agreement that you reached this week?

President Clinton. Well, let’s see whathappens in Kiev. I think, you know, we haveto let President Kravchuk make his own judg-ments about what he can and cannot do withhis government. I expect that we will havean agreement, and I expect that it will behonored. And I think, frankly, the more thepeople in the Ukrainian Parliament knowabout it, the better they will feel about it.I think as the details get out, they’ll feel bet-ter about it.

Yes, I’ll take you too. Go ahead.



Q. There appears to be some differenceof opinion even within your own staff aboutPresident Kravchuk’s ability to order thesechanges, whether he can do it by executiveorder, whether the Rada or Parliament hasto vote on it. What is your understanding ofthat, sir?

President Clinton. We’ll talk about it inKiev and beyond. Let’s watch it unfold andsee.

We’ve got to go.Q. Mr. President, I had planned to ask

the question that Mark [Mark Knoller, CBSRadio] asked. But let me ask you, the reform-ers in Russia seem to have had trouble build-ing coalitions to offset the rise of the nation-alist forces. What kind of advice will you begiving Mr. Yeltsin and other reform leadersabout how to go about offsetting the threatof Mr. Zhirinovsky?

President Clinton. Well, I think first ofall, perhaps in the last election they learneda good lesson, which is that the forces of re-form need to find ways to work together andto speak if not with one voice, at least witha common message.

I expect there to be some rough spotsalong the way. I mean, after all, this is a rath-er new experience for them, and they’ll haveto figure out exactly how the forces are goingto be organized within the new Parliament,and then they’ll have to work out their rela-tionship with the President. But even thoseof us that have been at it for 200 years stillhave difficulties from time to time. But I’mlooking forward to meeting with a numberof those leaders in the reform effort and get-ting to know them and getting some feel forwhere they are and where they’re going. ButI’m still basically quite hopeful.


NOTE: The President’s 42d news conferencebegan at 1:55 p.m. at the U.S. Ambassador’s resi-dence. The Visegrad leaders spoke in their nativelanguages, and their remarks were translated byan interpreter.

The President’s News ConferenceWith President Leonid Kravchuk ofUkraine in KievJanuary 12, 1994

President Kravchuk. Ladies and gentle-men, let me open this news conference andgive the word to the President of the UnitedStates, Mr. Clinton.

President Clinton. Thank you very much.I have just completed my first meeting withPresident Kravchuk, and I am delighted thatwe have met under such promising and his-toric circumstances. I was also delighted tobe able to wish the President a happy 60thbirthday on this auspicious occasion.

President Kravchuk, President Yeltsin, andI are ready to sign on Friday an agreementcommitting Ukraine to eliminate 176 inter-continental ballistic missiles and some 1,500nuclear warheads targeted at the UnitedStates. This breakthrough will enhance thesecurity of Ukraine, the United States, Rus-sia, and the entire world.

Ukraine is a nation with a rich heritage,enormous economic potential, and a very im-portant position in European security. Theties between our two nations have deep roots.From America’s birth to the present day,Ukrainian immigrants have helped to shapemy nation’s history.

Our meeting this evening begins a new erain our relations. The agreement PresidentKravchuk and I will sign with PresidentYeltsin opens the door to new forms of eco-nomic, political, and security cooperation.Our meeting tonight centered on three im-portant issues.

First, we discussed the strategic impor-tance, for this region and the world, of thenuclear agreement. I commend PresidentKravchuk for his courage and his vision innegotiating this agreement.

Second, I was able to issue a personal invi-tation to Ukraine to participate fully in thePartnership For Peace launched at thisweek’s NATO summit. By providing for spe-cific and practical cooperation betweenNATO and Ukrainian states and their forces,



this Partnership can foster an integration ofa broader Europe and increase the securityof all nations. I’m very pleased by the expres-sion of interest in participating that camefrom President Kravchuk and his Govern-ment today.

Third, President Kravchuk and I agreedtoday to expand and enhance the economicties between our nations. This is a difficulttime of transition for Ukraine, but Ukraineis blessed with abundant natural resourcesand human talent. Because so many of itsneighbors are moving toward market econo-mies and democracy as well, I believeUkraine’s most promising future lies with re-form and with integration with those bur-geoning economies.

To assist in the reform effort, I am todayannouncing the establishment of an enter-prise fund for Ukraine, as well as Belarusand Moldova, a fund which will help to cap-italize new small businesses and provide as-sistance to existing firms that seek to pri-vatize.

Over the last year, the United States hasalso provided $155 million in assistance toUkraine. We are prepared to increase oursupport substantially as Ukraine moves to-ward economic reform. Under such cir-cumstances, I also believe the internationalcommunity would be able to provide signifi-cant support and investment to Ukraine, andI am prepared to work hard to see that thatsupport and investment comes to pass.

To begin this work, we will be pleased towelcome to Washington later this month asenior Ukrainian economic delegation. I be-lieve that Ukraine can play a major role inthe future of Europe, a Europe whose secu-rity is not based on divisions but on the possi-bility of integration based on democracy,market economics, and mutual respect forthe existing borders of nations.

I’m looking forward to seeing PresidentKravchuk in Moscow on Friday and to wel-coming him to Washington for an official visitin March. I want to thank the people ofUkraine for having me here and treating meso warmly, if only briefly. And I would liketo close by asking the President permissionto come back and actually see the beautifulcity of Kiev at some other time. I have sam-

pled its wonderful food, and I’m now readyfor the sights.

Thank you very much.President Kravchuk. Ladies and gentle-

men, I am happy to greet the President ofthe United States, Mr. Clinton, and his ac-companying persons in Ukraine. I’m sorrythat this visit is quite short, but I hope andI’m confident that Mr. President will be ableto visit Ukraine once again, so to say, in afull-scale and will be able to show him theUkraine as it is. And I invite you, Mr. Presi-dent, to visit Ukraine whenever it is conven-ient for you.

This is a short visit, a few hours only, butto my mind it is worth several days of nego-tiations if it’s taken into consideration thewide range of issues which have been dis-cussed. And we would be glad to inform theworld that those problems were worth its at-tention.

I think the most urgent problem and themost important problem for the whole worldnow is the problem of nuclear weapons. Andwe have approached its solution. And I’msure that this day and the forthcoming daysopen the way for the world for disarmamentand for the elimination of nuclear weapons.And Ukraine will be committed to its obliga-tions, and Ukraine will be the state whichwill not stand in the way to disarmament.

A lot of time was devoted to discussingthe bilateral relations between the Ukraineand the United States. And I’m glad that thePresident of the United States and theUnited States support our country in thistime of our hardships. And I’m sure that thissort of cooperation and support is real sup-port of all independent states which haveemerged on the basis of the former SovietUnion.

I’m sure that the charter for cooperationand friendship between our states, which isnow being finished up by our experts, willbe a new stage in the development of ourrelations. For us, it is very important thatthere is an understanding from the part ofthe President of the United States of urgencyof the support to Ukraine in carrying out itseconomic reform and support its reformingprocesses. I am happy that the President ofthe United States will support our countryin such international financial structures as



the International Monetary Fund, the WorldBank, European Bank for the Reconstructionand Development.

We understand that we have to be decisivein carrying out reforms, and we are readyfor that. And we are happy with the develop-ment of our trade relations and that newprospects are opening up.

We support the initiative of the UnitedStates, its program which is called the Part-nership For Peace, which we consider to bethe universal formula which enables the par-ticipation of all countries. We understandthat this program does not solve all the prob-lems of security, but anyhow, it gives the pos-sibility of all states to participate.

I’d like to greet once again Mr. Presidenthere in the Ukraine, and I would like to pointout that in all issues we have discussed wehave found joint, common viewpoints. Thismeeting was short, but it was very importantand fruitful, and it opened a new stage inthe development of Ukrainian-American re-lations, which I am confident will be long-term and reliable.

Thank you for your attention.If you don’t mind, Mr. President, I’ll have

the office now of the Press Secretary.[Laughter] I give the possibility to ask ques-tions of our guests, American journalists.

Ratification by Ukrainian ParliamentQ. What exactly must your Parliament now

do to ratify this agreement? And exactly howlong will it take for Ukraine to become a non-nuclear nation?

President Kravchuk. You know, the phi-losophers say that everything changes in theworld, even you cannot step in the same rivertwice. So I hope that our Parliament be-comes cleverer in the course of its life andit sees the reality of the present days, andit will understand the essence of these rela-tions and the wish of the three states. Andwhen they will understand it, they will sup-port the implementation of these agree-ments.

Economic Assistance to UkraineQ. Ukraine sympathizes with you and your

wife, Hillary, but anyhow, there’s a questionhere. There is a decision of the Parliament,the Ukrainian Parliament, on disarmament.

According to mass media, you told that therewill be a financial technological assistance.But your words were that you will rendertechnical assistance. Is that true?

President Clinton. Well, I will attemptto answer the question as I understand it.First of all, Ukraine is already due some com-pensation for the tactical nuclear weapons ithas already dismantled. And I have discussedwith the President the quickest way of reach-ing an agreement on how much is due andhow it can be delivered.

Secondly, under the so-called Nunn-Lugarbill, Ukraine is entitled to a substantialamount of money to help to dismantle theoffensive strategic nuclear weapons, whichcan be used for not only dismantling theweapons but for some of the defense conver-sion needs of Ukraine as well.

But over and above that, the United Statesis committed to rendering economic assist-ance to Ukraine to help start new enterprises,to help fund privatization, and to help makethis painful transition to a new economy. Andwe are further committed to helping con-vince other nations and the international fi-nancial institutions to help as well.

Finally, as part of our agreement, ofcourse, Ukraine will be compensated for thehighly enriched uranium that is a part of nu-clear weapons. And that is a strictly commer-cial arrangement because that uranium canbe turned into fuel rods for commercial pur-poses and electric power plants.

Whitewater Development Corp.Q. Thank you, and happy birthday, Presi-

dent Kravchuk. President Clinton, as Presi-dent of the United States you do not havethe luxury at home to ignore events overseas,and perhaps the reverse is true. FormerPresident Carter was one today who cameout and suggested the time had come for anindependent counsel to take a look at theMorgan Guaranty savings and loan situation.He and many other Democrats are lookingto you for an indication of whether that’s ap-propriate. Is it?

President Clinton. I have nothing to sayabout that on this trip except that most ofthem have been denied the facts that are al-ready in the public record before they madetheir comment, largely as a result of the way



this thing has been discussed. But I havenothing else to say about that.

President Kravchuk. Thank you for yourgreetings, and I’d like to note that there isa gentleman sitting over here who mentionedthe wife of Mr. President, Hillary. So, onceagain, I would like to give a word to a woman.And I hope I’ll receive another portion ofgreetings.Implementation of Agreement

Q. Sometimes financial programs, but theyelect implementors. Where’s the guaranteethat these programs will be implemented?

President Kravchuk. If this is a questionto me, I would answer that the guaranteesare inside the Ukraine. The way we work,the way they will have the attitude to us. Sothese are the guarantees.

President Clinton. If I might add just onepoint. Sometimes in discussions with nations,financial guarantees do not materialize be-cause they are dependent on decisions madeby other parties, usually the World Bank orthe International Monetary Fund. In thiscase, every part of our agreement dependsonly upon the three Presidents and theirGovernments to keep their word. The firstthing I said to President Kravchuk tonightis that I would do everything I could to makesure that all three of us did exactly what wasin the agreement. And I am confident thatwe will.

President Kravchuk. I’m sorry, as a presssecretary I would ask for some more ques-tions, but here is a protocol, so the last ques-tion, please.Future NATO Memberships

Q. Mr. President, Mr. President Clinton,you mentioned the PFP, the Partnership ForPeace. And there are some people who saythat Russia has been using a type of passiveimperialism in order to keep countries ofEastern Europe and Central Europe out ofNATO for the time being. Do you—bythreatening destabilization. Do you agreewith that? And I would be very interestedin what President Kravchuk has to say.

President Clinton. No, I don’t. The shortanswer to the question is, I do not agree withthat, although President Yeltsin himself hasexpressed reservations about NATO mem-bership for other countries if Russia is ex-

cluded. You know, he has expressed an inter-est in being a member himself.

The leaders of NATO concluded that theyshould not offer membership at this time toany country because they weren’t sure anycountry was ready to assume the responsibil-ities of membership and because they didn’twant to exclude anyone else.

The Partnership For Peace offers a genu-ine concrete military security cooperation,joint planning, joint training, joint operationsto all the states of the former Soviet Unionand to all of the members of what was theWarsaw Pact. And we are genuinely inter-ested in reaching out to all these nations.

I can assure you that no one has a vetoover NATO membership. It is anticipatedthat the Partnership For Peace will lead toNATO membership for many of those whoparticipate in the Partnership who want togo through and assume the responsibilitiesof membership, ultimately.

That’s how I see it. President Yeltsin onlysaid that he didn’t, at this time, want anotherline drawn across Europe. He wanted to havea chance to be part of an integrated Euro-pean security network in which every nationwould have to respect the territorial bound-aries of every other state.

President Kravchuk. Mr. President Clin-ton, and I’ll give one more question to theUkrainian side.Security for Ukraine

Q. The question to President Clinton:What assurances of security will the UnitedStates give and Russia give to Ukraine afterit will have the non-nuclear status?

President Clinton. Well, first of all, whatgoes with the Non-Proliferation Treaty ad-herence is the absolute security that no onewho has nuclear weapons will ever use themagainst any nation that is part of the NPT.That is the first security.

But let me make two other points, whichI think are more important, at least as a prac-tical matter, to Ukraine’s security. Numberone, the Partnership For Peace gives Ukrainethe opportunity to work with the militaryforces of the United States and all of NATOin planning and working together and in es-tablishing patterns of conduct which clearlywill increase the security of this nation.



Second, and perhaps even more impor-tant, Ukraine’s decision to become a non-nu-clear state opens the possibility of receivingsignificant economic assistance, not just fromthe United States but from the InternationalMonetary Fund, the World Bank, the Euro-pean Bank for Reconstruction and Develop-ment, the G–7 nations, and other nationswho understand the greatness of this nation,its strategic importance, and its economic po-tential. And I believe that in the 21st century,it will be difficult for any nation to be secureunless it is economically strong.

So perhaps that is the most importantthing of all, the whole range of possibilitiesthat are now open to Ukraine because of thiscourageous decision by the President.

President Kravchuk. Ladies and gentle-men, we would compensate what we haven’ttime to do, when we’ll be implementing ourprogram. And you will be compensated withan objective description of the role and theprocesses in Ukraine. And now the best thingfor us to do is to wish Mr. President Clintonbon voyage.

President Clinton. Let me say this inclosing: If he did not have such a very impor-tant job, I would invite President Kravchukto the United States to run my press con-ferences. [Laughter]NOTE: The President’s 43d news conferencebegan at 9:50 p.m. at Kiev Airport. PresidentKravchuk spoke in Ukrainian, and his remarkswere translated by an interpreter. A tape was notavailable for verification of the content of thisnews conference.

Remarks at a Welcoming Ceremonyin Moscow, RussiaJanuary 13, 1994

President Yeltsin. Mr. President of theUnited States of America, it gives me greatpleasure to welcome you as a most honoredguest of the Russian Federation. You beginthis day’s official business in the famous andlegendary Georgian Room of the GrandKremlin Palace, which has names of someof Russia’s best sons inscribed on its walls.And I believe that this is a good omen forthe coming discussions that we’re going tohave.

I very well remember the first meetingthat we had in Vancouver where we laid thefoundations for U.S.-Russia partnership andalso for our personal rapport and friendship.And I believe that we have every reason tothink that the coming discussions will beeven more profound, more practical, andmore sweeping in nature.

I also believe that you will take back fromyour visit to Russia a very good memory. AndI’m sure that as you meet people here, theywill also remember you very well and yourstay here. So, Mr. President, welcome toRussia. Welcome to Moscow.

President Clinton. Thank you. Well, Mr.President, I am delighted to see you againand deeply honored to be in this magnificenthall which is a great testimony to the richhistory, the leadership, and the greatness ofyour nation, the greatness that has been dem-onstrated again by the remarkable changesover which you have presided in the last 2years.

I have just come from a set of historicmeetings that we’ll have a chance to talkabout, meetings which make it clear thatRussia and the United States must work to-gether to build a new future for Europe onwhich a new future for our entire world de-pends.

I believe that together we can work to leada new security for Europe based on demo-cratic values, free economies, the respect fornations for one another. We will be discuss-ing the specific things we can do to keep theeconomic reform going in Russia and to helpthe Russian people to realize the benefits ofthe courageous changes that have been goingon; to use the Partnership For Peace to de-velop mutual security all across Europe andfor the first time in all of history to have aEurope that is not divided by an artificial linebetween peoples; and to work toward the his-toric agreement that you and I will sign withPresident Kravchuk on Friday to make theworld a safer place with fewer nuclear weap-ons.

These are the ways in which, under yourleadership, your nation is defining its great-ness. And I am very pleased to be here towork on these things with you.



NOTE: The President spoke at 9:16 a.m. in St.George’s Hall in the Kremlin. A tape was notavailable for verification of the content of theseremarks.

Nomination for Director of theOffice of Federal ContractCompliance Programs at theDepartment of LaborJanuary 13, 1994

The President today announced his inten-tion to nominate Shirley J. Wilcher as Direc-tor of the Labor Department’s Office of Fed-eral Contract Compliance Programs(OFCCP).

‘‘Throughout her career, Shirley Wilcherhas dedicated her efforts to preventing dis-crimination in America’s workplace and edu-cational institutions,’’ the President said. ‘‘Iam pleased she has agreed to accept this im-portant position.’’

NOTE: A biography of the nominee was madeavailable by the Office of the Press Secretary.

Nomination for Regional Posts in theDepartment of EducationJanuary 13, 1994

The President today announced the ap-pointment of Loni Hancock, Janet L. Pas-chal, Stan Williams, Judy W. Harwood, andStephanie J. Jones to serve as Regional andDeputy Regional Representatives for theU.S. Department of Education in San Fran-cisco, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, and KansasCity.

‘‘I am pleased to name these hardworkingindividuals to serve as Regional and DeputyRegional Representatives for the Depart-ment of Education,’’ said the President.‘‘Each has demonstrated their commitmentto improving education and will serve ourcountry’s schools and students well.’’

NOTE: Biographies of the following nomineeswere made available by the Office of the PressSecretary: Loni Hancock, Regional Representa-tive, Region IX; Janet L. Paschal, Deputy RegionalRepresentative, Region I; Stan Williams, RegionalRepresentative, Region IV; Judy W. Harwood,Deputy Regional Representative, Region IV;

Stephanie J. Jones, Regional Representative, Re-gion V; and Sandra V. Walker, Regional Rep-resentative, Region VIII.

Nomination for an AssistantSecretary of CommerceJanuary 13, 1994

The President today announced his inten-tion to nominate William W. Ginsberg as As-sistant Secretary for Economic Developmentat the Department of Commerce.

‘‘William Ginsberg’s experience and com-mitment to economic development will servehim well in this new post. I am pleased toname him to our team,’’ the President said.

NOTE: A biography of the nominee was madeavailable by the Office of the Press Secretary.

Proclamation 6645—Martin LutherKing, Jr., Federal Holiday, 1994January 14, 1994

By the President of the United Statesof America

A ProclamationOn January 15, 1929, Martin Luther King,

Jr., was born, destined to make our worlda greater and more noble one. Growing upin a landscape disfigured with ‘‘ColoredOnly’’ and ‘‘White Only’’ signs and a societyrife with other demeaning racial barriers anddistinctions, Martin Luther King, Jr., sadlylearned that the Constitution’s guarantee ofequality was denied to most black Americans.He dedicated his life to ending the injusticeof racism, gracing the world with his visionof a land guided by love instead of hatredand by acceptance instead of intolerance.

Three decades ago, Dr. King described hisgoals most eloquently in his famous ‘‘I Havea Dream’’ speech at the historic Civil RightsMarch on Washington. The impassioned pleathat rose from the steps of the Lincoln Me-morial that summer day stirred the entireNation, awakening people everywhere toturn from the scourge of racism to embracethe promise of opportunity and democracyfor all. He prophetically described a futurein which our children are judged ‘‘not by thecolor of their skin, but by the content of their



character.’’ His unparalleled commitment tojustice and nonviolence challenged us to lookdeeply within ourselves to find the roots ofracism.

Throughout his all too brief life, MartinLuther King, Jr., often confronted powerfuland even violent opposition, sacrificing hisliberty, his personal safety, and, ultimately,his life for the cause of freedom. Though anassassin’s bullet silenced him forever at theyoung age of 39, Dr. King’s words and deedscontinue to live on within each of us. We,the inheritors of the fundamental rights hehelped to secure, are forever grateful for hislegacy.

Today, we live in a nation that is strongerbecause of Dr. King’s work. Unfortunately,there is still much division in this great land.Even though the signs that once segregatedour communities have been removed, we arestill far from achieving the world for whichDr. King struggled, toiled, and bled. He didnot live and die to create a world in whichpeople kill each other with reckless abandon.He did not live and die to see families de-stroyed, to see communities abandoned, andto see hope disappear. If we are to be faithfulto Dr. King’s vision, we must each seize re-sponsibility for realizing the goals he workedso tirelessly to fulfill. Dr. King’s valiant strug-gle for true equality will be won, not by thefleeting passion of eloquent words, but bythe quiet persistence of individual acts of de-cency, justice, and human kindness. We mustcarry the power of his wisdom with us, notonly by celebrating his birthday, but also byinscribing its meaning upon our hearts,teaching our children the value and signifi-cance of every human being.

Now, Therefore, I, William J. Clinton,President of the United States of America,by virtue of the authority vested in me bythe Constitution and laws of the UnitedStates, do hereby proclaim Monday, January17, 1994, as the Martin Luther King, Jr.,Federal Holiday. I call upon the people ofthe United States to observe the occasionwith appropriate programs, ceremonies, andactivities.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto setmy hand this fourteenth day of January, inthe year of our Lord nineteen hundred andninety-four, and of the Independence of the

United States of America the two hundredand eighteenth.

William J. Clinton

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,11:26 a.m., January 14, 1994]

NOTE: This proclamation will be published in theFederal Register on January 18.

Proclamation 6646—ReligiousFreedom Day, 1994January 14, 1994


A ProclamationThis past year, the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act of 1993 was enacted, re-affirming our solemn commitment to protectthe first guarantee of our Bill of Rights. Inthe great tradition of our Nation’s founders,this legislation embraces the abiding prin-ciple that our laws and institutions must nei-ther impede nor hinder, but rather preserveand promote, religious liberty. As it is in-scribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia,the words of Leviticus ring out, ‘‘Proclaimliberty throughout the land unto all the in-habitants thereof.’’ Our government did notcreate this liberty, but it cannot be too vigi-lant in securing its blessings.

It is no accident of authorship that theright to free exercise of religion is the firstfreedom granted by our Bill of Rights. Theframers of the Constitution well recognizedthe awesome power of religious liberty, notonly to unite the citizenry in common cause,but also to empower us to question age-oldbeliefs and lift this Nation toward enlighten-ment. Today, as we face a crisis of consciencein our families and communities, as childrenmurder children in our schools, as neighborturns away from neighbor on frightening citystreets—today, more than ever, we see thefundamental wisdom of our country’s fore-fathers. For at the heart of this most preciousright is a challenge to use the spiritual free-dom we have been afforded to examine thevalues, the soul, and the true essence ofhuman nature.



Religious freedom helps to give America’speople a character independent of their gov-ernment, fostering the formation of individ-ual codes of ethics, without which a democ-racy cannot survive. For more than two cen-turies, this freedom has enabled us to livetogether in a peace unprecedented in the his-tory of nations. To be both the world’sstrongest democracy and its most truly multi-ethnic society is a victory of human spirit wemust not take for granted. For as many issuesas there are that divide us in this society,there remain values that all of us share. Webelieve in respecting the bond between par-ents and children. We believe in honoringthe worth of honest labor. We believe intreating each other generously and with kind-ness. We are striving to accept our dif-ferences and to find strength in the dreamswe all hold dear.

On this day, let us hear the sound of theLiberty Bell as a clarion call to action. Letus face with renewed determination theproblems that beset our communities. Let usreplace the instability and intolerance withsecurity and justice. Regardless of our faith,let us be each other’s guides along the openpath toward peace.

The Congress, by Senate Joint Resolution154, has designated January 16, 1994, as ‘‘Re-ligious Freedom Day’’ and has requested thePresident to issue a proclamation in observ-ance of this day.

Now, Therefore, I, William J. Clinton,President of the United States of America,do hereby proclaim the day of January 16,1994, as Religious Freedom Day. I call uponthe people of the United States to observethis day with appropriate ceremonies and ac-tivities, and I urge them to reaffirm their de-votion to the principles of religious freedom.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto setmy hand this fourteenth day of January, inthe year of our Lord nineteen hundred andninety-four, and of the Independence of theUnited States of America and the two hun-dred and eighteenth.

William J. Clinton

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,1:58 p.m., January 18, 1994]

NOTE: This proclamation will be published in theFederal Register on January 20.

Proclamation 6647—National GoodTeen Day, 1994January 14, 1994


A ProclamationThere are now more than 24 million young

people between the ages of 13 and 19 in theUnited States, each of them unique, eachwith promise, each struggling with the com-plicated transition to adulthood. These youngpeople hold the keys to a promising future,and we must help them use every availableresource to meet the challenges that lieahead. Few generations have been con-fronted with so much responsibility, yet per-haps none has been presented with such ex-citing opportunities.

In spite of barriers and stumbling blocks,most teens play by the rules as they beginthe work of building meaningful lives forthemselves and finding their places in thecommunity. Most embrace and promote fair-ness and compassion, often championingsuch precepts when others forsake them asunattainable ideals. They work together todiminish prejudice and violence; they find joyin family and friends and satisfaction in tri-umph and accomplishment.

Many teens are heroes who refuse to giveup in adversity, to yield to temptation, or togive in to the negative influences aroundthem. They serve as positive role models toyounger children, as leaders to their peers,and as inspiration to older generations. Theyare our future, our hope, and a very real joyto those of us who know them well.

We are justifiably proud of Americanteens. They deserve our recognition and ap-preciation, and it is fitting that we honorthem. Our country depends on their energyand dedication. Their knowledge, creativity,and dreams can change America for the bet-ter.

The Congress, by House Joint Resolution75, has designated January 16, 1994, as ‘‘Na-tional Good Teen Day’’ and has authorizedand requested the President to issue a procla-mation in observance of this day.

Now, Therefore, I, William J. Clinton,President of the United States of America,


53Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994

do hereby proclaim January 16, 1994, as Na-tional Good Teen Day. I invite the States,communities, and people of the UnitedStates to observe this day with appropriateceremonies and programs in appreciation ofour Nation’s teenagers.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto setmy hand this fourteenth day of January, inthe year of our Lord nineteen hundred andninety-four, and of the Independence of theUnited States of America the two hundredand eighteenth.

William J. Clinton[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register,1:59 p.m., January 18, 1994]NOTE: This proclamation will be published in theFederal Register on January 20.

Digest of OtherWhite House Announcements

The following list includes the President’s publicschedule and other items of general interest an-nounced by the Office of the Press Secretary andnot included elsewhere in this issue.

January 8In the morning, the President and Hillary

and Chelsea Clinton attended the memorialservice for his mother, Virginia ClintonKelley, at the Hot Springs Convention Cen-ter in Hot Springs, AR. They then traveledto Hope, AR, where they attended the burialservice at Rose Hill Cemetery and a recep-tion following the service. In the late after-noon, they returned to Washington, DC.

In the late evening, the President traveledto Brussels, Belgium.January 9

After arriving in Brussels in the afternoon,the President met with King Albert II of Bel-gium at Laeken Palace.

In the evening, the President toured theGrand Place. Following a visit to a local cafe,the President returned to the Conrad Hotel,his residence during his stay in Brussels.January 10

In the morning, the President went toNATO Headquarters where he met withNATO Secretary General Manfred Woernerand attended a briefing by U.S. military com-

manders. Following the briefing, the Presi-dent attended the opening session of theNATO summit.

In the afternoon, the President went toLaeken Palace where he attended a luncheonhosted by King Albert II of Belgium forNATO leaders and ministers of foreign af-fairs. Following the luncheon, the Presidentreturned to NATO Headquarters where heattended afternoon sessions of the NATOsummit.

In the evening, the President attended asummit working dinner at the Chateau ValDu Chesse. Following a late evening walkand visit to a toy and novelty shop, he re-turned to the Conrad Hotel.January 11

In the morning, the President attended thefinal session of the NATO summit at NATOHeadquarters. He then attended meetingsand a working lunch with European Unionofficials at European Union Headquarters.

In the afternoon, the President traveled toPrague, Czech Republic. Following his arriv-al, he attended official welcoming cere-monies in the First Courtyard of Prague Cas-tle.

In the evening, after a walk across theCharles Bridge, the President and PresidentVaclav Havel of the Czech Republic had din-ner at the Golden Tiger Pub. Later in theevening, he went to the Reduta Jazz Club.January 12

In the morning, the President was givena tour of the Holocaust memorial at thePinkas Synagogue and the Old Jewish Ceme-tery. Following the tour, he went to the U.S.Ambassador’s residence where he hosted aworking lunch for Visegrad leaders.

In the afternoon, the President discussedthe expansion of trade in Eastern Europewith members of the business community ina K-Mart store. He then went to the PragueAirport where he attended a U.S. Embassyreception before traveling to Kiev, Ukraine.

In the late evening, the President traveledto Moscow, Russia, where he remained over-night.

The White House announced that thePresident has directed Bernard Nussbaum torequest the Attorney General to appoint aspecial counsel to conduct, as expeditiouslyas possible, an appropriate, independent in-


54 Administration of William J. Clinton, 1994

vestigation of the Whitewater matter and re-port to the American people.

January 13In the morning, the President met with

President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, who thengave him a tour of the Kremlin.

In the afternoon, the President again metwith President Yeltsin. The President thenvisited the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus-sia, Alexy II, at Central Clinical Hospital.

In the evening, the President attended areception at the Spaso House, the residenceof the U.S. Ambassador. He then attendeda private dinner with President Boris Yeltsinat his country home.

January 14In the morning, the President placed a

wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.He then went to the Kremlin where he metwith President Yeltsin. Following their dis-cussions, the two Presidents held a news con-ference.

In the afternoon, the President went toOstankino Television Station where he par-ticipated in a question-and-answer sessionwith Russian citizens.

In the evening, the President and HillaryClinton attended a state dinner hosted byPresident Boris Yeltsin in the Hall of Facetsat the Kremlin.

The President named Michael Blumenthalas Chairman of the Fund for Large Enter-prises in Russia.

NominationsSubmitted to the Senate

NOTE: No nominations were submitted to theSenate during the period covered by this issue.

Checklistof White House Press Releases

The following list contains releases of the Officeof the Press Secretary that are neither printed asitems nor covered by entries in the Digest ofOther White House Announcements.

Released January 8

Text of remarks by Vice President AlbertGore, Jr., in a radio address

Released January 10

Transcript of a press briefing by Secretaryof State Warren Christopher on the Presi-dent’s initiatives in Europe

Answers to questions taken in the press brief-ing by Secretary of State Warren Christopher

Released January 12

Transcript of a press briefing by Senior Ad-viser for Policy and Strategy GeorgeStephanopoulos on the President’s requestfor the appointment of a special counsel foran independent investigation of the White-water Development Corp.

Statement by Senior Adviser for Policy andStrategy George Stephanopoulos and at-tached letter from Counsel to the PresidentBernard Nussbaum to the Attorney Generalon the President’s request for the appoint-ment of a special counsel for an independentinvestigation of the Whitewater Develop-ment Corp.

Released January 13

Transcript of a press briefing by Secretaryof State Warren Christopher and Secretaryof the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen on the Presi-dent’s visit to Russia

Released January 14

Announcement by OPIC on President Clin-ton’s visit

Fact sheet on highly-enriched uranium(HEU)

Fact sheet on detargeting

Announcement of nomination of Chairmanof the Fund for Large Enterprises in Russia

Acts Approvedby the President

NOTE: No acts approved by the President werereceived by the Office of the Federal Registerduring the period covered by this issue.
