PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
January 21, 1998

In an exclusive NewsHour interview, President Clinton denies he interfered with an investigation into a reported affair, discusses his foreign policy objectives and expounds upon his domestic policy initiatives. Part 1-- The Lewinsky Scandal Part 3 -- Domestic Issues

 

Jan. 21, 1998: President Clinton discusses foreign affairs and domestic issues. Jan. 16, 1998: Mark Shields and Paul Gigot discuss the impact of the Paula Jones case. May 27, 1997: A discussion on the ramifications of the Paula Jones case on the office of the Presidency. Jan. 13, 1997: Paula Jones's case goes before the Supreme Court.     White House	JIM LEHRER: On Asia, the Asia financial crisis, what business is it of the United States to save these failing Asian economies?
	The Asian financial crisis
	PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, we can't save the Asian economies if they won't take primary steps to help themselves, the way Mexico did. You remember, we loaned Mexico some money, and they paid it back early with interest, and we made about $500 million because they took tough steps to restore economic growth, create jobs, raise incomes, and get their financial house in order. That's the first and most important thing the Asians have to do. But in order to make it, they also need the backup of the International Monetary Fund and a plan designed to deal with the particular problems of each country, and then the U.S. and Japan and Germany and the rest of the Europeans to stand behind that to say, if necessary, we'll put together a package to really restore confidence. In most of these Asian economies, the problem is the financial system and people can't pay back their loans, or investors take their loans -- when their loans are repaid, investors take the money and go somewhere else. What's that got to do with America? Well, every day now in some of our newspapers you can see what's happening in the Asian stock markets and the Asian currency markets. What happens when a country's currency drops? When a country's currency drops, it doesn't have much money in dollars, and therefore, it can't buy as many American exports. A big part of America's economic growth since 1993 has occurred from exports, a big part of that from exports to Asia. If all their -- the value of all their money goes down, they can't keep buying our exports, and that hurts us. Also if the value of their money goes down, everything they sell in other places in the world is all of a sudden much cheaper, so they can push us out of those markets. JIM LEHRER: Cheaper than our stuff. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Correct. So if you want to just look at the plain, brutal, short-term economic interest, that's the short-term economic interest. If you want to look at the long run, we've got an interest in Asia in having stable democracies that are our partners, that work with us to help grow the region and grow with us over the long run, to help shoulder burdens like climate change, cleaning up the environment, dealing with global disease, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, contributing to the efforts in Bosnia, ending the nuclear program in North Korea. All those things we depend on the Asian countries to be a part of. They can only do that if they're strong. So we live in a world that's so interdependent that we need them to be strong if we're going to be strong. As you know, there are some members of Congress who are saying what this really boils down to is welfare for international bankers, that's what we're up to. How do you respond to that? That's going to get -- that seems to be growing, particularly in the last few days. PRESIDENT CLINTON: It -- that bothers me a lot. First of all, there is some truth to it. That is, if a country like Indonesia gets money from the International Monetary Fund to deal with its financial problems, what are its financial problems? You've got to pay notes when they're coming due. And if somebody made a foolish loan that they should not have made in the first place, that's an only 90-day loan on a building that's going to last for 20 years, for example, you hate to see them get their money back plus a profit at someone else's expense. On the other hand -- and let me say, we are sensitive to that. Secretary Rubin has done a very good job of trying to get these big banks to roll over their debt. JIM LEHRER: Take some hits themselves? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Take some hits; at least, ride the roller coaster. They'll actually to get their interest back -- JIM LEHRER: -- if they hang in there? PRESIDENT CLINTON: -- and the principal if they hang here. But they need to hang in there. They don't need to just take the money and run. On the other hand, if you start saying, "Well, everybody is going to get half back of what they put in," that will actually speed the rate at which people take money out and reduce the rate at which people put money in. You don't rebuild confidence, and therefore, the collapse is more costly. That's what bothers me, and -- I mean, nobody likes the idea -- you know, I don't think any American likes the idea that, you know, every single banker in one of these countries that made every bad loan will get paid back. And that, in fact, won't happen. But when you try to pay back most things to stabilize the situation, the reason you're doing it is not to give the people who made the loans their money back. The reason you're doing it is to send a signal to the world that business is back up and going, that you have to be more careful now, but you can trust this country now, and you can invest. So I think -- you know, I am convinced we're doing the right thing for our own economy; I am convinced we're doing the right thing for our values and our principles, and I hope I can persuade the Congress that we are.
	Trouble in Iraq
	JIM LEHRER: All right. Another subject. Iraq. Bad news today. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Bad news. JIM LEHRER: Apparently, Mr. Butler left. What can you tell us about where that thing stands -- PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well -- JIM LEHRER: -- in terms of whether the inspectors are going to be allowed to do what they want to do, et cetera? PRESIDENT CLINTON: They seem to want to wait until early March to open the -- JIM LEHRER: Iraq does? PRESIDENT CLINTON: -- Iraq -- that -- open the sites that Mr. Butler believes that ought to be opened. That's a problem for us because we believe that we have to do everything we can, as quickly as we can, to check the chemical and biological weapon stocks. And as I told the American people the last time we had this standoff with Saddam before he relented and let the inspectors go back -- you know, my concern is not to refight the Gulf War; my concern is to prepare our people for a new century, not only in positive ways, like creating a big international financial framework that works for them -- as we just talked about -- but also to make sure we have the tools to protect ourselves against chemical and biological weapons. So I won't -- tonight, I can't rule out or in any options. But I can tell you I am very concerned about this. And I don't think the American people should lose sight of the issue. What's the issue? Weapons of mass destruction. What's the answer? The U.N inspectors. What's the problem? Saddam Hussein can't say who, where, or when about these inspection teams. That has to be done by the professionals. And sooner or later, something is going to give here, and I am just very much hoping that we can reason with him before that happens, but we've got to have those sites open. JIM LEHRER: Now, Ambassador Richardson at the U.N. and others in the administration have said the military option, just to continue your sentence, the military option remains on the table. The ambassador from Iraq to the U.N. was on our program and he pretty much acknowledged that Iraq is banking on that not being real, that the U.S. alone is not going to go in and take out some suspected anthrax facilities, particularly if it's in the palace where Saddam Hussein lives, et cetera, et cetera. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. That is not a threat. I have shown I do not relish this thing. Every time it's discussed around here, I say one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower for a while -- and it won't last forever probably, but for a while -- is that there is always time enough to kill. And therefore we have a moral responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and alliances, and I've done that. But I don't have to explain to my grandchildren why we took a powder on what we think is a very serious biological and chemical weapons programs potentially by a country that has already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds, their own people. JIM LEHRER: So you would order an air strike or whatever it would take to take out some facility if you couldn't get away from it any other way. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I'm going to stay with my tried and true formulation -- I'm not ruling out or in any option. I was responding to what you said that the Iraqi official thought that we were just talking because we wouldn't want to discomfort anyone or make them mad. That's not true. This is a serious thing with me, this is a very serious thing. You imagine the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm; it's something we need to get after. And I don't understand why they are not for getting after it. What can they possibly get out of it? If he really cares about his people. He is always talking about how bad his people have been hurt by sanctions. If he cared he would open all these sites and let people go in and look at them. If he's telling the truth, and there's really nothing there, and what benefit does the United States have now for stopping the United Nations from lifting the sanctions? I have done everything I've been asked to do. Even though we have got reservations about it, we would have a hard time answering that question. JIM LEHRER: Would you go along with lifting the sanctions. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Our position is if he complies with all the United Nations sanctions, the conditions of all U.N. resolutions leading to sanctions, that's what we want Iraq to do. But he wants to have it both ways. He wants to get the sanction lifted because he thinks people want to do business with him and he wants to continue to pursue a weapons program that is dangerous, we think, is dangerous to the world and our position. I want him to think about it and let these inspectors go back.
	The battle over Bosnia
	JIM LEHRER: One more foreign policy area, and that is Bosnia. That hasn't worked out how you hoped has it? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, not as fast as I had hopped but the Dayton Peace Agreement is very much alive and well, and we have separated the troops, I mean the forces and the people, and we have got some relocation going on and we have collected a lot of bad weapons and destroyed them, and we are making some progress on the joint institutions and other things and we are trying to get that country together. And I must say, I was very impressed on my recent trip there by the level of support for the United States and the international community and our presence there, the level of support for our staying there, and the level of commitment of so many people to genuine pursuit the peace. And I think we can make it in Bosnia. Do I think we could all withdraw by now; yes, I did. That's the down side, but if you had told me you can go there and stay a couple of years and there won't be any gunfire and the only people you'll lose will be in accidents of one kind or another, and you will have, you will get an increasing amount of harmony in the urbanized areas that you hadn't thought you would get, I think we would be happy about that. So I am going to stay after this, again this may be my congenital optimism, but I believe we are going to make Bosnia peace work. JIM LEHRER: U.S. troops are going to have to be there a long time, aren't they Mr. President? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, that depends on how long it takes to achieve the mission. It invites recalcitrants on the parts of any party in Bosnia that don't want to do something that is in the Dayton Peace Agreement, if the Americans say we're leaving in a year and the Europeans say we're going to leave as soon as they do, then the people who have to make the changes say, all I have to do is wait a year and I won't have to make any changes at all. So I think we should lift the sort of time certain... JIM LEHRER: No more deadlines? PRESIDENT CLINTON: -- for withdrawal. Yeah. Because it -- you know, the world community really hasn't done anything like this in a while. Not like this. And it's very complicated. But on the other hand at bottom it's about people getting along together and working together and serving together as citizens. And I have been quite impressed by how much has been done. JIM LEHRER: We've been talking now about all these foreign policy things. And I was just -- if you'd go back through here, only the U.S. can keep peace in Bosnia, only the U.S. can make peace in the Middle East, only the U.S. can stabilize -- PRESIDENT CLINTON: Facilitate peace. JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Facilitate peace. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Facilitate peace. JIM LEHRER: Okay, facilitate peace. PRESIDENT CLINTON: They got to make the peace. JIM LEHRER: Okay. Only the U.S. can help stabilize the economies of Asia. Only the U.S. can stare down Saddam Hussein and Iraq. If there are going to be any coalitions, the U.S. has to organize them and make them work. Is this the role of the United States of America for the immediate future? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, it's a big part of it. But it also is a part of our role to put together a broad coalition on the climate change treaty to deal with global warming. It's also our role to put together global efforts to stiffen our efforts against biological warfare, to put together, you know, a global effort to support the International Monetary Fund and the nations themselves in dealing with the Asian financial crisis. We live in a world that's interdependent in two or three ways. Number one, what happens in one country affects what happens in another one. We can see that. Number two, what happens on economic issues increasingly have a security impact, and vice versa. You know, I mean, I'll just give you the most blatant example is there's all these articles in the paper about all these countries that their currency dropped and, therefore, they can't buy jet airplanes for their air forces. That's the most obvious case. JIM LEHRER: Thailand being an example of that, yeah. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yeah. And so there's the economics and the security, there's the national and the international -- there's all this interdependence. And I just think that in this world, if you happen to be at the moment it's occurring, that this huge new world of interdependence is occurring, and plus you've got all this interdependence at a citizen level with the Internet exploding and the information explosion, we're going to have all kinds of implications with the scientific explosions going on now, and we just happen to be, at this moment in history, the strongest and the wealthiest country around. It is a unique gift for our people. They've worked hard for it, but it's still a blessing. But it's also a unique responsibility. And, you know, looking back over the last five years -- I just celebrated my fifth anniversary here -- I think that our administration has had good success in changing the role of government and changing the debate about government from -- you know, the debate I heard for the 12 years before I got here was the government was the problem versus as a solution. And we sort of come up with, "No, no. Government's neither. Government's a catalyst. It's got to give people the tools to solve their own problems. It's got to be a good partner. It's got to empower neighborhoods and people." So we've got a smaller, more active government, and yet we've invested more in education, more in science and technology, more in the environment. And it's working. We've got good results. We've not been as successful in convincing people in very practical terms about the interdependence of foreign and domestic policy, of economic and security policy. We just haven't been. But I'm hoping we can be more successful. JIM LEHRER: Because the way it would come back to you would be this way, Mr. President. If there's a problem -- like if Asia has an economic problem, we're the folks that send the most money. You've got a problem in Bosnia, Somalia, a military problem, we're the ones who send the most troops. That's how it translates in -- PRESIDENT CLINTON: Yeah, but if you look at it, if you look at -- there are some areas in the Bosnia peacekeeping operation, like civilian police, for example, where the Europeans have nine times as many as we do -- we put up more money -- I mean, you look at the different allocations. If you look at what's going on in the United Nations, if the congressional position --which is that we ought to have our U.N. dues lowered to 20 percent -- prevails, since a lot of really poor countries pay even less than their fair share of the world's GNP, we'd actually be getting off light compared to many, many other countries -- really light. So it's just not true that we always pay an unfair share. But it is true that we are called upon to bear the largest burden. If it helps us, I think if we ought to do it. And if it's right and we can do it at an acceptable price, we ought to do it, whether or not we're sure it helps us. But if you -- it's hard to quarrel with the argument that we've been hurt by having 220-odd trade agreements in the last five years when you look at what's happened, and a third of our growth coming out of trade. It's hard to quarrel with the argument that we've been hurt by our leadership in Bosnia or the MIddle East or Northern Ireland or any of these other places. It's hard to quarrel with the fact that our efforts to work with other countries to deal with chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, to deal with climate change, to deal with global disease spread, those things are good for Americans right where they live. And we just simply don't have an option to say, "Well, I'm sorry; it looks bad in the newspaper today, so I think I'll check out of this old world." But it looked pretty good there for a couple of years and we were getting a whole lot more than we were giving, so we liked that. We've got to be consistent. And we've got to realize that there is an interdependence within our country on each other and beyond our country. And I've been working on that, and I'm supposed to be a pretty good communicator, but I don't think I've done as well as I need to. I've got to do more to persuade people. Click here for more...