-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/48313524f735fe2a55812c59bbf74852.pdf
171a9b497bb1c75f583fd274b8092037
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0458-F
FOIA
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Communications
Series/Staff Member:
Don Baer
Subseries:
OAIID Number:
10140
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
Georgetown 11110 Speech [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
90
2
8
1
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
SUBJECTfi"ITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
001. memo
Higgins to Brainard; RE: NAFTA Experiences (2 pages)
11107/1994
P6/b(6)
002.memo
David Dreyer to Donald Baer; Robert Boorstin; RE: Ideas for
Georgetown speech [partial] (1 page)
11103/1994
P6/b(6)
003a. bio
RE: NAFTA Experiences (2 pages)
11104/1994
P6/b(6)
003b.memo
Donlon to O'Connor; RE: NAFTA Experiences (1 page)
11/04/1994
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
DonBaer
ONBox Number: 10140
FOLDER TITLE:
Georgetown 11110 Speech [1]
2006-0458-F
dbl259
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act- [44 U.S.C. 2204(a))
Freedom of Information Act- [5 U.S.C. 552(b))
Pl National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA)
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA)
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA)
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors. or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA)
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA)
b(l) National security classified Information [(b)(l) of the FOIA)
b(2) Release would disclose Internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA)
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
Information [(b)(4) of the FOIA)
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) ofthe FOIA)
b(7) Release would disclose Information complled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA)
b(8) Release would disclose Information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA)
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA)
C. Closed In accordance with restrictions contained In donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined In accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document wUI be reviewed upon request.
�..
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 4, 1994
Don,
Here are some thematic thoughts from Bob
Reich that might be useful for the Georgetown
speech. (The policy specifics are a different
matter, and require more work, as Bob agrees.
Also, I don't think these concerns should be linked
to trade, but his themes may well be good to
include.)
Bob Rubin
�----t-; ·. \)
To: Bob Rubin
Tony Lake
Mack McLarty
Roger Altman
Sandy Berger
Laura Tyson
Mickey Kantor
Mark Gearan
From: RBR
q
[ieA....£..
~r ~
'l\
(J _,
us, ~-.~1
~
141<
aA~
•,J
1
1L
(J ,) .. O.J5:IIJJ.
-rz (\. . d1-- ~
rL ~ .;.,
)-::.~ ~c"'q; .,_'
4-{ .. ->J(~..r
.#
~
fLe . ;:_~ -+-', :-r ~ \}~~ ~c:
C-lY\. -K~ ~~ s~.
(
~t.
f.·l'£"1 S~c., hc.s-
lore
6...
J 1 ~1-t-n:.:ff
1'1.."\~t"(t.
-...Jl
Georgetown speech--and other communications about APEC, GATT,
;
and Summit of Americas.:..-should stress that trade with developing ref" 1 ~
nations is a positive-sum game in which both they and we benefit. hto""
. Our policies are intended to ensure that all workers within
developing nations and all workers within the United States share
in the benefits.
1. The importance to US interests of rising living and working ~~
standards in LDCs, as they reap the benefits of trade. We should ~
·
not assume that all nations can match the living and working
I<!"'"~
standards of advanced nations. But we can expect that the gains
from trade will be spread sufficiently widely in these nations that_r. d.. ,.,•q..
living and working standards rise. Our interest in this goal is~ .
political (broadly-shared prosperity within these nations promotes
•JL
stability); economic (it enhances their capacity to import goods~
from the US); and moral. We will seek to encourage developing
nations in this direction through pragmatic means: Sometimes more ~c~rw~
trade rather than less trade will better promote these ends; we J L 1 t
will also look to US loans and grants to these countries; and we
will consider our military obligations in light.of the progress of
these nations in broadly lifting living and working conditions.
/,., ~J
l ·
2. Domestically, the tight link between our trade policies and -tour policies to give Americans better skills and better jobs. Thei-r~~
benefits of trade should be spread as widely as possible in our own j
1
population as well. Those Americans who are in danger of losing ~~
their jobs or suffering declining wages will be helped. That's why """·~ ,
our trade policies are linked to our new system of lifelong
~
learning: (a) individual education accounts through which workers ~~~,,
get income-contingent loans, · (b) access to comprehensive skill.:' ~ ..J
training and computerized jobs data through one-stop career centers
[Re-employment system], (c) [perhaps] a tax deduction for lifelong ~<I(~
education and skill training, (d) [perhaps] an increase in· ·the j ~--;-·minimum wage, which is now 25 percent below what it was in the late ·"""" ~,
1
1970s (adjusted for inflation).
-tl...,~}.
•
�\
MEMORANDUM
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
November 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Don Baer
FROM:
Lael Brainard
SUBJECT:
CLEARED NAFTA ADJUSTMENT STORIES
Kitty Higgins just faxed over a cleared set of NAFTA adjustment stories, which are attached.
The Tissot story- probably the most upbeat- has survived the clearance process.
Please give me a call if you have questions.
Attachment
_____________________________
.__
--------
�----.--
-,-
s~
BY:OFFICE OF SECRETARY
...
ill- 7-84 ; 5:08PM ;
202 395 6853:# 2/ 4
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OPPICI 011 TttiiiiGRITARY
November 7, 1994
Note tot
J.ael Brainard
Per your request, attached are the Department's
NAFTA Success Stori4s. Plaaac la~ me know if
you need any further information.
WORKING FOR AMERICA'S WOfiiCFORCE
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. memo
SUBJECTffiTLE
DATE
Higgins to Brainard; RE: NAFTA Experiences (2 pages)
RESTRICTION
11 /07I 1994
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
Don Baer
OA/Box Number: 10140
FOLDER TITLE:
Georgetown 11/10 Speech [1]
2006-0458-F
dbl259
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - (44 U.S.C. 2204(a)J
Freedom of Information Act- (5 U.S.C. 552(b)J .
PI National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRAJ
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(2) of the PRAJ
Pl Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(l) of the PRAJ
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information ((a)(4) of the PRA)
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(5) of the PRA)
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRA]
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIA)
b(2) Release would' disclose Internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIA)
b(l) Release would violate a Federal statute ((b)(l) of the FOIA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information ((b)(4) of the FOIA)
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of
personal privacy ((b)(6) of the FOIA)
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes )(b)(7) of the FOIA)
b(S) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions ((b)(S) of the FOIA)
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA)
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained In donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined In accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�Paga1 ol1
Dear· Speechwri ter for·· President· Clii1ton' s address ou the occasion
of the 75th anniversary of the Edmund A.· Walsh School of Foreign
Service.
You asked for backgrou~d on the.s{gnificance of the School's
75th anniversary. Here are some points:
---The School was the first school of international
relations to be established in the United States (in 1919). It
is thus the country's senior school of international ~ffairs (in
addition to being the President's alma mater!).
---As the first school of its kind, the School of Foreign
Service has pioneered international studies in the United States.
The motto for its 75th anniversary accor·dingly is: 7 5 Years:
Charting the Horizon of Inte~national Ed~cation.
---The School has the lar·gest orgauized iuteruational
studies program in the country, and quite possibly the world.
More of its graduates have entered the Foreign Service of
the United States (which was established in 1924, five years
after the founding of the School) than its two nearest
competitors (Harvard and Yale) combined.
---More generally, the School, becayse of its size and
seniority, is this country's leading provisioner of talent to
international careers- public and private.
---As domestic and international affairs become increasingly
intertwined and the world itself- for practical purposes- becomes
increasingly borderless,'the ~ission of the School- to prepare
leadership for a more cooperative world- grows in importance.
---As the American economy becomes integrated into a global
economy, the kind of international and intercultural capabilities
imparted by the School· become ever· mor·e essential to Amei·icau
international economic competitiveness.
I hope this is helpful. If you need more, please call me at
965-1736 or fax me at 687-1431. ·
Best regar·ds.
Peter Krogh ·
Dean, School of Foreign Service
-----------~------
----
--------------~
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
002.memo
DATE
SUBJECTffiTLE
David Dreyer to Donald Baer; Robert Boorstin; RE: Ideas for
Georgetown speech [partial] (1 page)
11103/1994
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
DonBaer
OA/Box Number: 10140
FOLDER TITLE:
Georgetown 11110 Speech [1]
2006-0458-F
db1259
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - (44 U.S.C. ll04(a)(
Freedom of Information Act- (5 U.S.C. SSl(b)J
PI National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRAJ
Pl Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(l) of the PRAJ
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(J) of the PRAJ
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors. or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRAI
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAJ
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIAI
b(l) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency [(b)(l) of the FOIAJ
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(J) of the FOIAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
Information ((b)(4) ofthe FOIAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIAJ
b(7) Release would disclose information compUed for law enforcement
purposes ((b)(7) of the FOIAJ
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIAJ
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical Information
concerning weDs ((b)(9) of the FOIAI
C. Closed In accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined In accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document wiD be reviewed upon request.
�BXBCUTIVB
OPPICB
OP
THB
PRESIDE
03-ROV-1994 09:33pm
David U..yv
Office of ccaauniaKia.
SUBJECT:
[ooo'l]
Memoranciwa to Bob and Don
From D2
Ideas for Georgetown
The aessage of this election is an admonition froa the
American people to both political parties that we are going to
have to work togeth~o .aka wasbington work for ordinary
people. we !!!!! do this. In the last Congress, bipartisan
majorities, governing froJI the canter, stood for education
reform, liberalized trade, national avvica, faaily and medical
leave, crime control, and in a acora of ways, large and small, in
order to llOVe our country forward. And that consensus can form
again, because Americana do want welfare to be reformed, they
want health care to be reforaecl, they want the environment to be
protected, and they want the downsizincJ of government to
continue. Moat of all, they want politics itself to be
reinvented -- to drive spacial interest money out of politics and
to change the aoney culture that distorts the legislative process
and alienates the people froa those who are elected to serve
them. we can locate the vital center in which the next
generation of America ideas and ideals will be born.
In the last Congress, the great shining m011ent of bipartisan
cooperation caae in the arena of international trade, when
reasonable man and women of good will from both political parties
joined to break down barriers to American exports in canada and
Mexico. we fought h~ for the agreement called IIAPTA out of a
profound conviction that American workers and American firms bad
a stake in our nation remaining engaged in the global economy and
the actions and passiona of a churning world.
Clinton Library Photocopy
�.
-/""
During the recently CODCluded campaign, we heard echoes from
the past, voices on both the Left and the Right, who urge our
nation to withdraw behind the walls of isolation and protection.
This is something we cannot do -- and let us remember why.
The world is a source of opportunity for American ingenuity.
From software to jet aircraft, from apples and rice to financial
services, we make what the world wants to buy, and the jobs that
produce those goods are among the best paying in the modern
economy.
Trade is a source of opportunity for working people in
America, but it is also a source of freedom, economic liberation
and safety for people throughout the world. In a global market
characterized by trade and economic integration, open markets can
help move freedom in closed societies.
�..
~
..
And we know that not only from recent experiences in places
like Eastern Europe -- where after they opened up to our goods
they came forward to embrac:e our ideas -- and we know that from
our own expari~ce hare in Aaerica. We became who we are from
the rich diversity of those who came to America. We became the
swiftest, moat agile, creative and adaptive economy and culture
in the world because we are from the world, and we cannot walk
away from the countries which are so apart of our own heritage
and ethos. We would be walking away from ourselves. Ho other
country in the world has our capacity for leadership. And at a
time when we are so strong and such an inspiration to others
around the world, we cannot, we must not, and we will not
withdraw.
And that is why the steel of our bipartisanship will be
tested at the end of this month when GATT comes before the
Congress.
�PAGE
2
1ST DOCUMENT of Level 1 printed in FULL format ..
Public Papers of the Presidents
March 14, 1994
CITE: 30 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. Pg. 508
~
LENGTH: 5998 words
HEADLINE: Remarks at the Group of Seven Jobs Conference in Detroit
BODY:
,
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your. remarks and your wonderful
service and for your commitment to this project. The Vice President will be
here for .the entire day and a half, working with the distinguished ministers
from other countries as well as our own Cabinet members· and other leaders here.·
in America.
I want to thank the State of Michigan and the congressional delegation and
the city of Detroit. You know, it is tr~e that the Mayor runs fa~ter in the
morning than the President and the Vice President do.
[Laughter]' He took us out
to Belle Isle; I made'him quit after 3 miles. And if that weren't'eno~gh
indignity, I got back to the hotel room, and I read the newspaper and discovered
that in the NCAA basket.ball championships, my beloved Arkansas basketball team
has been paired with Michigan in the Midwest regionals.
The only thing I can
say is they are in much better shape than I am, Mayor. [Laughter]
I want t6 say how wo~derful it is' for ~e to be back here in this
which represents the cultural richness and the indomitable
this wonderful city.
I want to thank Michael and Marion Ilitch for
this theater and for doing so much else for downtown historical -the~ter,
magnificent
spirit of
restoring
[applause].
I am delighted that the ministers of the G-7 nations and representatives of
.the European Union have come here to America's industrial heartland for this
impo::rtant meeting at an historic and hopeful time.
In some nations, people are
pessimistic. And.in all nations, some people are pessimistic, and in all
natio~s, there ar~ people with diificulties.
But there is real cause for hope.
Technology that was once the province of science fiction now fills our
·
factories, oui schools, and our homes.
Nations that once aimed missiles at each
other now cooperate not only here 6n Earth but also in space.
Jobs that
challenged the mind instead of straining the back are now within reach of
virtually all the people who live in these nations.
For ·the past half-century, our great common endeavors, from containing
communism to defeating aggression in the Persian Gulf, to expanding world trade
to promoting democracy in the former Soviet Union and helping to solve the
tragic conflict in Bosnia, all have depended on common bonds among the countries
present here today.
I asked for the conference to summon the same collective
energy and intellect and ideas and experience to one of the greatest problems 6f
our era: The challenge of creating.and maintaining a high-wage, high-growth
society in mature, industrial countries donfronted by the challenges of a global
economy.
In different ways, every advance.d nation faces a stubborn, persistent problem
of jobs and incomes.
Some are having 'difficulty creating new jobs; others are
having difficulty lifting their people's incomes: In the United States, we
�PAGE
3
Public Papers,of the Presidents
have create,d a lot . of new jobs in the last. two decades. But for almost· two
decades. now, the wages of hourly workers in America have remained virtually
stagnant .. The average America;n worker is_ working a longer work week. than 20
·years ago for about the same income.
None of us has all the answers. We are he,re because we have something to
learn from each other and, hopefully, something to teach each oth~r. We can all
do better, and if we work together, ,it is certain that all ~f our people will do
better.
For the tirst time, this conference brings together our ministers of finance,
labor, ·commerce, and economics. We know that the riddle of job creation cannot
be solved entirely by low interest rates or better training policies or high
tech investment alone, but.we need these.
Some of the ministers told me that if
we can get the finance ministers and labor ministers within each country to talk
to ~ach other, we will have made a real step forw~~d.
The~e's no better place
to address-these challenges than here, in this city, this State,· and this
region.
They tell us not only that we must change but that we can.
When I was growing up.in Arkansas, many of the people that I knew and lived
with were farmers.
Almost no one my age can go back more than one generation in
my State without having a farmer in his or her family.
But as agriculture
mechanized and more and more people were thrown off,the farms, literally
hundreds of thousands of people were forced to leave the farm.
Many of them
came to places like Detroit fOr jobs in the factory.
When I campaigned in
Michigan 2 years ago, I realized I actually had a chance to be elected President
when one of three.democratic primary voters I met in Michigan was born in
. Arkansas.
[Laughter]
·
That is the pattern of America.
For most of this century, the.industrial
Midwest symbolized economic opportunity.
People th~own off the farm in the
rural areas could come here and expect to find, without regard to th€ir race or
.their ed~cational level before they got here or.their incom~ before the~ got
here, a job which would permit them to support their families, take a vacation,
have health care, send their kids to college, live in their own home, and" have
a decent retirement when they finish.
That was the great hope and promise of
D~troit, of Chicago, of this whole regional mecca that led the industrial
revolution of America.
,
Industrial America was hit hard by economic changes, which all of you know as
well.or better than I.
But I have watched the people of this region fight back.
A few years ago, people ~aid the American automobile industry was doomed.
But
the Big Three auto companies worked hard with their partners in labor to improve
quality, safety, and fuel efficiency. Now they are regaining matket share at
home and abroad.
They are back.
For the past dozen years Michigan has made the
journey to a new economy; small and mid-sized companies here have created nearly
400,000 manufacturing and industrial service jobs. The British magazine, the
Economist, calls Automation Alley, the 40-mile corridor between Detroit and Ann
Arbor, and I quote, "the fastest growing technology corridor in the entire
United States of-America." And yet, let us not be too Pollyanna about this, ·with
all the good news there's also the continuing challenge. Too many people have
been left behind.. And that was the challenge that I think brought this fine
young Mayor to the mayor's job here and is bringing so many of you together
across party and racial and income and background lines to try to figure out how
we can unlock the human potential of all of our people.
�PAGE
4
Public Papers of the Presidents
This morning, I want to begin by introqucing you to eight extraordinary
people thropghout the Midwest who exemplify the changes that we must all make
and I want to ask them to stand up when I call their.nam~s --because it is
important for all of us in public life never to forget that there. are real lives
behind the actions we take and the mistakes we make as well as the things we do
_right.
Anna Satur -- where are you, Anna? Stand up.
They should all be down here. ·
She's not here? If you are here, you stand up when I call you.
Steve Choate ..
I know he's here, I saw him yesterday.
Stand up, Steve. Don't sit down.
Steve
Choate is a near neighbor of mine. He started out as a janitor, and he's now a
plant manager for Megavolt in Springfield, Missouri, part of an employee-owned
company that practices, and I quote, "open-book management, sharing its
financial figures with its workers and asking their help in planning new
products." Debbie Colloton started as a machine operator, took advanded
training, and became the quality control officer of Rockford Process Control, a
. metal assemblies maker in Rockford, Illinois. Bruce Wirtanen founded Waterworks
America.
I met him yesterday, and he gave me one of his products. He never
stopped selling. [Laughter] In North Royalton, Ohio, they make crystals that
save water in places like Saudi Arabia, where water is more expensive than oil.
Kathy Price, of Chicago, learned new skills at the Martin Luther King Community
Services Center and moved from wel.fare to work as a programmer analyst.
Frank
Rapley is the supetintendent of the Kalamazoo;. Michigan, public school~, where
they help young people who are not going to college move from school to work.
Harold Wright learned new skills in heating and air conditioning after he lost
his factory job right here in Detroit, and now he's an instructor for the
International Union of Operating Engineers. And Ocelia Williams -- I saw her -is a. lead p~rson and metal slitter operator at the Cin~Made Corporation in
Cincinnati, Ohio, a unionized company with profit sharing and self-directed work
teams.
All these people have been forced to change to do well in the global economy.
But they are your friends and neighbors, and there are millions of them like
them not only here but in every one of the G-7 nations here represented. We are
here to help them find new ways to create new jobs, .better jobs, and better
opportunities for their families. And we dare not let them down.
Thank. you
very much~
Let us begin by recognizing the fundamental reality that private enterpriseq
not Governm~nt action, is the engine of economic growth and job creation. Our
vision of the good society.depends as much on a thriving private sector as
anything else.
Let us also recognize that there are things that Government can
and should do, give our private sector the tools to grow and prepare our. people'.
for the jobs of the new economy.
A big thing that we'll be discussing here in the next 2 days is what the
responsibility of the Government is and what must be done in the private sector
and how we can reconcile the two better than any of us has done in the past.
Here in the United States, I think we are moving, in the fight direction.· Our
economy has produced 2.1 million jobs in 13 months, and 90 percent of them ar~
in the private sector.
In . the 1980's, a lot of the net new job growth in America was in the·
government sector, mostly at the State and local level.
These new jobs are
coming in the private sector. But too many middle class people are working
�PAGE
5
Public Papers. of the Presidents
.
'
harder for less, and too many people in America are still unemployed. Too many
lack the training to prosper·in the competitive environment, and there are too
many areas where there, is simply no new private inve-stment, especially in large
sections of inner cities and isolated rural areas.
The growing gap in incomes between the skilled and unskilled threat~ns not
only the strength of our economies in these countries but also the very fabric
·of our democratic societies. A year ago, for example, unemployment in Amer~ca
was 12.6 percent for people with no high school diploma, 7.2 percent for high
school graduates, 5.7 p~rcent for people with advanced training,. and 3.5 percent
for college graduates. And unemployment, as I said before, is also highest in
places where people are isolated from investment opportunities, principally in
our large inner cities and our poorest rural areas.
All of us, in our own way, must face these fundamental challenges: to find
new ways to equip people to succeed, harnessing the dynamism of the marketplace,
and somehow finding a ~ay to bring those forces into the areas where people have
been left behind.
I have to say that here in the United States, I sometimes
think we do a better job in giving people incentives to invest in some .of our
trading partners that are developing economies than we do in some of our inner
cities and isolated rural areas that are also developing economies where we have
opportunities to grow.
We all know that a global economy is taking shape where information and
investment move across national lines at stunning speed, competing for jobs and
incomes.
For economies at the cutting edge, there is no place to hide.
Rapidly
developing nations strive to improve their living standards by showing that they
can do what we do just as well at lower costs. As the old era gives way to the
ne~, our ·nations face ~ clear ~nd crucial choice at the very outset.
·Are we
going to hunker down and build walls of protectiop.and suffer a slow and steady
decline in our living standards, or are we going to embrace eagerly the
challenges of this new economy, create high-wage jobs, and prepare people to
fill them?
Every advanced economy is now facing that ch~ice in many different ways, a
choice between hope and fear, between stagnation and change, between closing up
and opening up.
If we ever·needed evidence that we· should choose change and
that we can, I received that evidence yesterday when I visited Fqcus: HOPE here
in Detroit, where I saw people from the inner city being trained for world-class
jobs, getting world-clas's jobs, and able to compete.
America has chosen the path of change. We have seen, among other things,
hese other countries in the G-7. All of our guests here today -- my fellow
' mericans, you need to know that they used to meet once 'a year, and every time
they met for 10 years, the G-7 nations passed a resolution that was, frankly,
embarrassing to the United States. They did it in very polite language, but
they essentially said the global economy cannot grow if America continues to ·
expand its budget deficit, every year spending.more and more money than the '
taxpayers are paying in.
They said, '"Please, America, do something about your
deficit." And.so we did.
the deficit by $ 500 billion, we now have a deficit that is a
smaller percentage of our arinual income than all but one of our other G-7
nations here represented .today. And I'm proud of that. And if the Congress
_dopts the new budget, as they seem on the way to doing, we will have 3 years
�PAGE
6
Public Papers ·of the Presidents·
of reduction iri our deficit for the first time since Harry Truman was President.
So we are moving in the right direction.
You need to know that our nations here have adopted a strategy that
recognizes that each of the great blocs here have a role to play, that the
United States should continue to bring its deficit down, that J~pan should
increa~~ domesti6 demand, that Europe ·should contin~e to work for lower inter~st
rates; so that these three things together can spark a new round of worldwide
growth which will create more.economic activity and more jobs in the European
countries, here in North Am~rica with the United States and Canada, and in
Japan.
We're also working hard together to tear down trade barriers with NAFTA,
GATT, a meeting with the Asian-Pacific countries. Last year, we did a
generation's work of worth in supporting global growth and jobs and incomes
through increased trade .
.
'During the debate on NAFTA, we heard the concerns of working people -legitimate concerns -- who were vulnerable to changes ±n the economy and don't
believe that any of these changes will benefit them.
But we had to face the
simple truth: Export-related jobs in the United States pay on average 22 percent.
more than jobs having nothing to do with the global economy. And trade is not a
zero-sum game.
If the world economy declines, we all lose, and. ~hen it grows,
we all win.
One lesson is clear: There is no rich country on Earth that can expand its
own job base and its incomes un_less there is global economic growth.
In the
absence of that growth, poorer countries doing the same thing we do for wages
our.people can't live on will chip away at our position. When there is a lot of
growth you can be developing new technologies, new activities, and new ma~kets.
That is our only option.
We also, therefore, must create those new markets. That means we have to be
investing in job-creating technologies, from dual-use military and civilian
technologies as we reduce defense spending, to an information superhighway
connecting every classroom and library in the country.
Many of these technologies will be in the environmental area. We now know
for sure it is possible to protect the environment and promote the economy;
Together with the Big Three auto companies and United Autoworkers, we're
promoting clean cars that will cause le~s .pollution and create more markets.
From Theodore Roosevelt to Walter Ruther to our own distinguished Vice
President, our wisest leaders have always cared ,about both our workers and our
environment. And we aim to prove that that's a big ticket to new jobs in the
21st century.
Now, what are the obstacles to change? Here in the heartland and throughout
the industrial world too many people have worked hard only to see their incomes
stagnate or decline. We have to restore confidence in people that if they do
acquire the skills they need and help their countries move forward, they'll be
rewarded and not punished. These ingrained political, almost psychological
barrie~s to change have to be addressed in every country.
�PAGE
7
Public Papers of the Presidents
I'll be candid with you. One of the things that I hope will come out of this
G-7 meeting is that by t~lking together openly and honestly about the problems
of growth and sharing our common experiences each of us who are leaders in our
countries will be able to do more within our own countries because we'll be able
to say, 11 See, the Germans and the French and the Canadians and the Italians and
the Japanese, well, we <;ill have the same problems. 11
We have talked about that a lot around our breakfast table this morning. And
everybody made the same. observation,. that if we can just honestly debate these
problems, we can help people over6om~ their fears of change and still recognize.
that t~ere are ~orne legitimate concerns associated with these changes going on.
This conference, I think, must address three critical problems that
discourage people from supporting change. Unless people believe they are
prepared for the jobs of the future, that productivity benefits them, and they
can have both strong work lives and strong families in a dynamic economy, they
will turn against change. We have to reassure our constituents. in·all these
countries on all those points. Our first challenge is obvious, preparing our
people for a world of work that offers high wages but demands high skills.
When I address audiences of young people, I tell them they will probably
change jobs seven or eight times in a lifetime. That's why we're moving forward
with a lifelong learning agenda in Congress and why Congress is preparing to
pass bills establishing world-class educational standards, promoting grassroots
reform, helping to facilitate the movement of people who go from high school
into the workplace and who don't go on to college.
Learning must never stop. We've got an unemployment system today tied to an
economy that hasn't existed for over 10 years, an unemployment that assumes that
if you j~st give people enough to live on, they will be called back to their old
job. Well, the truth is most people aren't called back to their old job today.
When they lose a job today it's not because of some cyclical regular downturn in
·the economy, it's often because there has been·another.structural change in the
world economy, and what used to be done by a person iri America is now being done
·.by a machine.in America or by a person somewhere else. So that persop has to
find something new to do.
That means it.is wrong to charge employers an
unemployment tax, to put it in a trust fund to pay people when they are
unemployed 1 to hang around until the unemployment runs out when. they still won't
have a job. That is not right.
'So, last week we presented a plan to turn our unemployme'nt system into a
reemployment system, to consolidate all these training programs, create one-stop
career centers, and start people training and preparing for new jobs from the
day they lose their old jobs.
This is a big problem in many industrial countries. The length of time
people are unemployed is growing longer and longer, and very often because they
don't get training they are forced to take a new job at 'a lower wage than the
old job they lost. We can change this, and in so doing, we can make our people
\feel more secure about embracing the changes of the global economy. And
besides, it's good business. We need all our people right now. We shouldn't be
paying for people to be idle when we could be paying for them to work.
It's not
good business.
�PAGE
8
Public Papers of the Pres~dents
·Yesterday, .as I said, when I went to Focus: Hope, I saw young people who were
learning advanced jobs in engineering~ robotics, other fields of the future,
·proving once again that all peoplecan learn.
I met a tnan the other day from
northern New York, who had worked in the defense industry for 29 years and is
rtow an executive in a hospibal, because he was given the chance to learn a new
skill and given the chance to be hired by an employer not blinded by age bias.
We have too much age bias in this country ,on both -- [applause]. We have people
that' won't hire kids because they don't have any experience. How are they ever
going to get any experience if they don't get a job, right? Then we have people
who wori't hire older people because they've got too much experience.
Let me
tell you, the older I get, the more I believe this, so I think I can say this
with great passion, the fastest growing, group of Americans today are people over.
80.
People who follow sensible habits are going to be very vigorous well into
their 70's, able to work, able to contribute, able t6 do things. -If people are
going to lose their jobs throughout a lifetime, if we are going to have to
change jobs eight times in a lifetime, a lot of people will have to change jobs
into their SO's, even into their-60's.
They cannot be denied the opportunity to
contribute . . If you want people to embrace change, we·all have to change our
attitudes about who is employable and especially on each end of the age
spectrum.
This is a very, very important thing.
The issue should be, are
people prepared for the jobs that are opening up? An.d if they are, they should·
be given a chance. to do them. .
·
The second challenge we face is one we talked about a lot at breakfast this
morning. -And the representative from the European Union from Greece made a·very
passionate comment about this. We have got to make our people believe that
productivity can ·be a source of gain, not pain. And here is the trick.
Productivity on the farm when I was a boy meant people lost jobs on the farm,
right? But productivity'in Detroit meant that more jobs were created.in the
aut1omobile industry than were lost on the farm.
Throughout the whole 201h
century, ever since the Industrial Revolution, every time we had productivity in
one area that meant that fewer people could do more work in that area,
technolog'ical changes were always creating more jobs in another area.
~Now, that is still true today, but the problem is there has been an explosion
of productivity in manufacturing.
It's not stopping. And now it's in the
service -industry, so·that banks, for example, or insurance companies or you name
it can do more work, with fewer people because of information productivity. And
at the same time, all these other countries are able to do things that they were
not formerly able to do.
So in our countries, there ,is this great insecurity
that productivity, for the first time, may be a job threat, not a job creator.
We have to fight that.
Because last year we saw our companies here in
America begin to rebound -- 13 months, 2.1 million jobs. And I promise you they
would not have been there had it not been for increasing productivity in the
private sector.
We capnot turn away from the notion that modernization is the
key to employment.
The trick-is for us ·in Government and people in the private
sector_to· keep finding new areas in which productivity can succeed. Therefore,
even though we're cutting back on Government spending this year, for example,
we're_spending· a lot more money to try to give funds ,to defense contractors to
.figure out how they can use the t~chnologies we all paid for to win the cold
~ar, to win th~ post-c6ld-war era; in hew technologies for new jobs for the
future.
I
�PAGE
9
Public Papers of the Presidents
That is the trick. We've got to prove to our people that change can work for
them and that increasing productivity is still the key to jobs and growth.
If
we forget that, if we allow our fears to blind us to the fact ~hat we must
always be on the side of productivity, we're going to be in real trouble.
.
That's what created the middle class: The ability to do more per worker created
the American middle qlass.
It created the econom~c miracles in Europe and Japan
after World War II.
It will still create opportunity.
It just-is going to be
. different and more challenging and more complicated and more rapidly moving than
before.
But if we allow ourselves for a minute to try.to resist the growth of
productivity, we.are in deep trouble.
·
From 1947 to 1973, productivity grew by over 3 percent a year in America, and
wages grew at the same rate.
Since then, the growth of productivity has $lowed
down and so have wages.
Productivity is now coming back in many sectors of our
economy, and as it does, jobs and wages will improve.
Because we need to work
smarter and not harder, this issue is more important than ever before.
Today, the United States Senate is debating a bill to help business conduct
research and development to cre~te manufacturing centers where businesses can
work together as smaller cianufacturers have beeri doing.in riorthern Italy, for
example, for quite a long time now, to help put new technologies in the hands of
companies that can use them, even though on their own, they wouldn't have the
money to develqp _them.
These are the kinds of things that all nations must do
to keep their own people on the side of productivity and to keep our-own
economies·going.
There will always be restructurings; there will always be some job loss . . The
best Government policies, the best business practices cannot stop these changes.
But what we can do is .to help our people shape the change. Government has to
equip people with lifelong learning., reemployment, health care security.
Businesses have to keep pushing for productivity improvements.
Leaders in the
private sector have to strive for new ways to help their own worker$ benefit
from productivity increases throughout well-conceived strategic planning and new
innovations and creating high-performance workplaces and letting workers
participate in more decision-making.
·
We talked this morning at breakfast about how Japan still has basically a
lifetime employment policy.
In order to do that, you have to be willing to
carry your workers through the tough times and.always have the companies find
new things to do, because that way, you don't have to go to a new company.
However we do it, there is a big responsibility here that can only be borne by
the.private sector not by Government.
From .companies that make cars to those
that write software, some of the greatest gains have been achieved by those who
treated their workers as their most important asset, who gave their workers the
most respect and the largest role in figfiring out how to do what has to be done
to compete and win in the global economy.
These are the-high performance
workplaces that train .an~ retrain their employees, empower them to take personal
responsibility for. the quality of the products and services, and treat the
workers and the unions as friends, not adversaries.
Today,· I am going to visit a company called Detroit Diesel that's working
with the UAW to'make high-quality engines for c;lomestic and foreign markets. The
chief executive, Robert Penske, is known to most of you for sending championship'
teams to the Indian~polis 500 Race. And he's also, however, building a
championship team here at Detroit Diesel, a team succeeding in the face of
�PAGE
10
Public Papers of the Presidents
change.
The third challenge w~ have is to offer pepple security in their own lives
while maintaining the dynamism of market economies. This is a big deal, and
it's a difficult one. How"can we give workers the security they need? What
kind of unemployment system must we have, what kind of health care must we have,
what kind of training system must we have, what kind of policies must we.have
for family leave and for child care or for caring for parents that enable people
to succeed is workers and as family members?
We have seen in the United States, more than in any other country present
here, the awful price ~e pay if the family disintegrates as an institution. ·It
is a more fundamental institution than the workplace.
It is the most
fundamental institution.
But we know that most of our people are now in the work force.
Most mothers
with children over orte year of age are now in the work force.
How can we make
it possible for people to do what they have to do as workers and do what they
have to do as family members? How does the Government intervene in that in a
way that makes work forces more productive i'nstead of putting so many burdens on
the work unit. that they ~an't compete in the.global economy. This is ~ tough,
difficiult, even painful thing for. most of us to discuss, but we have to be
honest about it.' And I look forward to the next day and a half to seeing some
very stimulating discussions about this.
In every country we have a find the fight formula.
We can't just fall into
dogmatism or ideology and pretend that one or the other doesn't matter. But we
know that when secure workers with secure families, knowing they are succeeding
as parents, show up for work, they are free to be the ·most productive workers in
the world.
We also know that there is a limit for the cost any operation can
bear and still be productive. So we are going to have.to talk through and work
through these difficult i$sues.
I know the United States has benefited from the resilience of its firms and
it,s workers and the flexibility of its labor markets.
I also know we hav.e been
hurt by the gnawing insecurity of millions of our people when they lose their
health care or they can't change jobs because they've got somebody in their
family that's been s~ck with a preexisting condition.
I know that the family leave law, in my own mind, that we signed here last
year, which simply brought us into line with. every other country that's here at
the G-7 I and 170 others around the world,· is going to make the American
workplace stronger because people won't have to lose their jobs when they tak~
care of sick children or parents in need. These are things that we have to
face.
So as ~e seek to find these proper balances, to help people deal with these
three challenges, let us recognize two simple truths: First, the market with all
of its ~nruly energy and all of its d~slocation, is still an unstoppable,
unstoppable and absolutely indispensable force for progress. We have to ha~e
markets where people are making choices. Second, our societies can promote.
human values ·from the strength of our families· to the skills of our workers. We
can do that, and in so.doing, empower people to take full advantage of the
opportunities provided by a vibrant market economy.
�.PAGE
11
Public fapers of the Presidents
Now, I believe if you believe these things, then you say, "Well, why are we
all here? Why.must we act together? Why must we act together in our own
countries? Why should these nations that share so much try to act together
among themselves?" I want the ministers to explore these questions honestly and
openly. But it is perfectly clear, again I will say, that it is easier for us
to do what we need to do at home·if .we know people in other countries are
working with us and that we're all going to win over the long run.
So let us ask the hard questions.
First, what really is the jops problem?
Why is unemployment too high even when growth occurs? Can'we really talk ·about
one national unemployment rate anymore? Does the' national unemployment rate
·mean anything to any of you here in Michigan? No, you want to know what the
unemployment·rate is in Michigan or what it is in Detroit or what it is in Wayne
County, right?. Is there a national unemployment.rate that is meaningful? Are
there trends in all these countries that make the overall rate of unemployment
in each less important than the rates among di'fferent sectors of the society,
especially among people who, because of their long-term unemployment, their lack
of skills, or their isolation from investment opportunities, have absolutely
lost touch with the labor markets?
Second, what's the best strategy for worldwide cooperation on monetary and
fiscal. policy to stimulate growth and create jobs? How do we balance our fears
of inflation with the need for economic growth?
Third, how can we build a social safety net that helps our people advance and
helps our economies grow? Can we provide lifelong learning, help people to
balance the demands of work and family, give people health security, and still
keep our economies dynamic? And if so, what is the best way to do that?
Fourth, history has shown productivity brings better jobs and higher wages.
But how do we, when change is so rapid, make the case to our people that this
will be true in this time as it has always been true in the past? And with the
rapid technological change of the information age, how can Government policies
and business:practices show workers that change and productivity can be
.
h~rnessed, for their advantage?
None of us can· find the answers to all of these questions just within the
borders of our individual countries. At this conference, as we share our
insights, our views, and our practical experiences, every one of our nations
will benefit.
If we find new and effective ways to generate jobs and increase
incomes, the working people of all nations will be tne winners.
it is my hope
that this conference will continue the work that we began last year where these
great industrial nations work together to get things done.
For years; the G-7 nations consulted with each other about the great issues
of macro-economics and global finance.
Today, w~ are beginning a serious
conversation about the economic well-being of ordinary people in each of these
coun~ries.
This is an historic, important, and long-overdue moment.
I
We all must succeed.
If any of us fails. to convince our people to embrace
change, then that nation might well retreat from the global economy.
That could
set off a downward spiral of protectionism and lower growth and turning backward
which could affect us all.
�PAGE
12
Public Papers of the Presidents
If the faces of the new economy, these' fine people I intrqduced here today
can have the courage to change, then so can we, each of us as nations. We can··
proceed in the spi~it that President.Roosevelt called bol~, persistent
experimentation.
If we can move forward from this conference filled with the
faith that we can make change work for the ordinary citizens in these. countries,
for all of our people, then we will succeed. And we will: go from this
conference to the meeting of all of the leaders of the G-7 countries in Naples
with a real agenda where we can all be committed to going forward here.
Let me say that, in closing, we've faced'a lot of ditficult and decisive
choices like this before. We haven't always made the fight decision. At the
end of World War I our nations turned inward, and it led ~s to depression and
another world· war. After World War II, our nations turned outward·. They faced
'the future courageously. Old enemies embraced each other in a common cause of
human d~velopment. Alliances were built; institutions were created that kept
the peace, promoted prosperity, advanced democracy, and won the cold war. ·
Now we have to choose once again. And this conference is a part of that
choosing. Will we have the courage to embrace change and build our people up?
·I think I know the answer. Together we have to find it.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The Presiderit spoke at 10:45 a.m. in Fox
referred to Mayor Dennis Archer of Detroit.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE-MDC: April 19, 1994
Thea~er.
In his remarks, he
�****-----~--------------------------------------~-~-------------------------****
*
*
13 PAGES
9: 54 P.M. STARTED
521. LINES
9:55 P.M: ENDED
*
*
****----~------------------~-~----------------------------------------------****
****--------------------------------~---------~---------~-------------------****
'
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
EEEEE
E
E
EEE
'E
E
EEEEE
N
N
N
N.
NN N
N1NN
N NN
N
N
N
N
DDDD
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
DDDD
*.
*
*
*
*
*
*
****----------~-------------------------------~--------------~--------------*~**
****---------------------~--------------------------------------------------****
SEND TO: BOWYER, ELIZABETH
WHO - COMMUNICATIONS
ROOM 122
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20500
�.
~
...__,
~.
I
U.S. DOLINAFTA Ofc.
!
~
<I>
~
~
u
10:202-501-6489
II
~
......
......
~
H
~ .·
~·
I
!
'0.
l
~
tI
i
e
:.;
I
0
\-:.
~
·~
, ~I
.
:;
•
---
- ---
•
11:00 No.002 P.01
IS
~
'-\.,
V;
~-
~
~
,J.,.:')
~
\)
~
it
u
q
·-
~ 8
~-
.....
~.J .
NOV 04'94
• •
~
~
~
~
·-..l
~J
~I
~
l·-
~ g M &
(!) !
R 'l ~~ ~~
t
-o .§ I .·
~~ ~~
<~ :g ...
~
I~
I
a :a-l~
~
~ II
\J-6.~
<'a
~~~I
~~
'0
~
~
0
.
�c
(;
t
c
r....
U.S Department of Labor
::;;
,J:
-:I
Employment and Trainilg Administration
Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances
c
Trade Acfpsstment Assistance
Performance Measures
tJ,~J,£# ~t~. (Esr).
Readjustment Allowances:
Total Workers
FY 1989
8'1~a•l
FY 1990
1:1/~l.,
-+
0
FY 1991
S"~fS'?
FY1992
¥f;'IS7
FY 1993
1~:237
F"'/jj(C_
-
.
t::l
~
,1/-,§JI
tv
I
23,681
19,545
25.221
8.727
U1
9,566
0
..-
I
0'1
.b
co
Adjustment Assistance:
\.()
17,042
18,057
20,093
18,582
19,454
Job Search
863
565
525
594
796
Relocation
989
1,245
759
751
1,961
Entered Training
z
0
c
0
.b
.
\.()
.b
..-
....
0
..z
IM-7
.00
0
tv
.-u
0
eN
�.
(1},
tf
NAFTA
C)
r
z'
,
:D
-f
:D
U.S. Department of Labor
...,
C)
n
Ottice of Trade Adjustment Assistance
Mill eo..tl#flfl•a A,._.-. N.W• . . . _
..
C~l#
IV
0
IV
W416bl#gto31. Sl.t:. Zl/3111
I
V1
0
......
I
0\
FAX.. transmittal
cover page
.
~
00
...
Nrnallel
0
>
u:>
ot 1Hitl• (blt:ladlag aner ,.,.,._ __
c5
FAX NO.:_}_<f_~ :.£ 1 s .3 _
TEL. NO.:____ -II
c
FROM:__v._r___
-
....r
I tr. u"'-z..v
_
FAX N0.:-<2o_21 MkSt.IL TEL. NO.: -·
. -----
zC)
c
0
.s=-
.....
..
V1
0t::
....
~
'
cit
-
()
.!:.
c,.o ....
~
l
c.)
(
'>-
r.a •1-~cl.
IIVIJ .. ~.(J\1,-,/J'
U1
V1
z0
.0
IV
•
r
0
"0
II'
.....
01\
~1
11
.JI,_£.
-(
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
003a. bio
DATE
SUBJECTfi'ITLE
RE: NAFT A Experiences (2 pages)
11/04/1994
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
DonBaer
OA/Box Number: 10140
FOLDER TITLE:
Georgetown 11/10 Speech [1]
2006-0458-F
db1259
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Rec:ords Ad- [44 U.S.C. 1104(a))
Freedom of Information Ac:t- [5 U.S.C. 551(b))
PI National Sec:urlty Classified Information [(a)(l) of the PRA)
P1 Relating to the appointment to Federal offic:e [(a)(1) of the PRA)
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA)
P4 Release would disc:lose trade sec:rets or c:onfidentlal c:ommerc:lal or
financ:lallnformatlon [(a)(4) of the PRA)
PS Release would disc:lose c:onfidential advlc:e between the President
and his advisors. or between suc:h advisors [a)(S) of the PRA)
P6 Release would c:onstltute a c:learly unwarranted invasion of
personal prlvac:y [(a)(6) of the PRA)
b(l) National sec:urity c:lassified Information [(b )(1) of the FOIA)
b(1) Release would disc:lose Internal personnel rules and prac:tic:es of
an agenc:y [(b)(1) of the FOIA)
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) ofthe FOIA)
b(4) Release would dlsc:lose trade sec:rets or c:onfidentlal or financ:lal
Information [(b)(4) of the FOIA)
b(6) Release would c:onstltute a dearly unwarranted invasion of
personal prlvac:y [(b)(6) of the FOIA)
b(7) Release would disc:lose Information c:ompUed for law enforc:ement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA)
b(8) Release would disc:lose Information c:onc:ernlng the regulation of
financ:lallnstitutlons [(b)(8) of the FOIA)
b(9) Release would dlsc:lose geologic:al or geophysic:allnformation
c:onc:erning weDs [(b)(9) of the FOIA)
C. Closed In ac:c:ordanc:e with restrlc:tions c:ontained In donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal rec:ord misfile defined In ac:c:ordanc:e with 44 U.S.C.
1101(3).
RR. Doc:ument will be reviewed upon request.
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
003b. memo
DATE
SUBJECTffiTLE
Donlon to O'Connor; RE: NAFfA Experiences (1 page)
11/04/1994
RESTRICTION
P6/b(6)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
DonBaer
ONBox Number: 10140
FOLDER TITLE:
Georgetown 11110 Speech [1]
2006-0458-F
db1259
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act -144 U.S.C. 2204(a))
Freedom of Information Act- [S U.S.C. SS2(b))
PI National Security Classified Information [(a)(l) ofthe PRA)
Pl Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA)
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA)
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA)
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(S) of the PRA)
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA)
b(l) National security classified information [(b)(l) ofthe FOIA)
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA)
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA)
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA)
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA)
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA)
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA)
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record mlsfde defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�u.~-.
10:202-501-6489
LJULINHt" IH UtC ';
NOV 04'94
15:57
No.Q2p,~.05
D INDlJSTJ~IES, INC.
-------+----------.. . - . .- . ·-·-·-----"'-'''··-·..._.______ _
.1\u.H•lio Lopct
Oifico c1f Trado Adjut<ln ~;:nt Auislanac
U.t). Doparltncml ~,f i.ll o;r
200 Cnnf.tltutian Avtn.1 o N .W
WM.hingloo, D.C. 202 0
Dt.m- M.rs. Amelin I..ope
Ett,dior tuJay, Fred Loc l,)., cutrt~L\l pl11ut m11ua~~:t of the O>~.ford .r\1ti41•Scmtb fltcilily, indicotod Lbat svver"l of
tltf! dilliJ~lac~J worl<urs £ro l1 c.1ur reocnl11lnn ll.'lo11ln~ ho.vc hucu nhlu to utililtu fund• froJ)\ tt(l.(\u tllaJjustmcn l lc1
&llt1il.ll thesn in ,rthuri.ug their ecluc::Ali(ln. Fn:(lmonlt<llWJ tLnl he! luul huarJ that CLbO\\t three- indivtduols ha.d
be6{111l tratnl.ng in tho nu fling f.ielJ tmd ~hal lw IH~ord thot :;:,·vr~t·.,J ~~lhunl hnvc Ativndcd C()Ut&e!l at Waycrose
)u.t1.ic1r Cc.,llege a11J Wcuo Tecllnh.:Cll Sdli)OJ.
r. .
T nppru4:ie~te your A&61ifltan ·e ltl lw)pint: tbt.• <:mpluyllc.:t: lnkc:! l•Jv,lnl:il!;!u
prufrAm.
Tor•:" Thoc1 !l(ln
Mg1:. Bmplnymeut & Tr4' 1ing
pf ll1e CJpporhmitlcll pr<.lVided by
~he
�INTERNATIONALISM
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
... No nation on this globe should be more internationally minded than America because it was built by all nations.
[201
•.. International relations have traditionally been compared to a chess game in which each nation tries to outwit
and checkmate the other.
[204
Speech, Chicago, Il~nois
March 17, 1945
Address, Mexico City
March 3, 1947
INTERNATIONAL ORDER
V ·... Our people are united. They have come to a realiza{\_ tion of their responsibilities. They are ready to assume their
role of leadership. They are determined upon an international order in which peace and freedom shall endure. [202
Address, Baylor University
March 6, 1947
..
••. We have learned, by the costly lesson of two world
wars, that what happens beyond our shores determines how
we live our own lives. We have learned that, if we want to
live in freedom and security, we must work with all the
orld for freedom and security.
[205
Special Message to Congress
November 17, 1947
INTERNATIONAL PURPOSE
Our faith is in the betterment of human relations. Our
vision is of a better world in which men and nations can live
together, respecting one another's rights and cooperating in
building a better life for all. Our efforts are made in the
belief that men and nations can cooperate, and that there are
no international problezns which men of good will cannot
[203
solve or adjust.
K
Address, Cornerstone Laying of the
United Nations Building
New York City
October 2.4, I 949
ISOLATIONISM
.•. Isolationism is a counsel of despair. Isolationism would
bring on another war, and it would be a war in which we
might stand alone against the rest of the world.
· [2o6
Address, Madison, Wisconsin
January 27, 1952
•.. Man has learned long ago, that it is impossible to live
unto himself. This same basic principle applies today to
Bs
�PAGEo
2
2ND DOCUMENT of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Public Papers of the Presidents
February 26, 1993
CITE: 29 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 319
LENGTH: 6309 words
HEADLINE: Remarks on the Global Economy at American University
BODY:
Thank you very much, .President Duffey, distinguished members of the board of
'truste~s, and faculty and patrons of American University, and Members of
Congress, members of the diplomatic corps, and my fellow citizens, and
e~pecially to the students'here today.
I am very honored to be here today at
this wonderful school on the occasion of your centennial, at the dawn of a new
era for our Nation and for our world, and deeply honored to receive this
.honorary degree, although I almost choked on it here.
[Laughter]
. My mind is full of many memories today, looking at all of you in your
youthful enthusiasm and your hope for the future.
I'd like to say a special
word of thanks to all of you for the warm reception you gave to the person to
·whom I owe more than anybody else in this audience, Senator Fulbright.
'
'
When I was barely 20 year·s old, Senator Fulbright's administrative assistant
called me one morning in Arkansas and asked me if I wanted a job working for the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee as an assistant .clerk. Since I couldn't
really afford the cost of my education to Georgetown, I told him I was
.
interested. And he said, "Well, you can have a part-time job at $ 3,500 a year
or a full-time job at$ 5,000 a year." I said, "How about two part-time jobs."
[Laughter] He replied that I was just the sort of mathematician they were·
looking for and would I please come. , [Laughter] The'next week, lite~ally a day
and a half later, I was there working for a person I ·had admired all my life,
and the rest of it·.is history. But Seriator Fulbright, now 88 years ·young,
taught·me a lot about the important of our connections to the rest of the world,
a~d that even in our small land-locked State Qf Arkansas, we were bound up
inextricably with the future, with the passions and the promise of people all
across this globe. And it is about that which I come to speak today.
I also want to say a special word of thanks to your president, Joe Duffey,
and to his wonderful wife, Anne Wexler, who. have been my friends for many years.
When I was a young man at Yale Law School, I went to work for Joe Duffey in his
. campaign for the Senate. His wife was then his campaign manager.
I enjoyed
working for a woman.
I learhed ~ lot about equal o~portunity, which I have
tried to live out in my own life. Well, Joe Duffey didn' .t win that race for the
Senate. And 4 years. later I went home to Arkansas, and I ran for Congress, and
I lost my race, too. And I thought how ironic it is that our failed efforts to
get .to Congress made us both President.
[Laughter]
Finally, let me. say that in my senior year at Georgetown, in the . winter, on a
day very much like today, I had a date with a girl from American University.
I
didn't think about this until I got in the.car to come up here today, but it was
snowing like crazy that night, just like it was today. And I creeped along in
my car from Georgetown to American ·with this fellow who was in' my class. And we
picked up these two fine women from American University. And we went to the
:/-
�I
PAGE
3
Public Papers of the Presidents, February 26, 1993
movie, and then we went to dinner. We went to a movie, we took them home, and
then we were driving home. As we were driving home it was very slick, just, like
it is today. And I put my brakes on when I was almost home, .and my car went
into a huge spin. And it missed this massive pole on which the stoplight was by
about 2 inches. And I couldn't help thinking after my speech last week how many
more. people would have been happy in America if I'd been a little bit closer to
the pole 25 years a~o.
[Laughter]
Thirty years ago in.the last year of his short but brilliant life, John
Ke.nnedy came to thi~. university to address the paramount challenge of that time:
the imperative of pursuing peace in the face of nuclear confrontation. Many
Americans still believe it was the finest.speech he ever delivered.
Today I
come to this same place to deliver an address about what I consider to be the
great challenge of this day: the imperative of American leadership in the face
of global change.
(
Over the past year I have tried to speak at some length about what we must do
to update our definition.of national security and to promote it and to protect
it and to foster democracy and human rights around the world.
Today, I want to
allude to those matters, but to focus on the economic leadership we must exert
at home and abroad ·as a new global economy unfolds before our eyes.
Twice before in this century, history has asked the United States and other
great powers to provide leadership for a world ravaged by war. After World War
I, that call went unheeded.
Britain was too·weakened to lead the world to
reconstruction.
The United States was too unwilling.
The great· powers together·
·turned inward as violent, totalitarian power emerged. We raised trade barriers.
We sought to humiliate rather than rehabilitate the vanquished. And the result
was instability, inflation, then depression and ultimately a Second World.War.
After the Second War, we refused to let history repeat .itself. Led by ·a
great American President, Harry Truman, a man of very common roots but uncommon
vision, we drew together with other Western powers to reshape a new era. We
establi$hed NATO to oppose the aggression of communism. We rebuilt the American
economy with investments like the GI biil and a national highway system. We
carried out the Marshall plan to rebuild war~ravaged nations abroad. .General
-MacArthur's vision prevailed in Japan, which built a massive economy and a
remarkable democracy. We built new institutions to foster peace and prosperity:
the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the G~neral
Agreeme~t on Tariffs and Trade, and more.
.
These actions helped to usher in four ~ecades of robust economic growth and
collective security. Yet the cold war was a draining time. We devoted
trillions of dollars to it, much more than many of our more visionary leaders
thought we should have.· We posted our sons and daughters around the world. We
lost tens of thousands of them in the defense of freedom and in the pursuit of a
containment
of communism.
·
.
.
We, my generation, grew up going to school assemblies learning about what we
would do in the event a nuclear. war broke out. We were taught to practice
ducking under our desks· and praying that somehow they might ·shield.us from
nuclear·radiation. We all learned about whether we needed a bomb shelter in 1our
neighborhood to which we could run in the event that two great superpowers
rained nuclear weapons on one another. And that fat:;e, .frankly, seemed still
frighteningly possible just months before President Kennedy came here to speak
�PAGE.
Public Papers of the Presidents, February 26,
4.
~993
in 1963. Now, thanks to his ~eadership and that of every American President·
since the Second World War from Harry Truman to George Bush, the cold war is
over.
The Soviet Union itself has disintegrated.
The nuclear shadow ~s receding in
the face of the. START I and START II agreements and others that we have made and
others'yet to come.
Democracy is on the march everywhere in the world.
It is a
new day and a great moment for America.
'
.
I
Yet, across America I hear people ·raising central questions about our place \
and our prospects in this new world we have done so much to make.
They ask:
Will' we and our ch~ldren rec;tlly hav:e good jobs, first-class opportunities, .
·
world-class educatlon, quallty affordable health care, safe streets? After
·
having fully defended freedom's ramparts; they want to.know if we will share in
freedom's bounty:
One· of the young public school students President Duffey just introduced was
part of the children's program that I did last Saturday with children from
around America. .If you saw their stories, so many .of them raised troubling
questions about our capacity to guarantee the fruits of the American dream to
all·of our own people.
·
I believe we can do that, and I believe we must.· For in a new global'.
economy, still recovering from the after-effects of the cold war, a prosperous
America is not only good for Americans, as the Prime Minister of Great Britain
reminded me just a couple of d~ys ago, it is absolutely essential for the ·
pro~perity of the rest of the world .. '
Washington can no longer remain c::aught in the death grip of gridlock,
governed by an outmoded ideology that says change is to be resisted, the
quo is to be preserved like King Canute ordering the tide to recede. We cannot
do that. And so, my fellow Americans, i submit to you that we stand at the
third great moment of decision in the 20th century. Will we repeat the . mistakes
of the 1920's or the 1~30's by turning inward, or will we repeat the successes
of the 1940's and the 1950's by reaching outward and improving ourselves as
well? I say that if we set ·a new direction at home, we can set a new direction
for the world as well.
The change confronting us in the 1990's i.s in some ways more difficult than
previous times because it is less distinct.
It,is more complex and·in some ways
the path is less clear to most of our 1 people still todayj even after 20 years of
declining relative productivity and a decade or more of stagnant wages and
greater effort.
The world clearly remains a dangerous place. Ethnic hatreds, religious
strife, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the violation of human
rights flagrantly in altogether too many places around the world still call on
·us to have a sense of nation~l secu~ity in which ou~ nitional defense is an
integral part. And the world. still calls on us to promote democracy, for .even
though democracy is on the march i,n many places in the world, you and I know
that it has been thwarted in many places, too. And yet we still face,
overarching everything else, this amorphous but profound challenge in the way
humankind conducts 'its commerce.
�\
PAGE
. 5
Public Papers of the Presidents, February 26, 1993
We cannot let these changes in the global economy carry us passively toward a
future .of insecurity,and instability ..
For change is the law of life. Whether
you like it or. not, the world will change much more rapidly iri your lifetime
than it has in mine.
It is absolutely astonisl;ling the steed with which the
sheer volume of k:qowledge in the world is doubling every few years. And a
critical isSue before us and especially before the young people here in this
audience is. whether you will grow up in a world where change is your friend or
your enemy.
We must challenge the changes now engulfing our world toward America's
enduring objectives of peace and prosperity, of democracy and human dignity.
And we must work,to do it at home and abroad.
·
It is important to understand the monumental scope of these changes. When I
was growing up, business was mostly a local affair. Most farms and firms were
owned locally; they borrowed locally; they hired locally; they shipped most of
their products to neighboring communities or States within the.United States.
It was the same for the country as a whole.
By and large, we had a domestic
economy.
But now we are woven inextricably into the fabric of a global economy.
Imports and exports, which accounted for about $ 1 in $ 10 when I was growing
up, now represent$ 1 in every$ 5. 'Nearly three-quarters of the things that-we
make in America are subject to competition at home or abroad from foreign
producers and foreign providers of services. Whether we see it or not, our
daily lives are touched everywhere by the flows of commerce that.cross national
borders as inexorably as the weather.
Capital clearly has become global.
Some $ 3 trillion of capital race around··
the world every day. And when a firm wants to build a new factory, it can tu~ri
to financial markets now open 24 hours.a day, from London.to Tokyo, from New
York to Singapore.
Products have clearly become more global.
Now if you buy an
American car, it may be an Ame:r;ican car built with some parts from Taiwan,
designed by Ge~mans, sold with British-made advertisements, or a combination of
others in a different mix.
Services have b~come global.
The accounting firm that keeps the books fo~ a
small business in Wichita may also be helping new entrepreneurs in Warsaw. And
the same fast food restaurant that your family goes to or at least that I go to
-- [lau~hter] ~- also may well be serving families from Manila to Moscow and
managing its business globally with information technblogies, and satellitei.
Most important of all, information has become global and has become king of
the global economy.
In earlier history, wealth was measured in land, in gold,
in oi-l, in machines.
Today., the principal measure of our wealth is information:
its qu~lity, its ~uantity, and the speed with which we acquire it and adapt to
it. We need more than anything else to·measure our wealth and 9ur potential by
what we know and by what we can learn and what we can. do with it. The value. and
volume of information has soared; the half-life 'of new ideas has trumped.
Just a few days ago, I was out in Silicon Valley at a remarkable company
called Silicon Graphics·that has expanded exponentially, partly by developing
computer software with a life of 12 months to 18 months, knowing. that it will. be
obsolete after that and always being ready wit!: a new product to replace it.
�-PAGE
6
Public Papers of the Presidents, February 26 1 1993
We are in a constant race toward innovation that will not end in the lifetime
of anyone in this room. What all this means is that the best investment we can
make today'is in the one resource firmly rooted in our own borders. That is, in
the education, the skills, the reasoning capacity, and the creativity of our· own
people.
For all the adventure and opportunity in this global economy, an.American
cannot approach it without mix~d feelings. We still sometimes wish wistfully
that everything we really want, particularly those things that produce good
wages, could be made in America. We recall simpler times when one product line
would be made to endure and last for years. We're angry when we see jobs and
·-factories· moving overseas or across the borders or depressing wages here at. home
when we think there is nothing we can do about it. We worry about our own
·.
prosperity being· so dependent on events and. forces beyond our shores.
Could it
be that the world's most powerful nation has also given up a significant measure
of. its' sovereignty in the quest to .lift the fortunes of people throughout the ·
world?
It is ironic and even painful that the global village we have wbrked so· hard
to create. has done. so much to be the source of higher unemployment and lower·
wages for some of ou·r people. But that is no wonder .. For years our. leaders
have failed' to take the. steps that would harness the globa~ economy to the
benefit of. all our people, steps such as investing in our people and their
skills, enforcing our trade laws, helping communities hurt ,by change; in short,
pu.tting the American people first without withdrawing from the world and people
beyond our borders.
.
The truth of our age is this and must be this: Open and competitive commerce
·will enrich us as a nation.
It spurs us to innovate.· It forces us to compete.
It connects us with new customers. ' It promotes global growth without which no
rich country can hope to grow wealthier.
It enables our producers who are
themselves consumers of services and raw materials to prosper. 'And ~o I way to
you in the face of all the pressures to do the reverse, we must compete, not
retreat ..
Our exports are especially important to us. As bad as the recent recession
·was, it would haye gone on for twice as long had it not been for what we were
able to sell to other nations.
Every$ 1 billion of our exports creates nearly.
20,000 jobs here, and we now ha:ve over 7 million export-related jobs in America..
They terid to involve better work and better pay . . Most are in manufacturing, and
on average, they pay almost $ 3,500 more per year than the average American job:
They are ·exactly the kind of job~ we need for a new generation of Americans.
- Amer.ican jobs and prosperity are reason enough for us to be working at
mastering the essentials of the global economy. But. far more. is at stake, for
this new fabric of commerce will also shape global prosperity or the lack of it,
and with it, the prospects of people around the world for democracy, freedom,
and peace.
We must remember that even with all.our problems today, the United States is
'still the world's strongest engine of growth and progress. We remain the
world's largest producer.~nd its largest and most open market.
Other nations,.
such as Germany and Japan, are moving rapidly.
They have done better than we
have ln certain areas. We should respect them_for it, and where appropriate, we
should learri from that.
But/we must also say to them, "You, too, must act as
�PAGE
7
Public Papers of the Presidents, February 26, 1993
engines of global prosperity. 11 Nonetheless, the fact is that for riow and for the
fo~~seeable future, the world looks to us' to be the engine of global growth and
to be.the leaders.
Our leadership is especially important for the world's new and emerging
democracies.
To grow and deepen their legitimacy, to foster a middle class and
a civic culture, they need the ability to tap into a growing global economy.
And our security and our prosperity will be greatly affected in the years ahead
by ,how many of these nations can become and stay democracies~
All.you have to do to know that is to look at.th~ problems in Somalia, to
look at Bosnia, to look at the other trouble spots in the world.
If we could
mak~ a garden of democracy and prosp~rity and free enterprise in every part of
this globe, .the world would be a safer and a better.and a- more prosperous place
for the united States and for all of•you to raise your. children in~
Let us not ~in~mize the difficulty o( this task. Democracy's ~respects are
~
dimmed, especially in the. developing world, by trade barriers and'slow global
growth.
Even though 60 developing nations have reduced their trade barriers in
recent years, wheri you add up the sum of thei~ collective actions, 20 of the 24
developed nations have actually increased their trade barriers in recent years.
This is a powerful testament to the painful difficulty of trying to maintain a
high-wage economy in a global economy where production is mobile and can quickly
fly to a place with low wages.
We have got to focus on how to help our people adapt to these ,changes, how to
maintain a high-wage economy in the United States wit~out ourselves adding to
the protectionist direction that so many of the developed nations have taken in
the last few years.
These barriers in the end will cost the developing world
. more in lost exports and incomes than all the foreign assistance that. developE?d'
nations provide, but after that they will begin to undermine our economic
· ·
prosperity as well.
It's more than a matter· of incomes.
I remind .you: It's a ~atter of culture
and stability~
Trade, of course, cannot ensure the stirvival of new democracies~
and we have seen the enduring power of ethnic hatred, ·the incredible power of
ethnic divisions, even among people literate and allegedly understanding, to
splinter de~ocracy and_to savage the nation'B State.
.
But as philosophers from Thucydides to Adam Smith have noted, the habits of
commerce run counter to the habits of.war.
Just as neighbors who raise each
other's barns are less likely to become arsonists, people who raise each other's
living standards through commerce'are less likely to become combatants. So'ifwe believe in the ,bonds of democracy, we must resolve to strengthen the bonds of
commerce.
Our own Nation has the greatest potential to benef{t from the emerging
economy, but to do so we have to confront the obstacles that stand in our way.
Many of our trading partners cling to unfair practices.
Protectionist voices
here at home and .abroad call for new barriers. And dit'ferent policies have left
too· many. of our workers in communities exposed to the harsh ·Winds of trade
without letting them share in the sheltering prosperity trade has also brought
,and without'helping them in·any way to builld new ways .to work so they can be
>rewarded for their efforts in global commerce.
�PAGE
8
Public Papers of the Presidents, February 26, 1993
Cooperation among the major pOwers toward·world growth is not working well. at
all today. And most of all, we simply haven't done enough to prepare our own
people and to produce our own resources so that we can face with success the
rigors of. the new world. We can change all that if we have the will to do it.
Leona~do da Vinci said that God sells all things at the price of labor.
Our
labor must be to make this change.
·
I believe there are five steps ·we can and must take to set a new direction at
home and to help create a new direction for the world. First, we simply have to
get our own economic house in order.
I have outlined a new national economic
strategy that will give America the new directions we require to,meet our
challenges.
It seeks to do what no generation of Americans has ever been called
upon to do before: to increase investment in our productive future and to reduce
. our deficit at the same time.
·
We mus.t do both. A plan that only plays down the deficit without investing
in those things that make us more productive will not make.us stronger. A plan
that only invests more money without bringing down the deficit will weaken the
fabric of our overall economy such that even educated and productive people
cannot succeed in it.
It is more difficult to do both. The challengers are more abrasive. You
have to cut bore other spending and raise more other taxes.
But it is essential
that we do both: invest so that we can compete; bring down the debt so that we
can compete.
The future of the Americari·dream and the fate of ·our economy and
much of the world's economy hangs in the balance on what happens in this city in
the next few months.
Already the voices of inertia and self-interest have said, well, we shouldn't
~.do this or this, or that .detail is wrong with that plan.
But almost no one has
taken up my original challenge that anyone who has any specific ideas about how
we can cut more should simply come forward with them.
I am genuinely open to
new ideas to cut inessential spending and to make the kinds of dramatic changes
in the way Government works that all of us know we have to make.
I don't care
wheth~r they come from Republicans or Democrats, or I don't even care whether
they come from at home or abroad.
I don't care who gets the credit, but I do
care that we not vary from our determination to pass a plan that increases
investment and reduces the deficit.
I tnink every one of you who is a student at this university has a far bigger
in the future than I do.
I have lived in all probability more·than half
my l.ife with benefits far beyond anything I ever dreamed or deserved because my
country worked. And I want my country to work for you.
stak~
The plan I have offered is assuredly not perfect, but it's an honest and bold
at tempt to honestly confront the challenges before us,. to secure the foundations
of our economic growth, to expand the resources, the confidence and the moral
suasion. we need to continue our global leadership into the next century. And I.
plead with all of you to do everything yOu can to replace the.blame game that
has dominated this city too long with the bigger game of compet~ng and winning'
the global economy.
·
\
Second, it is time. for us to make trade a priority element of American
security.
FOr too long, debates over trade have been dominated by voices from (
the extremes.
One says governments should build walls to protect firms from
'
.
'
�PAGE
9
Public Papers of bhe 'Presidents, February 26r 1993
competition. Another says government should do nothing in the face of foreign
competition, no matter what the dimension and shape of that competition is, no
matter what the consequences are in ~erms of job losses, trade dislocations;. o
crushed incomes.
Neither view takes on the hard work of creating a more open.
trading ~ystem that enables us and our trading partners to prosper. Neither
steps up ·to the task.of empowering our workers to compete or of ensuring that
there is some compact of shared responsibility regarding trade's impact on our
·people or· of guaranteeing a continuous 'flow of investment into emerging areas of·
new technology which will create the high-wage jobs of the. 2l.st century.
Our administration is now developing a comprehensive trade policy that will
step up to those challenges. And I want to describe the principles·· upon which
it .will rest.
It will not be a policy of blame but one of responsibility.
It
will say to our trading partners that we· value their business, .but none of us
should· expect something for nothing.
'
.
W~ will continue to welcome foreign products and services into our markets
but insist that our products and services b~ able to enter theirs on equal
terms. We will welcome foreign investment in our businesses knowing that with
it come new ideas as well as capital, new technologies, new management
techniques, and new opportunities for us to learn from one another and grow.
But as we welcome that investment, we insist that our investors should be
equally welcome in other countries.
We welcome the subsidiaries of foreign companies on our soil. We .appreciate
the jobs they create and the_ products and services they bring.
But we do insist
simply that they pay the same taxes on the same income that our companies do for
doing the same business.
·
Our trade policy will be part of an integrated economic program, not just
something we use to compensate for the lack of a domestic. agenda. We must
enforce our trade laws and our agreements with all the tools and energy at our
disposal.
But there is much about our competitive posture that simply cannot be
straightened out by trade retaliation. Better educated and trained workers, a
lower deficit, stable, 'low interest rates, a reformed health care system,
world-class technologies, revived cities: These must be the steel of our
competitive edge. And there must be a continuing quest by business .and labor
and, yes, by Government for higher and higher and higher levels of productivity.
Too many of the chains that have hobbled us in world trade .have been made in
America.
Our trade policy will also bypass the distracting debates over whether
efforts should be multilateral, regional, bilateral, unilateral.
The fact is
that each of these efforts has its place. Certainly we need to seek to open
other nations' markets and to establish ~lear and· enforceable rules on which to
expand trade.
That is why I'm committed to a
Uruguay round of the GATT talks.
But it still holds the potential,
·ours, to boost American wages and
same for other nations around the
prompt and successful completion of the.
That round has dragged on entirely too long.
of other nations do their share and we do
living standards signifidantly and to do the
wo:r:ld.
We also know that regional and bilateral agreements provide opportunities to
explore new kinds of trade concerns,. such as how trade relates to policies
affecting the environment and labor standards and the antitrust laws. And
�PAGE
Pr~sidents,
Public Papers of the
IO
February 26, 1993
these agreements, once concluded, ~an act as a magne~ including other countries
to drop barriers and toiopen their trading systems.
The North American Free Trade ~greement is a good example.
It begah as an
agreement with Canada, 'which I strongly supported, which has now led to a pact·
with Mexico as well.
That agreement holds the potential to cre~te many, many .
jobs in America over the next decade if it is joined with others to ensure that
the environment, that living standards, that working conditions, are honored,
thai we can literally know that we are going to raise the condition of people in
American and iiJ. Mexico. We-have a vested interest in a wealthier, stronger
Mexico, but we need to do 'it on terms that are good for our people.
We ~hould work with organizations, s~dh as the Asian-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Forum, to liberalize our trade ·across the Pacific as well.
And let _me just say a moment about this: I a~ proud of the contribution
has made to prosperity in Asia and to the march of democracy.
I have
seen it in Japan after World War II. _I have seen it, then, in Taiwan as the
country became more .progressive and less repressive at the same time.
I have
seen it in Korea as the-country has become more progressive and more open. And
we are now making a major contribution ~o the astonishing revitalization of the
Chinese economy, now growing at 10 percent a year, with the United States buying
a huge percentage of those imports. And I say, I want to continue that
partnership, but I also think we have a right to expect progress in human rights
and democracy and should support that progr~ss.
·
·
.~merica
Third, it is time for us to do our best to ~xercise leadership among the
major financial powers to improve our coordination on behalf of global economic
growth. ]1.t. a' time when capital is mobile and highly fungible, w1= simply' cannot
afford to work at cross-purposes with the other major industrial democracies.···
Our major partners must work harder and more closely with us to :reduce
structural barriers to trade, and to restore robust global growth. And we must
look anew at institutions we use to c~art our way in the global economy and ask
whether they are serving.our interest in this new world or whether we need to
modify them or create others.
-
.
Tomorrow, our Treasury Secretary, Secretary Bentsen, and the Federal Reserve
Board Chairman, Alari Greenspan, will meet_ with their counterparts from the~e _
Gr-oup of Seven nations to begin that work. 'And I look forward to meeting with
the G-7 heads of state and the representatives of t~e European Community at our
Tokyo summit in July.
I am especially hopeful that by then our economic package
here at home will have .been substantially enacted by the Congress. And if that
'is so I I will be able to .. say to my counterparts I you hav'e been telling us for
years that America must reduce.its debt and put its .own house in order. You
have been saying to us for years we must increase investment in our own
education and technology to improve productivity. We have done it. We have
dOne it for ourselves.
We have done it for you.
Now you must work with us· in
Germany and Japan and other nations to promote global growth.
We have to work with these natiops. None of us are very good at it. America
doesn't.want to give up it'S prerogatives. The Japanese don't want to give up
theirs.
The Germans don't want to give up theirs. There are deep and ingrained
traditions in a~l these nations. But the fact it that the world can't grpw if
America -is in recession, but it will be difficult for us to grow coming out of.
this.recovery'unless we can spark a r~newed round of growth in Europe and in.
�'
PAGE
11
Public Papers of the Preside!ftS; February 2.6, 1993.
Japan.
We have got to try to work more closely together.
Fourthly, we need to promote the steady expansion of growth in the developing·
world, not only because it's in our inteiest but beca~se it will help them as
.well. These nations are a rapidly expanding market for our.products.
Some
three million American jobs flow from exports tO the <J.eveloping world.
Indeed,
because of unilateral actions taken by Mexico over the last few years, the
volume of our trade has increased dramatically, and our. trade deficit has
,disappeared.
0..
, Our ability to protect the global environment and our ability to combat the
flow of illegal narcotics also rests in large measure on the relationships' we
develop commerciallywith the developing world.·
There is a great deal we can do to open the flow of goods and services. Our
policies must do more to address population pressures; to suppo~t
environmentally r~sponsible, sustainable development; to promote more
accountable government; and to foster 'a fair distribution of the fruits of
growth among an increasingly restive world population where over one billion
people still exist on barely a dollar1 a· day.
These e~forts will reap us
di vird"eriO.s of trade, of friendship, and peace.
·
~id
The final step we must take, my fellow Americans, is toward the success of
democracy in Russia and in the world's other new democracie$.
The perils facing
Russia ·and )other .former Soviet republfcs ·are especially acute and especially· ·
important to our future.
For the reductions in our,defense spending that.are an
important pait of our economic program over the long as Russia and the other
nuclear republics pose a.diminishing threat to our security and to the security
of our allies and the democracies throughout the world. , Most worrisome is
Russia's precarious economic condition.
If the economic reforms begun by
President Yeltsin are abandoned, if hyperinflation cannot be stemmed, the world
:will suffer.
Consider the implications for Europe ·if millions of Russian citizens decide
they,have no alternative but to flee to the West where wages are so times
higher. , ·Consider the implication .for the global environment if all the
·chernobyl-style nuclear plants are forced to start ope:r;-ating there without spare.
parts, ·when we should be in aphased stage of building them down, closing· them
up, cleaning them up.
If we are willing to spend trillions of dollars to ensu:r;-e
communism's defeat in the cold war, sur.ely we should be willing to invest a tiny
fraction of that to support democracy's success where co_mmunism failed.
To be sure, the former Soviet republics and especially Russia, must: be
willing to assume most of the hard work and high cost of the reconstruction
process.
But then again, remember that the Marshall plan itself financed ohly a
small fraction of postwar investments in Europe.
It was a magnet, a beginning,
a confidence-building measure, a way of starting a process that turned out to
produce an economic miracle .
. Like Europe then,, these. republics now have a wealth of:resources and taleht
and potential. And with carefully targeted assistance, conditioned on progress
toward reform and arms control and.nonproliferation, we can improve our own
security and our future prosperity at the,same time we extend democracy's reach.
�'
.
PAGE
12
Public Papers of the Presidents, February 26, 1993
These five steps constitute an agenda for American action in a global
economy. As such, they constitute an agenda for our own prosperity as well.
Some may wish we could pursue our own domestic ·effort strictly through domestic
policies, as we have underst6od.them,in the past. But in this global economy;
the~e is no such thing as a purely domestic policy.
This thing we call the
global economy is unruly.
It's a bucking bronco that often lands with its feet
op different sides of old lines and sometimes with its whole ·body on us.
But if
·we are to ride the bronco into the next century, we must harness the whole
horse, not just part of it.
\
I know there are those in this country in both political parties and all
across the land who say that we should not try to take ·this.ride, that these
.goals are too ambitious, that we should withdraw and focus only on those thing
which we have to do at home.
But I believe that would be a sad mistake and a
great loss.
For the new world toward .which we are movin.g actually favors u::;.
We are better equipped than any other people on Earth by reason of our history
our c~lture, and our disposition, to change, to lead, and to prospe~.
The
-experience of the last few years where we have stubbornly refused to make the
adjustments we n~ed to compete and win are actually atypical and unus~al seen
~gainst the ~ackdrop of our Nation's history.
Look now at our immigrant Nation and think of the world toward which we are
tending.
Look at how diverse and multiethnic and multilingual we are, in a
world in which the ability to communicate with all kinds of people from all over
the world and t6 understand them will 'be critical. Look at our civic habits··of
tolerance and respect.
They are not perfect in our own eyes.
It grieved us all
when·there was so much trouble a year ago in.Los Angeles.
But Los Angeles is a
county with 150 different ethnic groups 6f widely differing levels of education
and access to capital and income.
It is a miracle that we get along as well as
we qo. And all you have to do is to look at Bosnia, where the differences were
not ISO great, to see how well we have done in spite of all our difficulties.
Look at the way our culture has merged technology and values.
This is. an
expressive land that produced CNN and MTV. We were all born ,for the information·
age.
This is a jazzy nation, thank goodness, ·for my sake.
It created be-bop
and hip-hop and all those other thing's ~ , We, are wired for real time. And we
have always been a nation of pioneers. Consider the astonishing outpouring of
support fcir the challenges I laid down last week in an economic program that
violates every American's narrow special interest if you just take part of it
out and look at it.
And yet, here we are again, -ready to accept a new challenge, ready to seek
new change because we're curious and restless and bold.
It ~lows out of our
heritage. · It's ingrained in the soul of Americans·.
It's no accident that our
Nation has 'steadily expanded the. frontiers of democracy, of religious tolerance,
of racial justice, of equality for all people, of environmental protection and
technology and, indeed, the cosmos it~elf.
For it is our nature to reach out.
And reaching out has. served not only oursel'ves but the world as well.
.
.
Now, together, it is time for us to reach out again: toward tomorrow's
economy, toward a better future, toward a new direction, toward securing for.
, you, students at Amercian qniversity, the American dream.
Thank you very much.
�PAGE
13
Public Papers of the Presidents, February 26, 1993
NOTE: The President s~oke at 10:44 at Bender Arena.
to Joseph Duffey, president of·American University.
for Verification of the coritent of th~se'remarks. ·.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE-MDC: March 23, 1993
In his remarks, he referred
A tape was not available
�.' 1'A; ~EW CoveN~~-r·.f:Q~~(\~·ERI~~ecuRtTY
'
.~
GEORGETOWN·.UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTO~N~.~O~.C:..:·-----"'7
OECEMBER 12, 1991. /.'.'"~)::'"" ... '! ,1''•
,,
.
;t,':;.;J...;:·.l~~·~.~:;:;_(.;;:;·t'>.
-··.'
. :..
·~
1'1
.
"The deiense 01
· ...:. · ·
I~ born nru~enM::y ago..at~~~of the Cold War, a
f. tin,•. ,oi great change:en~rmous ;;;;;i~ ·~d unceft;i~al)¥ a'time when - Afti#.i.cans wanted nothing more than to comt home and resum~ lives of peace and · I
qui~t'our country had to swnmon the will for a new kind of war -:-::containing an
11
~i~nist and hostile Soviet Union whidivowed to bury us. We tWt to find ways to
.
rStJ;te econo~ies of Europe and Asi~.-encourage a worldwi~e movement toward
inde~ce and vindi.cate our nation's principles in the world against yet another
........
;~ ""~··.
totab~
challenge-toJtberal
democracy. · '·. • ..... ... ·. .,· ··~· ..
..
.
..
' ',~- ·
Thanks t~.; the unstinting courage and sacrifice of the American
peopl~ we were able: to win that Cold War. Now we've entereda new era. and we need a
.....
,., . ·.~---· ...·:•
··~· ..
.
· ·nf!W:Wfon:and tbutrength to meet a new set of opportunities and threats. We face
:·: .·: : :. ~ : ttip ~~l~!.le,;ge t~·~t we eKed in 1946- t~ buil~ a ~rid of security,
· :.
fre~~· democracy, free markets and growth at a tune or great change.
- .. · ·~r·
' Anyone running for Preside.~t right now'~ iei;~lican or
' .'t;.•
:.
~~:.:... i~ ;il.o!~~ tP. have to provide vision' for security'i~''tilis neW era. That is
· ·:w·.''·(bopetoi'todiy.
. . ·f
.;.···· ····" ··:;r.,.
·
,
-=- \\ : •
. . ......
r.
· · "· · .
~~v.at the problems we face at home. we do have to take care of our
.
.
.,,.
.
......
.·
... -- ..
o~~~ro~:~~ t~~i~ ~~cds first We.n.eed ~o remember the central lesson of the
c~l~~~co~m~ and the SoVIet Ull!~ ~~~~r defeated: them~ th~ ~eld of
. .:.~ · ~""' .
bi~~SoYiet Umon collapsed from the ·1m1de out- from economiC, pohtical.and
. r·.·.•,
·
~~!n~tfrNre.
,<~ ;•:~,,~~F~4.t:>::~. •
I
'freedom and
l
.-:o:;
.
~·
·'"
1he p~omouon ·
of democracv
-around the
world aren't ·
fnerely a
\-eilection :oi our .
·
•
•
..
'.
0
•
,.
••
••
• ••
•••
•••
•
•
'..
'
..
•
•
deepest values;
~1\·....
\hey are viral .to
~ur
'
r.
ol;
::t~
....
.
.... _.-:. ·'
~/
a
.
~
').
··~·--~·-~··-
'\
":;:; -
..
·'·
I
;)
\
.~:'
'
.J
~----··
;;'
· · ·.J: .- •
· · · · :!;,
·' t~j;~d!f~::;:::-:.re:~trut.~.!}
V
if we withdraw from the world. itwill hurt us ecOnomically at home.
·
•
·: ,,• ... .,..
.,'" .: ;;.::_;i'A -;t -;, •
,.
·
· ··
We can't allow thiS false. choiCe between domestic poliCY and
. for_!IJ.n,i~Jey to hurt 6ur c:·~untry and our economy. Our. Pr~~ has d~ted his
time~ energy to foreign concerns and ignored dire problems here at home. As a
""
. ...
res~lif~ we're drafting in the longest economic: slump since World War IL and. in
reaCtion to that. elements in both parties now want America to respond to the collapse
of com~.unism and a crippling- recession ·at home by retreating from the world.
~:;> ~-. I have agreed with President Bush on a number of foreign policy
.. .a..uet:funs~ I supported his efforts to kick Saddam Hussein out ~f Kuwait I think he did
·~-a:~t#ful
job
in pulling together the victorious multi-lateral coatition.l support his
. • •.... ,,
,t:'ii .. ,..
.... . • •. : •
des!f_! t9Juriue peace talkS in the Middle East I agree with the President that we
~J~n1'our back on NATO. And I supported giving the adliiiniStntion fast-track
a~~~Q.ty·tO' negotiate a ~ound and fair free trade agreemt!lt with~esic:o.
.
· · ·: ~~:.·· .... ·-· But because the President~e~potib~and his
P~l1P"~ 'r¢tltions with fore!gnieaders OVer a coherent policy of promoting freedom,
..· dtm~rac)l~!i
~9n~1ie growth.
he often does things I disagree
with. For example.
.. ,.
.
.
·
·
hi,$~close p~'~ru!Ji~ with fqfl'jgn leaders help~ forge the coalition against Saddam
..
.,., ...
. .
·-~~.se~~~ bt~t"Juded ~-~. t~. s:de with· China's communist rulen after the democratic
..:. 'liQ"~iril Otstud£11ts. The P·resident forced Iraq out of Kuwait, but as soon as the war
~~;'fie seemed s~ ·~9:~r~~~ with the stability of the area that he was willing to.·
1~. ~e.Kurds to an. ~':f.!l fate. He is rightfully seeking pace in the Middle East, but ·
nis:ijrge to personally broker a qeal ~Jed .him to t.W public positions which may
undermine the ability o( tbe l~~elis and the Arab$. t'o agree on an enduring peace.
.·
.
Iri: the aft~--math of the Cold War, we need a President who
. to}nake. Al)d
•.j~~r~--·~':~
~~-.
~
'
........ ....
·~41:·'
' ·:-.: :·
~:-:....
. ; 'I.
\~·\
I·
~...~
...
•
'··
\o
!.
:·. :- ..
..
r.& .....
~··:···
~...·
0{
.
.
'·
·.:
,· ••
~.
••
•
.w
•
•
.
~t·. •
~
.
'\
~
1''
/
......... ~· .. ~~·
.
•
1'...
::_.:....
ll.,..- I
-~-··,·---........ ······
~~
nauonal
�n;
I" u:;:IIUC:Il~
iUIU IIQ
adminutration have yet to .meet that test~ to defme
.the
requirements
of U.S.
.,
.
,• ... . ...
...
:
national security after the Cold-War•.•~r.~~ ,. 4~~ ~-: ~-- ·
·
• ___ ~ . .
.
. Retreating from the. world or-discounting its dangers is wrong for ·
the country and setsback everything else we hope to accom lish as Democrats. The
d ense or
om
e promotaon of demoCracy around the \vorld aren't merely a
rerlection of our deepest values: they .,-e vital our national interests. Global
democracy means nations at peace with one another•. open to one another's ideas and
one another's commerce.
The stakes are hi,The collapse of communum is not an isolated
event: it's part oi a wrirldwide march toward democracy whose outcome will shape the
next century. Uindividual liberty, political pluralism and free' enterprise take root in
Latin America. Eastern .and Central Europe. Africa. Asia and the former Soviet Union•
.we can look forward to a grand new era of reducid conflict. mutual understanding and
economic growth. For ourselves and for millions oi people who seek to live in ireedom
and prosperity, thu revolution mwt not fail
· · ''i · '·"
And yet. even as the American Dream is inspiring people arou
the world. Americ ·
he sidelines..
yteonomic weakness
CtNlll..'il~i.on.
• ....
We face two great foreign policy challenges today. First. we must
define a new national security policy that builds on freedom's Victory in the Cold War.
The communist idea has lost its power, but the fate of the peoples who lived under it
and the fate oi tht world will be in doubt until stable democ'racies rise from the debris
of the Soviet empire.
;· ; ·
! ·7' · .;: ~;··
A;•.! ~ .... unJ, we mwt forge a new economic policy to serve ordinary
Americans by launching a new era of global groWth. We mwt tear down the wall in
our thinking between domestic and foreign policy.
We need a coherent strategy that enables w to lead the world we
have done so mUch to make, and that supports our urgent effortS'to take care of our
own here at home. We cannot do one without the other.
.;..~
___..... -We neecf'"i"New Covenant for Amman" Security dt;r the Cold War.
a set oi rights and responsibilities that will challenge the American people. American
leaders and America's allies to work together _to build a safer, more prosperow. more
democratic world.
The strategy of American en~ement I propose is based on four
key assumptions about the requirements of our secu~ in this new era:
• Fint. the collapse of communism does not mean the end of
danger. Anew set of threats in an even less stable world will force us. even as we
restructure our defenses. to keep our guard up.
,
• Second. America mwt regain its economic stren&th to maintain
out position of gJoballeadenhip. While military power will continue to be vital to our
nanonal security, its utility is declining relative to economic power~ We cannot afford
to go on spending too much on tirenower and too little on brainpower.
• Third, the irresistible power of ideas rules in the Information
Age. Television. cassette tapes and the fax machine helped ideas to pierce the Berlin
Wall and bring it down.
• Finally, our defmition of security mwt include common threats
to all people. On the environment and other global usues. our very survival depends
upon the United StateS taking the lead.
Guided by these assumptions. we mwt punut three ciear
·~·:;4'·
··~""
~.
to
.·~
\,
\
-.
""'o nauonal
security issue is
more urRent
than the
quesi1on ~· who
will control the
nuclear
weapons and
technology oi
the former
!
Soviet empire."
�~
mu.n r~uuaure our military forces for anN:era. Second. we
must woric with our allies to encoul'3ge the sprUd and consolidation of democracy
,)Viintlif reWiDiuh Affi.entaniolmnnt leadershil)"aWlOme ~-~in--+-----. ... -. .
..
.
. . ..
. - - - - - - - - ... .. WI!:
------ - '---(.
---
~.
(
1\
&.
~
i
•
'
When· Americans elect a President. they select a Commander in
Chief. They want someone they can trust to act when· our countrY's interests are
threatened. To protect our interests and our values, sometimes we have to stand and ·
fight That is why, as President. I pledge to nwntain military forces strong enough to
deter and when necessary to defeat any threat to our essential interests. · '
··---_tMl)•'t«fefiie debate Centers (OO narrow(yon tJii size of the
mili_tary budget. But the real questions are, what threats do we iac~ what forces do we
need to counter them, and how must we change?
Yie can and must substantially reduce our military forces and
spending, because the Soviet threat is'decreasing and our allies are able to and should
shoulder more of the defense burden. But we still must set the level of our defense
spending based on what we need to protect our interests. First let's provide for a
strong defense. Then we can talk about defei)Se savings.
At the outset of this discussion. I want to make one thing clear: ·
The world is still1'1pidly changing. The world we look out on today is not the same
~orld we will see tomorrow. We need to be ready to adjust our defense projections to
meet threats that could be either heigh.tened or reduced down the road.
Our defense needs were clearer during the Cold War, when it was
widely accepted that we needed enough fortes to deter a Soviet nuclear attack. to
defend against a Soviet-led convenuonal otfensrve m Europe and to protect other
American interests, esl)e(;ially in Northeast Asia and the Persian Gulf. The collapse of
the Soviet Union shattered that consensus. leaving us without a clear benchmark for
.determining the size or mix of our armed forces.
However, a new consensus is emerging on the nature of post-Cold
War security.lt assumes that the gravest threats we are most likely to face in the years
ahead include:
• First. the spread of de.,rivation and diso.,:ter in the former Soviet
Union. which could lead to armed conflict among the republics or the rise of a
· fervently nationaiistic and aggressive regime in RlWia still in possession of long-range
nuc!ear weapons.
• Second; the spread of weapons of mass destruction. nuclear,
chanica! and biological, as well as the means for delivering them.
• Third, enduring tensions in various regions, especially the
Korean peninsula and the-Middle East and.the attendant risks of terrorist attacks on
Americans traveling or working overseas.
• And finally, the growing intensity of ethnic 11valry and sepa1'3tist
violence within national borders, such as we have seen in Yugoslavia, India and
elsewhere, that could spill beyond those borders.
To deal with these new threats, we need to replace our Cold War
military structure with a smaller, more flexible mix of capabilities, including:
• Nuclur detmmce. We can dramatically reduce our nuclear
aJSenals through negotiations and other reciprocal actions. But as an irreducible
minimum, we must retain a survivable nuclear force to deter any conceivable threat
.
• Rapid cleploymeal We need a force capable of projecting power
quickly when and where it's needed. This means the Arrrrf must develop a more mobile
mix of mechaniz¢ and armored forc.es. The Air Force should emphasize tactical air
power and airlift. and the Navy ami Manne Corps mwt maintain sUfficient earner and
'Without
growth abroad.
our
ow~
economy
cannot
thrive.~
�-----------.--- ------·-·-··-·
........ -,,7-'...
•_fri....
•
--:--+----·
-·~--~~~ ---'----+-------~.~TT.e;rhr oiOgy. The Gulf War proved that thesuperior.t:_;ning ot
our soldien. tactical air power. advanced comnnmications, space-based surveillant~
and smart weaponry produced a shorter war with fe\!er.American casualties. We must
maintain our technological edge.
· · ·
·
• Better iDtelligeoce.ln.an era of unpredictable threats, our
intelligence agencies must shift from military bean-counting to a more sophisticated
understanding of political. economic and cultural conditions that can spark conflicts.
To achieve these capabilities. I would restructure our fo~es in the
following ways:
First. now that the nuclear
rice fi~lly has reversed course.
it's time for a prudent slowdown' in strategic modernization. We should stop
production of the B-2 bomber. That.alone could save $20 billion by 1997.
Since Ronald Reagan unveiled hiS "Star wan• proposal in 1983.
America has spent S26 billion in futile pursuit of a foolpro~f defense against nuclear
attack. Democrats in Congress have recommended a much more realistic and
attainable goal: defending against very limited or accidental launches of ballistic
missiles. This allows us to prOceed with R&D on missile defense withi.n the frameworK
oi theABM treaty.~ a prudent step as more and more countries acquire missile
technolo~.
.,
Al the same tim~ we must do more to stop the threat of weapons
of mass destruction frOm spreading. We need to damp dawn on countries and
compacues tha.l. wl these technologies, puna~n vaolators anci.work urgently wath all
cotn::ries for tough. enforceable international non-proliferation agreements.
Although the Pr~ident's plan does reduce our conventional force
structure. I beliwe we can go farther without wlderminin·g oUr core capabilities. We
c:an meet om raponsibilities in Europe with less than the 150,000 troops now
propoHd by the President. especially as the Soviet republics withdraw their forces
from lhe Red Army. We can defend the sea lanes and project force with 10 carriers
rather than 12. We should continue to ket.~J some U.S. forces in Northeast Asia as long
as North Korea presents a threat to our South Korean ally.
To upgrade our conventional forces, we need to develop greater air
and sea lift capacity, including production of the C-17 transport aircraft. But we
should end or reduce program$ intended to meet the Soviet threat. Our conventional
programs. like the new Air Force fighter and the Army's new armored systems, should
be redesigned to meet regional threats.
The administration has called for a 21 percent cut in military
spending through 1995, based on the assumption, now obsolet~ that the Soviet Union
would remain intact With the dwindling Soviet threat. we can cut defense spending by
over a third by 1997. ·
·
Based on calculations by the Congressional Budget office. my plan
would bring cumulative savings of about $100 billion beyond the current Bush plan. If
favoiable political and military trends continue, and we make progress on arms
control, we may be able to scale down defense spending still more by the end of the
decad~ However, we should not commit ourselves now to spetific deeper cuts ten
years from now. The world is changing quickly, and we must retain our ability to react
to potential threats.
Abo, we must not forget about the real people whos.e lives will be
turned upside down when defense is cut de~IY. The government· should look out for
its defense workers and the communities they live in. We should insist on advanced
arms
••
••'ftl;.t
·--
"We must be
sarong al home
to lead and
maintain global
growth."
�.
.
~:rr- :-~: ~1._. -~· . ··:·.· .-:~--4. ~r~"i-:J~:~:·~·:·;~--···
notification and help commi.imties pian for a. transition from a ddense to a domestic
economy. Thirty-one percent ~four grad~te engineers wo~kfor the defense indwtey.
('
·--------------T-~~~
ey an o ·er hTgfi]Yskilled workers and technicians are a v1tal national resource~~r----at a
time when our te$1ological edge in aworld economy mwt be sharl)er tAan ever
before. I have called for a neW advanced research agency ~·a civilian DARPA- that
could help capture for commercial work the brilliance of scientists and engineers who
have accomplished wonders on the battlefield.
' .''
Likewise. those who have served the nation in uniionn cannot be
dumped on the job market. We've got to enlist them to help meet our many needs at
home. By shifting people from active duty to the National Guard and reserves. offering
early retirement options, limiting re-enlistment and slowing the pace oi recruitment.
we can build down our forces in a gradual way that doesn't abandon people of proven
commitment and competence.
Our people in uniform are among the most highly skilled in the
areas we need most. We need to transfer those human resources into our workforce
and even 1nto our schools, perhaps ua pan by using reserve centers and cl.osed bases
for community-based education and training programs.
· '"" ·
.
The deiehse policy I have outlined keeps America strong and still
yields substantial savings. The Ame~can people have earned this peace dividend
through forty years of unrelenting vi'gilance
and sacrifice and an. investment oi
'
trillions oi dollars. And they are entitled to have the dividend reinvested in their
future.
Finally, America needs to reach a new agreement with our allies for
sharing the costs and risks oi maintaining peace. While Desert Storm set a useful
precedent for cost-sharing, our forces ·wu did most of the fightirlg and dying. We need
to shift that burden to a wider coalition of nation$ of which America will be a part. In
the Persian Gulf, in Namibia. Cambodia and elsewhere in recent years. the United
Nations has begun to play the role .that Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman
envisioned for it. We mwt take the lead now in making their vision real..:.. by
expanding the Security Council and making Germany and Japan pennanent members:
by continuing to press for greater effaciency in U.N. administration: and by exploring
ways to institutionalize the U.N•.'s success an mobilizing international panicipation in
Desert Storm.
One proposal worth exploring calls for a U.N. Rapid Deployment
Force that could be wed for purposes beyond traditional peacekeeping, such a.s
sWlding guard at the borders of countries thr~tened by aggression: preventing
attacks on civilians; providing humanitarian relief: and combatting terrorism and drug
traffick in~
In Europe. new security arrangements will evolve over the next
.· decade. While insiSting on a fairer sharing of the common defense burden. we must
not tUm our back on NATO. Until a more effective security system emerges, we must
give our allies no reason to doubt our constancy.
As we restructure our military forces, we mwt reinforce the ·
powerful global movement toward democracy.
u.s. foreign policy cannot be divorced from the moral principles
most Americans share. We cannot disregard how other governments treat their own
people. whether their domestic institutions are democratic or repressive. whether they
help encourage or chedc illegal conduct beyond their borders. This does not mean we
should deal only with democracies or that we should try to remake the world in our
,.,..... .
image. But recent experience frorri Panama to Iran to Iraq shows the dangers of
forging strategic relationships with despotic regimes.
.
.
I •
' ·;,
i"
t
\·
•
l,)
(\ c:\
_.~ .
"'-.::: ·-.
�don't go to war with each ()ther. The
(-...:.---.;,-_ _ _ _..__d-=-o-n,.....'t.,__ann_ihilation at their
r)
...
but we
..
do~'t sponsor terrorist ·acts aga-ins_t__
eacl1 other. They are more likely to be reliable trading partners, protect the global
eftWonmont
aM':.~~::~!:!,~·~;~;,~:;,::.:~~" nOn.wolent
means for resolving disputes. DemOcracies do a better job of protecting ethnic.
religious and other minorities. And elections can help resolve fratricidal civil wars.
... :·...
'
Yet President Bush too often has hesitated when democratic forces
needed our support in challenging the statu_s quo. I believe the President erred when
he secretly rushed envoys to resume.cordial relations with China barely a month after
the massacre in Tiananmen Square: when he spumed Yeltsin before the Moscow coup;
when he poured cold water on the Baltic and Ukrainian aspirations for self·
determination and independence: and when he initially refused to.help the Kurds.
The administration continues to coddle China. d.~Pite its .
continuing crackdown on democratic reforms, its brutal subjugation of Tibet. its ·
irresponsible exports of nuclear and missile technology, its support for the homicidal
Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. and its abusive trade practices. Such forbearance on our
pan might have made sense'during the Cold War. when China was a counterweight to
Soviet power. But it makes no ~ense to play the China card now. when our opponents
have thrown in their hand.
. .
-t:••' •.
'
In the Middle East. the administration deserves credit for bringing
Israel and its Arab antagonists to the negotiating table. Yet I believe,.~e President is
wrong to use public pres$ure tactics against Israel. In the process, he has raised Arab
expectations that he'll deliver Israeli concessions and fed Israeli fears that its interests
will be sacrificed to an American-imposed solution.
We must remember that even if the Arab-Israeli dispute.were
resolved toq~oriow, there would still be ample causes of conflict in the Middle East;
ancient tribal. ethnic and religious hatreds: control of oil and water; the bitterness of
the have~nots toward those who have; the lack of democratic institutions to hold
leaders accountable to their people and restrain their actions abrold: and the
terntorial ambitions of Iraq and Syria. We have paid a terrible price for the
administration's earlier policies. of deference to Saddam Hussein. Today, we must deal
w1th Haiu Assad in Syria. but we must not overlook his tyrannical rule and
domination of Lebanon. _
We need a broader policy toward the Middle East that seeks to limit
the flow of arms into the region, as well as the materials needed to develop and deliver
weapons of mass destruction: promotes democracy and human rights: and preserves
our strategic relationship with the one democracy in the region:.Israel
And in Africa as well, we must align America with the rising tide of
democracy. The administration has 'cliimed credit for the historic opening to
democracy now being negotiated in South Africa. when in fact it resisted the sanctions
policy that helped make this hopeful moment possible.
Today, we snould concentrate our attention on doing what we can
to help end the violence that has ravaged the South African townships, by supporting
with our a1d the local structures that seek to mediate these-disputes and by insisting
that the South African government show the same zeal in prosecutinl! the oerpetrators
of the v1olence as it did in the past when pursuing the leaders·of the anti-apartheid
movement The administration and our states and cities should only relax our
remami~g sanctions as it becomes clearer that the day of democracy and guaran• ::d
individual rights is at hand. And when that day does dawn, we must be prepared to .
~· ·~
..·
(
)
---·-- ----
:~
--~
I
I ..-.
\
::_/
�- - - VWI.
~QWK;IC tO maKe SUre that democracy, Once gained. is nOt lOSt there.
An American foreign poiicy of engagement for democracy will
-..,.--------1----..iffifJTiiiouo.r'iianMiier""'es,.i-iJilour Vilues•. HUe's Whit we inouladOT: .
•
~~------+-----~
• First. we r:Jeed to respond more forcefully to one of the 'greatest
security challenges of our time, to help the people of the. fomier Soviet empire
· demilitarize their societies and build free political,arld economic institutions. Congress
has pas~ed
SSOO million to help the SoViets
destroy ·nuclear WQI)ons, and for ·
.
'
.
humanitarian aid. We "can do better.Al Senator Sam Nunn and Representative Les
Aspin have argued. we should shift money from marginal military programs to this key
investment in our future security. We can radically reduce the threat of nuclear ·
destruction that tw dogged us for decades by investirig.'a fraction of what would
otherwise have to be spent to counter that threat. Ana, together with our G·7 partners.
we can supply th~ Soviet republics with the food and medical aid they need to wivive
their first win.ter of freedom in 74 years. We should do all that we can to ·coordinate aid
dforts with our allies, arid to provide the best technical assistance we cin to distribute
that food and aid.
No national security issue is more urgent than.the qu~tion of who
will control the nuclear weapons and technology of the former Soviet empire. Those
weat)ons.pose
a threat to the securi~ of
every American,
to our allies. and to the
. .
..
. ,, .
republics themselves.
·
I know it may be bad politics to be for any aid program. Burwe owe
at to the people who defeated communism, the people who defeated the coup. And we
owe it to ourseives. Asmall amount spent_stabilizing the emerging democracies in the ·.
former Soviet empire today will reduce by much more the money we may have to
commit to our defense in the future. And it will lead to the creation of lucrative new
markets which mean new American jobs. Having won the Cold War. we must not now
lose the peace.
• We should recognize ~raint's independence. as well as that of.
other republics who make that decision democratically. But we.should link U.S. and
western non-humanitarian ~i<Uo agreements by the republics to abide by all anns
atreements negotiated by Soviet authorities, demonstrate responsibility with regard to
nuclear weat)ons, demilitarize their &anomies, respect minority rights. and proceed
with market and political reforms.
• We should use our diplomatic and economic leverage to incrwe
the material inrPntive5 to democratize and raiSe the costs for those who won't. We
have every nght to condition our foreign· aid and debt relief policies on demonstrable
p_rogress toward democracy and ·market reforms. In atreme cases. such as that of
.China. we should condition favorable trade tenns on political liberalization and
responsible international conduct. .
'·
•• We need to support evolving institutional structures favorable to
countries struggling with the transition to democracy and markets. such as.the new
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. whose mission is to rebuild !h.:
societies of Central and Eastern Europe. We are right to encoUrage the European
Commu~ity to open its doors to those societies, perhaps by creating an affiliate status
that carries some but not all of the privileges of membership.
• We shoui~ 'ncourage private American investment in the former
. Soviet empire. The Soviet republics. after all. are rich in human and natural resources.
One day, they and Eastern Europe could be lucrative marketS for us.
• We should regard jncrwed funding for democratic assistance as
a legitimate part of our national security budget. We shouid support groups like the
National Endowment for Democracy, which work openly rather than covertly to
'
~
'
"We must
devise and
pursuP .. ,.,...,n,,l
policies that
serve the needs
of our people
by u"'ung us at
home and
restoring
Amenca•s ·
greatness in the
world ...
\
~-
.":"
'
/ ~- .
·-,
I
I
�.. .·•
.
... vu•v~~, .................. '" ., ..................... ~~ "~J'~·aunMu..&.woullr
!'!-"';.:
encourage: oom u1c:
Agency for International Development and"th~ll$:ini6~tion Almcy to channel
·-------'---+--.-m.:...o-re....;o'f':":"th-ei:-r-res-ources to promoting democracy. And jUst as Radio Fi'e:e...:.:;.Eu.:;.r;.::o:.:.:pe-an---:-d-..,.--f----:-~
,
J..; ~
the. Voice of America helped bring the truth to the people of those societi"es. we should
'·
.
'
·.··
.j>-·
create a Radio Free Asia to carry news arid hope to China and elseWhere.
• Finally, just as President Kennedy launched the Peace Corps 30
years ago, we should create a Democracy Corps today that will send thousands of
talented American volunteers to countries-~· need their legal, fmancial and political
·"
expertise.
Our second major strategic challenge is to help le.ad the world into
a new era oi global growth. Any governor who's' tried to create jobs over the last decade
·know that experience in international economi~ is essential and~ success in the
global economy must be at the core of national ~ecurity in the 1990s.
Without growth abroad. our own economy cannot thrive.
exports of goods and services will be over a half-trillion dollars in 1991- and 10
percent of our economy~ Without global growth. healthy international competition
turns all too readily to economic warfare. Without growth and economic progress.
there can be no true economic jwtice among or within nations.
I believe the negotiations on an open tradjng system in the GA1i
, are of extraordinary importance. And I support the negotiation of a North American
Free Trade Agreement. so long as tt's fair to American farmers and workers, protects
the environment and observes detent labor standards.
Freer trade abroad means more jobs at home. Every S1 billion in
U.S. exports generates 20.000 to 30,000 more jobs. We must fmd ways to help
developing nations finally overcome their debt crisis. which has lesseneu tileir capacity
to buy American goods and probably cos~ us 1.5 million American jobs.
We must be strong at home to lead and maintain global growth.
Our weakness at home has caused even our economic competitors to worry about our
stubborn refusal to establish a 11Cltional economic strategy that will regain our
economic leadership and restore oppo~ity for the middle class.
How can we leaq when we have gone from being the world's largest
creditor country to the world's largest debtor nation- now owing the world $405
billion? When we depend on foreigners for SloO billion· a year of financing, we're not
the masters oi our own destiny.
,
.
1spoke in my last lecture about how we must rebuild our nation's
economic greatness. for the job of restoring America's competitive edge truly begins at _
home. I have oifered a ~rogram to build the most well-educated and well-trained
workforce in the world and put our national budget to work on programs that make
Amenca richer. not more indebted.
Our economic strength must become a central defming element of
our nat1.:.;-.~ .;.:..:.-iit"i ~~.~:;..:-,.We. mu.)~ urganiz~ to compete and win in the global
economy. We need a commitment from American bwiness and lab.or to work together
to make world<lass products. We mwt be prepared to exchange some short-term
benefits -whether in the quarterly profit statement or in archaic work rules -for
long-term success.
The private sector must maintain the initiative, but government
has an indis~ensable role. Arecent Department of Commen:e report is a wake-up call
that we are falling behind our major competitors in Europe and Japan on emerging
technologies that wiU deftne the high-paying jobs of the futUre -like advanced
materials, biotechnology, superconductors and computer-integrated manuf.lcturing.
I have mentioned a civilian advanced research projects agency to
U.Sl
(
\
)
)
"We should use
our diplomauc . ·
and·econom•c
leverage to
increase tne
material
incentives to
democrauze
and raise the
.costs for those
who
won't.~
�(
·,
(.
woric closelyw1th the pnvate sector. so that its pnonties are not set by government
alone. We have hundreds oi nationallaboratones with extraordinary talent that have _
- --------4---pu...,.t...,.th'e-United States atiiie iorerront of military technology. Weneeci to reonerit thetr
mis.sion. working with priVate companies and universities. to advance technoiogies
that w1ll make our lives better and create to"'orrow·s jobs.
Not enough oi our companies engage m export- just 15 percent
oi our companies account ior 85 perc.ent oi our exports. We have to meet our
competitors' efforts to help smaller- and medium-s1zed businesses Identity and gam
iore1gn markets·.
And most important. government. must assure that international
.
competition is iair by inSISting to our European. Japanese and other trading partners
that 1f they won't play by the rules of an open trading system. then we will play by
theirs.
We have no more important bilateral relationships than our
alliance with Japan; a relationship that has matured from one oi dependency in the
1950s to one oi partnership today. Our relationship is based on ties of democracy, but
as we cooperate. we also compete. And the maturity of our relationship allows
Amencan Presidents. as I will. to insist on iair play. As we put our own econom1c
house m order. Japan must open the doors oi its economic house. or our partnership
w11l be impenled w1th consequences ior all the worid.
Now we must understand. as we never have before. that our
•
national security is largeiy economic. The success oi our engagement in the worid ,
depends not on the headlines it brin s to Wa5hin ton oliticians. but on the beneri
rings to hard-working middle-class Americans. Our uforeign;, policies are not really
foreign at all.
When greenhouse gas emissions from developed nations wann the
atmosphere and CFCs eat·away at the ozone layer, our beaches and farmlands and
people are threatened. When drugs flood into our country from South America and
Asia. our cities suffer and our children are put at risk. When a Libyan terrorist can go
to an ·airport in Europe and check a bomb in a suitcase that kills hundreds of people,
our freedom is diminished and our people live in fear.
So let us no longer define national security in the narrow military
terms oi the Cold War. We can no longer afford to have foreign and domestic policie.s.
We must devise and pursue national policies that serve the needS of our people by
uniting us at home and restoring America's greatness in the world. To lead abroad. a
Pre.sident of the United State.s must first lead at home. .
Half a century ago, this country emerged victorious irom an allconsuming war into a new era of great challenge. It was a time of change, a time for
new thinking, a time for working together to build a free and prosperous world, a time
for putting that war behind us. In the aitennath oi that war, Pre.sident Harry Truman
and his suece.ssors forged a bipartisan consensu~ in America that brought security and
prosperity for 20 years.
Today we need a President a public and a policy that are not
caught up in the wars of the past - not World War n. riot Vietnam. not the Cold War.
What we need to elect in 1992 is not the last Pres'ident of the 20th century but the first
President of the 21st century.
This spring, when the troops came home from the Persian Gulf, we
had over 100,000 people at a welcome home parade in Little Rock. Veterans came from
all acros.s the state- not just those who had just returned from the Gulf, but men and
women who had served in World War II. Korea and Vietnam. I'll never forget how
moved I was as 1watched them march down th~ street to our cheers and saw the
--~
/...---.\
1...-
!\
�\
'n;uliUil veterans fmally being given the honor they deserved!all':aloni. The divisions
.
•,
.··
•
• ••
J.
we have lived With fol' the last two ctecadei seemed to fade away amid the common
outburst oftriumph and gratill;ld~ ·
· , . {.~{it.·.;~'
· That is the spirit we need as we move into this new era. Al
President Lincoln told Congress in ~other_ time of new challenge, in 1862:
'7he dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
present The occasion is piled high wi~ difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion
As our case IS new. so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall
.
ourselves. and. then we shall save our. country. Fellow citizens, we cannot escape
history."
Thank you very much.
'
/
,.
-
"Even as the
Amer~can
I
· Dream
IS
1nsp1rtng people
around the
world, Amer1ca
is'on the
stdelinM, a
military gtant
Crippled by
economtc
weakness and
an uncertain
VISIOn ...
i.
LABOR ·ooNft.TED
·~
. '
.
I)
�size. It is one world, as Willkie said. It is a world in which
we must all get along. It will be just as easy for nations to get
along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in
the republic of the United States. Now, if Kansas and Colorado have a quarrel over a watershed they don't call out the
National Guard of each State and go to war over it. They
bring suit in the Supreme Court and abide by its decision.
There isn't a reason in the world why we can't do that
internationally.
[426
WORLD POLICE FORCE
... The function of the United Nations is to quench the
flames wherever they may break out; to watch throughout
the world and extinguish every spark that comes from a
difference between governments; to do this, if possible,
through the machinery of peaceful arbitration, but to do it in
any case. This is so, even if armed conflict must be prevented
by the use of an international police force.
[429
Address, Jefferson Day Dinner
Washington, D. C.
Aprils, I9 47
Remarks, University of Kansas City
June 2.8, I945
WORLD LAW
... We cannot have lasting peace unless a genuine rule of
world law is established and enforced.
[427
Message
Congress
February 5, I947
to
WORLD LEADERSHIP
... The free peoples of the world look to us for support in
maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership,
we may endanger the peace of the world-and we- shall
surely endanger the welfare of this Nation. Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of
events.
[428
Special Message to Congress
March I 2, 1947
180
""---------·· ·--- -
WORLD TRADE
... Only through participation in the trade of the world
can a country raise its own standards of living and contribute
[430
to the welfare of other nations.
Address, Little Rock, Dedication of
the World War Memorial Park
June 1 I, I949
••• Free Enterprise. The pattern of international trade
that is most conducive to freedom of enterprise is one in
which the major decisions are made, not by governments, hut
by private buyers and sellers, under conditions of active competition, and with proper safeguards against the establishment
of monopolies and cartels. Under such a system, buyers make
�i
-~-
-----..o..~-·~=o:--=-..p..:~
'
'
��:.f)J
I<.
I /\:
·
.
~.sQJ..ru.J ~ ~
• ~-v ~) c,~ cL..
~~ ·~ -.,,
?J~
k'lt ~
.
·.
~~
-t.!J ~_,s
~ ~2. . '
-;
�PAGE
2
1ST STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
Copyright 1991 Federal Information Systems Corporation
Federal News Service
DECEMBER 12, 1991, THURSDAY
SECTION: MAJOR LEADER SPECIAL TRANSCRIPT
LENGTH: 9327 words
HEADLINE: REMARKS BY:
GOVERNOR BILL CLINTON (D-ARKANSAS)
TITLE: A NEW COVENANT FOR AMERICAN SECURITY
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY INTERCULTURAL CENTER AUDITORIUM
BODY:
GOV. BILL CLINTON: Thank you very much, Father O'Donovan (sp), Dean Krough. My
friend, Mr. Landegger, I must thank him for two things, one for making in the
space of a few minutes all the points I tried to make in these three speeches.
(Laughter.) I am going to offer him a tidy sum for his type (?) remarks, and my
staff will be glad to know that someone can get this message across and under 10
minutes.
(Laughter.) I also want to thank him for saying I was the most serious
candidate for President.
I don't know whether to take that seriously.
The other day in New Hampshire, a wag said that I was the smartest of the
candidates and that amounted to saying that Moe was the smartest of the Three
Stooges.
(Laughter.)
I also -- I also come here as a Democrat, and one of my friends told me a story
this morning which reminded me of Will Rogers' famous remark that he did not
belong to an organized party, he was a Democrat.
(Laughter.) This friend of
mine told me this morning that the reason that the Soviet Union was dissolving
so fast into its component parts is that the President had appointed a Democrat
Robert Strauss who had required them to play by the rules of the Democratic
National Party.
(Laughter.)
Having said that, I would like now to attempt to tell you what I believe we
should do to build not a Democratic, but a bipartisan American foreign policy in
the post-Cold War era.
I was born nearly a half-century ago at the dawn of the
Cold War.
It was a time of great change, enormous opportunity and uncertain
peril, a time when we Americans wanted nothing more than simply to come home and
resume our lives of peace and quiet because our country was tired of war.
But
we had to summon the world for a new kind of war, containing an expansionist and
hostile Soviet Union which vowed to bury us. We had to find ways to rebuild the
economies of Europe and Asia, encourage worldwide movement toward independence
and vindicate our nation's principles in the world against yet another
totalitarian challenge, to liberal democracy.
Thanks to the outstanding courage
and sacrifice of the American people, we were able to win that Cold War.
Now
we've entered a new era, and we need a new vision of strength and security to
meet a new set of opportunities and serious new threats.
In a way, we face the
same kind of challenge we did back in 1946, to build a world of security and
freedom, a world of democracy and free markets and growth at a time of terrific
change.
Anyone running for President, Democrat or Republican, is going to have to
provide a vision for security in this new era, and that is what I am hoping to
do today.
Given the problems we face at home, we do have to take care of our
own people and their needs first.
We need to remember the central lesson of the
collapse of the Soviet Union and of Communism itself, so we never defeated them
on the field of battle.
Instead, the Soviet Union collapsed from the inside
�PAGE
3
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
out, from economic and political and ultimately from spiritual failure.
But
make no mistake, here, as in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, foreign and
domestic policy are inseparable in today's world.
If you're not strong at home, we can't lead the world we've done so much to
make. But if we try to withdraw from this world, it will hurt us economically
at home, and we can't allow what my friend and eminent journalist, E.J. Dion
(ph) has called another false choice, a false choice between domestic and
foreign policy which could hurt our economy and hurt our country.
Our President has devoted his time and his energy to foreign concerns and has
clearly ignored dire problems here at home. As a result, we're drifting in the
longest economic decline since World War II, and in reaction to that, elements
in both Republican and Democratic parties are urging America to respond to the
collapse of Communism in a crippling recession at home by retreating from the
world.
I've agreed with President Bush on a number of foreign policy questions.
I've
supported his efforts to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and believe he did a
masterful job in pulling together the victorious multinational coalition through
the United Nations.
I support his desire to pursue peace talks in the Middle
East.
I agree with him that we can't afford just to turn our back and walk away
from NATO, and I supported giving the administration fast track authority, to
negotiate a sound and fair free trade agreement with Mexico. But because this
President seems to favor political stability and personal relations with foreign
leaders over a coherent policy of freedom, democracy, economic growth, he often
does things that I disagree with.
For example, his close personal ties with foreign leaders clearly helped him to
forge that coalition against Saddam Hussein, but it also let him side with
China's Communist rulers after a democratic uprising of students. The President
forced Iraq out of Kuwait, but as soon as the war was over, his concern for
stability made him willing to lead the Kurds to an awful fate.
He's rightfully seeking Middle East peace, but is urged to personally broker a
deal.
It has led him to take public positions which may undermine the -(inaudible) -- of the Israelis and the Arabs to negotiate an enduring peace.
In the aftermath of the Cold War, we need a President who recognizes that in
this dynamic new era, our goal is not to resist
change, but to shafe it. The President must articulate a vision of where we are
going. The President and his administration have yet to meet that test, to
define a new United States national security policy after the Cold War.
Retreating from the world or discounting its dangers is wrong for our country
and sets back everything we hope to accomplish as Democrats. The defense of
freedom and a promotion of democracy around the world aren't merely a reflection
of our deepest values. They are vital to our national interest. Global
democracy means nations at peace with one another, open to one another's ideas
and one another's commerce. The stakes are high because the collapse of
Communism is not an isolated event.
It is part of a worldwide march toward
democracy whose outcome will determine the next century.
If individual liberty,
political democracy and free enterprise can take root in Latin American and
Eastern Europe and Central Europe and the Soviet Union and Africa, Asia, we can
look forward to a great new era of reduced conflict, mutual understanding and
economic growth for ourselves and for millions and millions of people who seek
to live in freedom and prosperity. This revolution must not fail.
And yet,
even if the American dream is inspiring people around the world, our nation
stands on the sidelines with so much changed, a military giant crippled by
economic weakness and an uncertain vision.
I believe we face two great foreign policy challenges today.
First, we must
define a new national security policy that builds on freedom's victory in the
�PAGE
4
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
Cold War.
The Communist idea has completely lost its power, but the fate of
people who live under it and the fate of the world will be in doubt until stable
democracies rise from the debris of the Soviet empire.
And second, we must forge a new economic policy to serve ordinary Americans by
launching a new era of global economic growth. We must tear down the wall in
our thinking between domestic and foreign policy. We need a coherent strategy
that enables us to lead the world we work hard to make and that supports our
urgent efforts to take care of our own here at home. We cannot do one without
the other.
I believe we need a new covenant for American security after the Cold War, a set
of rights and responsibilities that will challenge our people, our leaders and
our allies, to work together to build a safer, more prosperous, more democratic
world.
The strategy of American engagement, I propose, is based on four key assumptions
about the requirements of our security in this new era.
First, that the
collapse of Communism does not mean the end of danger, a new set of threats and
an even less stable world will force us even as we restructure our defenses to
keep our guard up.
Second, American must regain its economic strength in order to maintain our
position of global political leadership. While
military power will continue to be vital to our national security, its utility
is declining relative to economic power. We cannot afford to go on spending too
much on fire power and too little on brain power.
(Applause.)
Third, we live in an information age in which the irresistible power of ideas
rule.
(Audio break) -- gain its economic strength in order to maintain our
position of global political leadership. While military power will continue to
be vital to our national security, its utility is declining relative to economic
power. We cannot afford to go on spending too much on fire power and too little
on brain power.
(Applause.)
Third, we live in an information age in which the irresistible power of ideas
rule. Television, cassette tapes and the fax machine helped those ideas of
freedom to pierce the Berlin Wall and eventually to bring it down.
And finally, our definition of security must include common threads to all the
peoples of the globe. On the environment and on other global issues, our very
survival depends on the United States taking the lead. Guided by these
assumptions, it seems to me we must pursue three clear objectives.
First, we
must restructure our military forces for a new era. Second, we must work with
our allies to encourage the spread and consolidation of democracy around the
world, and third, we must reestablish our own economic leadership at home and
abroad.
When Americans elect a President, they elect a Commander-in- Chief. They want
someone they can trust to act when our country's interests are threatened. To
protect our interests and our values, sometimes we have to stand and fight.
That is why as President I pledge to maintain military forces, strong enough to
deter and, when necessary, to defeat any threat to our vital interest.
Today's defense debate centers too narrowly on the size of the military budget.
The real questions are: What threats do we face? What forces do we need to
counter them, and how must we change to achieve those new objectives? We can
and we must substantially reduce our military forces and spending, because the
Soviet threat is decreasing, and our allies are able to and should shoulder more
of their own defense burden. But we still must set the level of defense
spending based on what we need to protect our interest around the globe.
First,
let's provide for a strong defense. Then we can talk about defense savings. At
the outset of this discussion, I want to make one thing absolutely clear: the
world is still rapidly changing, as we know when we pick up each new day's
�PAGE
5
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
newspaper.
The world we look out on today is not the same one we will see
tomorrow and certainly not a year from now when I hope to be your
President-elect.
(Applause.)
Therefore, we must remain ready to adjust all of our defense projections to meet
threats that either could be heightened or
hopefully reduced down the road. Our defense needs were much clearer during the
Cold War when it was widely accepted that we needed enough forces to deter a
Soviet nuclear attack, to defend against a Soviet-led conventional defensive in
Europe and to protect other American interests, especially in northeast Asia and
the Persian Gulf.
The collapse of the Soviet Union shattered that consensus leaving us without a
clear benchmark for determining the size or the mix of our armed forces.
However, a new consensus is emerging on the nature of the post-Cold War and its
secure era and its security needs.
It assumes that the gravest threats are most
likely to occur in the following areas.
First, the spread of deprivation and
disorder in the former Soviet Union, which could lead to armed conflict among
the republics or the rise of a fervidly (?) nationalistic and aggressive regime
in Russia, still in possession of thousands of long-range nuclear weapons.
Second, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and
biological as well as the means for delivering them.
Third, and during tensions
in various regions, especially the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East and the
intended (?) risks of terrorist attacks on Americans traveling or working
abroad. And finally, the growing intensity of ethnic rivalries and sever (?)
this efforts and violence within national borders, such as we've seen in
Yugoslavia, in India and elsewhere that could spill beyond those borders.
To deal with all these new threats, we need to replace our Cold War military
structure, where the smaller more flexible mix of capabilities which include
first nuclear deterrents. We can dramatically reduce our nuclear arsenals
through negotiations in other reciprocal actions, but as an irreduceable minimum
we must retain a survivable nuclear force to deter any conceivable threat.
Second, rapid deployment. We need a force capable of projecting power quickly
when and where it's needed.
I don't think we'll ever have five and a half
months to settle into an arena of conflict again as we did in the Gulf War.
That means the army must develop a more mobile mix of mechanized and armored
forces.
The Air Force should emphasize practical air power and air lift, and
the Navy and the Marine Corps must maintain sufficient carrier and amphibious
forces as well as more sealift. We also need strong special operations forces
to deal with terrorist threats.
Fourth, technology.
The Gulf War proved that the superior training of our
soldiers, tactical air power, advanced communication, space based surveillance
and smart weaponry produced a shorter war with fewer casualties for America. We
must maintain our technological age -- edge.
And finally, better intelligence.
In an era of unpredictable threats, our
intelligence have to shift their efforts from just military bean-counting to a
far more sophisticated understanding of political, economic and cultural
conditions that can spark conflicts
around the world.
To achieve these capabilities, I would restructure our forces
in the following ways.
First, now that the nuclear arms race has finally reversed course, it's time for
a prudent slow-down and strategic modernization. We should stop production of
the B-2 Bomber.
That alone would save $20 billion by 1997.
(Applause.)
Since President Reagan unveiled his Star Wars proposal in 1983, our nation has
spent $26 billion in the futile pursuit of a fool-proof defense against nuclear
attack.
Democrats in Congress have recommended a much more realistic
entertainable goal: defending against very limited or accidental losses of
�PAGE
6
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
ballistic missiles.
This goal would allow us to proceed with research and
development on missile defense within the framework of the ABM (sp) Treaty, a
prudent step as more and more countries acquire missile technology. At the same
time, we must do more to stop the threat of weapons of mass destruction from
spreading. We must clamp down on countries and companies that sell those
technologies, punish violators and work urgently with all other countries for
tough, enforceable, international non-proliferation agreements.
(Applause.)
Although President Bush's present plans for defense reductions do reduce our
conventional force structure, I believe we can go further without undermining
our core capabilities. We can meet our responsibilities in Europe, for example,
with less than the 150,000 troops now proposed by the President, especially as
the Soviet Republics withdraw their forcers from the Red Army. We can defense
the sea lanes and project force with 10 carriers rather than 12. We should
continue to keep some US forces in Northeast Asia as long as North Korea
presents a threat to our South Korean ally. To upgrade our conventional forces
we need to develop greater air and sealift capacity, including production of the
C-17 transport aircraft, but we should end or reduce programs intended to meet
the Soviet threat.
Our conventional programs like new Air Force fighters and
the Army's new armored systems should be redesigned to meet the regional threats
we now face.
The administration has called for a 21-percent cut in military spending through
1995, based on the assumption now obsolete that the Soviet Union would remain
intact. With the dwindling Soviet threat, we can cut defense spending by over a
third by 1997. Based on the calculations by the Congressional Budget Office, my
plan would bring cumulative savings of about $100 billion beyond the current
Bush plan.
If favorable political and military trends continue and we make
progress on arms control, we may be able to scale down defense spending still
more by the end of the decade. However, we should not commit ourselves now to
specific cuts 10 years from now.
The world is changing too quickly, and we must
retain our ability to react to potential threats. Also, we must not forget
about the real people whose lives will be turned upside down when the defense
budget is deeply cut.
The government should look out for its defense workers and the communities they
live in. We should insist on advanced notification and help for communities
when the plan a transition from a defense to a domestic economy. Thirty-one
percent of our engineers today work for the defense industry.
They and other
highly skilled workers and technicians are a vital national resource at a time
when our technological age in a world economy must be sharper than ever before.
I have called for a new advanced research agency, a civilian version of DARPA,
that could help to capture commercial work for the brilliance of the scientists
and the engineers who have accomplished wonders on the battlefield. Likewise,
those who served our country in uniform can't just be dumped on the job market.
We've got to enlist them to help meet our needs here at home, too.
By shifting
people from active duty to the National Guard and Reserves, offering early
retirement options, limiting reenlistment and slowing the pace of recruitment,
we can build down our forces in a gradual way that doesn't abandon people of
proven commitment and competence.
Our people in uniform are one of the most highly skilled in the areas we need
most. We need to transfer their human resources and their energy into our work
force here at home and even into our schools, perhaps in part by using Reserve
centers and close bases for community-based education and training programs.
The defense policy that I have outlined
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2-1
�PAGE
7
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
keeps America strong and still yields substantial savings. The American people
have earned this peace dividend through 40 years of unrelenting vigilance and
sacrifice at an investment of trillions of dollars, and they are entitled to
have that dividend reinvested in our future now.
(Applause.)
Finally, our nation must reach an agreement with our allies for sharing the cost
and the risks of maintaining peace. While Desert Storm set a very useful
precedent for cost sharing, our forces still did most of the fighting and the
dying. We need to shift the burden to a wider coalition of nations, of which
our country will still be a leading part.
In the Persian Gulf, in Namibia, in Cambodia, and elsewhere in recent years, the
United Nations has begun to play the role envisioned for it by Franklin
Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Now we must take the lead in making their vision
real by expanding the Security Council and making Germany and Japan permanent
members, by continuing to press for greater efficiency in the United States, and
by exploring ways to institutionalize the UN's success in mobilizing
international participation in Desert Storm.
One proposal worth exploring calls for a UN rapid deployment force that could be
used for purposes beyond traditional peacekeeping, such as standing guard at the
borders of countries threatened by aggression, preventing attacks on civilians,
providing humanitarian relief, and combating terrorism and drug trafficking.
In Europe, new security arrangements will evolve over the next decade. While
insisting on a fairer sharing of the common defense burden, we must not turn our
back on NATO.
Until a more effective security system emerges, we have to give
our allies no reason to doubt our constancy.
As we restructure our military forces, we must reinforce the powerful global
movement toward democracy. United States foreign policy simply cannot be
divorced from the moral principles we believe in. We can't disregard how other
governments treat their own people, whether their domestic institutions are
democratic or regressive, whether they encourage or check illegal conduct beyond
their borders.
This doesn't mean that we can deal only with democracies or that we should seek
to remake the world in our own image, but recent experience from Panama to Iran
to Iraq shows the dangers of forging strategic relationships with despotic
regimes.
(Applause.) It should matter to us how other people govern themselves.
Democracies don't go to war with each other. The French and the British have
nuclear weapons. We don't fear annihilation at
their hands.
Democracies don't sponsor terrorist acts against each other.
They're more likely to be reliable trading partners, protect the global
environment, and abide by international law.
Over time, democracy itself is a stabilizing force.
It provides nonviolent
means for resolving disputes. Democracies do a better job of resolving -protecting ethnic and religious and other minorities. And elections can help to
resolve civil wars.
Yet President Bush too often has hesitated when democratic forces all across the
world needed our support in challenging the status quo.
I believe the President
erred when he secretly rushed envoys to resume cordial relations with China
barely a month after the massacre in Tiananmen Square.
(Applause.) I believe he
erred when he spurned Yeltsin before the Moscow coup, when he poured cold water
on the Baltic and Ukrainian aspirations for self-determination and independence,
and when he initially refused to help the Kurds.
The administration continues to coddle China, despite its continuing crackdown
on democratic reform, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, its irresponsible export
of nuclear and missile technology, its support for the homicidal Khmer Rouge
�PAGE
8
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
in Cambodia, and its abusive trade practices.
Such forbearance on our part
might have made sense during the Cold War when China was the counterweight to
Soviet power.
It makes no sense to play the China card now when our opponents
have thrown in their hand.
(Applause.)
In the Middle East, the administration deserves credit for bringing Israel and
its Arab antagonists to the negotiating table. Yet I believe the President is
wrong to use selective public pressure tactics against Israel, because in the
process he's raised Arab expectations that he can deliver Israeli concessions,
and he's fed Israeli fears that its interests will be sacrificed to an
American-imposed solution. We must let the parties in the Middle East make
peace.
(Applause.)
And we must also remember that, even if -- even if -- the Arab-Israeli dispute
were resolved tomorrow, there would still be ample causes of conflict in that
troubled part of the world: ancient tribal, ethnic, and religious hatreds,
fights over control of oil and water, the bitterness of the have-nots toward the
haves, and the lack of democratic institutions to hold leaders accountable to
their people and restrain their actions abroad, and finally the territorial
ambitions of Iraq and Syria.
We paid a terrible price for this administration's earlier policies of deference
to Saddam Hussein.
Today, we must deal with Hafez Assad in Syria, but we must
not overlook his tyrannical rule and his domination of Lebanon. We need a
broader policy toward the Middle East that seeks to limit the flow of arms into
the region as well as the materials needed to develop and deliver weapons of
mass destruction, one which promotes democracy and human rights and
preserves our strategic relationship with what is still the only democracy in
the region-- Israel.
(Applause.)
In Africa as well, we must align America with the forces of democracy.
The
administration has claimed credit for the historic opening of democracy now
being negotiated in South Africa when, in fact, it resisted the sanctions that
helped make this hopeful move possible.
(Applause.)
Today, we should concentrate our attention on doing what we can to help end the
violence that has ravaged the South African townships, by supporting with our
aid the local structures that seek to mediate these disputes and by insisting
that the South African government show the same zeal in prosecuting the
perpetrators of this violence as it has in the past when pursuing the leaders of
the anti-apartheid movement.
The administration in our states and cities should only relax the remaining
sanctions as it becomes clearer that the day of democracy and guaranteed
individual rights is at hand, and when that day does dawn, we must be prepared
to extend our assistance to make sure that democracy, once gained, is never lost
there.
(Applause.)
And American foreign policy of engagement for democracy will unite our interests
and our values.
Here's what I think we should do: First, we need to respond
more forcefully to one of the greatest security challenges of our time to help
the people of the former Soviet Union demilitarize the society and build free
political and economic institutions.
(Applause.)
Congress has passed $500 million to help the Soviets destroy nuclear weapons and
for humanitarian aid. We can do better. As Senator Nunn and Representative Les
Aspin have argued, we should shift money from marginal military programs to this
key investment in our future security. We can radically reduce the threat of
nuclear destruction that has dogged us for decades by investing a fraction of
what would otherwise have to be spent to counter that threat. And together with
our G-7 partners, we can supply the Soviet republics with the food and medical
aid they need to survive their first winter of freedom in 74 years.
(Applause.)
We should do all that we can to better coordinate these efforts with our
�PAGE
9
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
allies and to provide the best technical assistance we can to distribute the
food and the aid.
No national security issue is more urgent than the question
of who will control the nuclear weapons and technology of the former Soviet
empire. Those weapons pose a threat to the security of every American, to our
allies, and to the republics themselves.
I know it may be bad politics to be for any kind of foreign aid program in
today's economic environment, but we owe it to the people who defeated
communism, who defeated the coup, and we owe it
to ourselves.
(Applause.) A small amount spent today stabilizing the emerging
democracies in the former Soviet empire will reduce by far, far more the money
we may have to commit to our defense in the future, and it will lead to the
creation of lucrative new markets which mean more American jobs tomorrow.
Having won the Cold War, we must not now lose the peace.
(Applause.)
We should recognize Ukrainian independence as well as that of other republics
who have made that decision democratically, but we should link United States and
Western non-humanitarian aid to agreements by the republics to abide by all arms
agreements negotiated by Soviet authorities, demonstrate responsibility with
regard to nuclear weapons, demilitarize their economies, respect minority
rights, and proceed with market and political reforms.
We should use our diplomatic and economic leverage to increase material
incentives to democratize and raise the cost to those who don't. We have every
right to condition our foreign aid and debt- relief policies on demonstrable
progress toward democracy and market reforms, and in extreme cases, such as that
of China, we should condition favorable trade terms on political liberalization
and responsible international conduct.
(Applause.)
We need to support evolving institutional structures which are favorable to
countries struggling with the transition to democracy and markets such as the
new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, whose mission it is to
rebuild the societies of Central and Eastern Europe. We are right to encourage
the European Community to open its doors to those societies, perhaps by creating
an affiliate status that carries some, but not all the privileges of
citizenship.
We encourage American private investment in the former Soviet empire. The
Soviet republics, after all, are rich in human and natural resources. One day,
they and Eastern Europe could be lucrative markets for us.
We should regard increase in funding for democratic assistance as a legitimate
part of our national security policy. We should support groups like the
National Endowment for Democracy, which works openly, rather than covertly, to
promote democratic pluralism and free markets abroad.
I would encourage the Agency for International Development and the USIA to
channel more of their resources into promoting democracy, and just as Radio Free
Europe and the Voice of America have helped to bring the truth to people around
the world for years, a Radio Free Asia could carry news and hope to China and
other countries in Asia which have not yet found democracy.
(Applause.)
Finally, just as President Kennedy launched the Peace Corps 30 years ago, we
should create a democracy corps today that will send
thousands talented American volunteers of all ages to countries that need their
legal, financial, and political expertise.
Our second major strategic challenge is to help lead the world in the new era of
global growth. Any governor who's tried to create jobs over the last decade
knows that experience in international economics is essential and that success
in the global economy must be at the core of the United States national security
policy in the '90s. Without growth abroad, our own economy cannot thrive at
home. US export of goods and services will be over a half trillion dollars in
1991, about 10 percent of our economy.
�PAGE
10
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
Without global growth, healthy international competition turns to all-too-deadly
economic warfare. Without growth in economic progress, there can be no economic
justice among or within nations.
I believe the negotiations on an open trading
system in the GATT round are of extraordinary importance, and I support the
negotiation of a North American Free Trade Agreement as long as it's fair to our
farmers and workers, preserves the environment, and observes decent labor
standards.
Freer trade abroad means more jobs at home.
Every billion dollars the United
States exports generates 20 [thousand] or 30 thousand or more jobs. We must
find ways to help developing nations finally overcome their debt crisis, which
has lessened their capacity to buy our own goods and probably cost us over 1-1/2
million American jobs.
We must be strong at home to lead and maintain global growth. Our weakness at
home has caused even our economic competitors to worry about our stubborn
refusal to establish a national strategy to regain our economic leadership and
restore opportunity for our own working people and our middle class.
That's
what Mr. Landegger (ph) talked about. How can we lead when we've gone from
being the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor, from having
the highest wages in the world to falling to tenth? Where we depend on
foreigners for $100 billion a year of financing, we are not the masters of our
own destiny.
I spoke in my last lecture about how we must rebuild our nation's economic
greatness, for the job of restoring our competitive edge truly does begin at
home.
I have offered a program to build the most well-educated and well-trained
work force in the world and put our national budget to work on programs that
will make our people richer and not more indebted.
Our economic strength must become a defining element of our national security
policy. We must organize to compete and win in the global economy. We need a
commitment from American business and labor to work together to make world-class
products. We have to be prepared to exchange some short-term benefit, whether
it's in the quarterly profit statement or in archaic work rules, for long-term
success.
The private sector has to maintain the initiative, but government has an
indispensable role, too. A recent Department of Commerce report is a wake-up
call that we are falling behind our major competitors in Europe and Japan in all
kinds of emerging technologies that will define the high-paying jobs of the
future, including advanced materials, biotechnology, superconductors, and
computer-integrated manufacturing.
I have mentioned the Civilian Advanced Research Projects Agency to work closely
with the private sector so that its priorities are not set by government alone.
We have hundreds of national laboratories with exceptional talent that have put
the United States at the forefront of military technology.
Now we must reorient
their mission, working with private companies and universities to advance
technology that will make all our lives better and create tomorrow's high-wage,
high-opportunity jobs.
(Applause.)
Not enough of our companies engage in export.
Just 15 percent of our companies
account for 85 percent of our exports. We've got to meet our competitors'
efforts to help smaller- and medium-sized companies identify and gain access to
foreign markets. And, most important, government must assure that international
competition is fair by insisting that our European, Japanese, and other trading
partners play by the same rules. We prefer an open trading system, but our
message must be clear: "We want you to play by these rules, but if you don't,
we'll play by your rules."
We have no more important bilateral relations than our alliance with Japan, a
�PAGE
11
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
relationship that's matured from one of dependency in the '50s to one of
partnership today, a relationship based on the ties of democracy.
But as we
cooperate, we also compete, and as the maturity of our relationship allows
American presidents to say more frankly what our common interests are, I will
insist on fair play. As we put our own economic house in order, Japan must open
the doors of its economic house or our partnership will be imperiled with
adverse consequences for all the world.
We must understand, finally, as never before that our national security is
largely economic. The success of our engagement in the world depends not on the
headlines it brings to politicians in this city, but on the benefits it brings
to hard-working middle-class Americans.
Our foreign policies are not really foreign at all anymore. When greenhouse gas
emissions from developed nations warms the atmosphere and CFCs eat away at the
ozone layer, our beaches and farmlands and people are threatened. When drugs
flood into our country from South America and Asia, our cities suffer and our
children's futures are put at risk. When a Libyan terrorist can go into an
airport in Europe and check a bomb in a suitcase that kills
hundreds of people, our freedom is diminished and our people live in fear.
So let us no longer define national security in narrow military terms of the
Cold War. We can no longer afford to have separate foreign and domestic
policies. We must devise and pursue national policies that serve the needs of
our people by uniting us at home and restoring our greatness in the world. To
lead abroad, a President of the United States must first lead at home.
A half century ago, this country emerged victorious from an all-consuming war
into a new era of great challenge.
It was a time of change, a time of new
thinking, a time for working together to build a free and prosperous world, a
time for putting that war behind us.
In the aftermath of that war, Harry Truman
and his successors forged a bipartisan consensus in America that brought
security and for the next 20 years the greatest prosperity our nation had ever
known.
Today, we need a president, a public, and a policy that are not caught up in the
wars of the past, not World War II, not Vietnam, not the Cold War. What we need
to elect in 1992 is not the last president of the 20th century, but the first
president of the 21st century.
(Sustained applause, cheers.)
This spring, when our troops came home from the Persian Gulf, welcome home
parades were held all over America.
In my home state, in Little Rock, we had
over 100,000 people at the welcome home parade. Veterans came from all over the
state, not just those who'd come back from the Gulf but those who'd served, men
and women alike, in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and they marched for 4-1/2
hours.
I'll never forget how moved I was when I watched them march down the
street to our cheers.
I saw the Vietnam veterans finally being given the honor
they deserved all along.
The divisions we have lived with in this country for the last two years that
have done so much to tear apart our politics and my own party
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3-1
seem to fade away amid the common outburst of triumph and gratitude, and when
the Vietnam Veterans' float won the prize for the best in the parade, with
soldiers in long hair and tatoos and earrings and memories of the 60s, there was
not a dry eye on the street. This spirit of unity is the spirit we need to move
into this new era.
As President Lincoln once told Congress in another great time of challenge in
1862, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The
�PAGE
12
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As
our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall
ourselves and then we shall save our country." Fellow citizens, we cannot escape
history.
(Applause)
-- chairman of the Georgetown University Lecture Fund. And before Governor
Clinton takes a few questions, I'd like to recognize the student organizations
who have co-sponsored this event, the Georgetown University Lecture Fund, the
College Democrats, the NAACP, the Georgetown-Israeli Alliance, and the Students
for Clinton.
Representatives from those organizations will ask the first questions, and if
other students want to ask questions, I'd ask them to please line up behind the
microphones.
When you ask your question, please give your name and where you're
from.
MS. HOSAK (ph): Governor Clinton, my name is Stephanie Hosak, president of the
Georgetown University College Democrats and I'm from South Dakota, where I hear
you just spent a cold evening in a very nice barn (inaudible) Sioux Falls.
My question is in regard to, given the tremendous trade deficit that we face and
that must be attacked not only to improve our economic conditions but restore
the competitive edge which you talk about, you mention that you will be
insisting on rules of fair play.
My concern is that should our competitors, such as the EC and Japan, not abide
by these rules that we'll be forced to close out some of our markets, which they
tend to think that they can infiltrate to a large degree, and therefore we can
see ourselves entering a trade war.
What would you do in specific policy to ensure against such trade wars?
GOV. CLINTON: Well, first I would renew our vigilance at GATT.
I think the
administration has tried hard to resolve the
disputes.
Our disputes with the Europeans are largely still over agricultural
issues, which are also difficult matters of contention with Japan and things
that I have wrestled with for years, since my state is the largest
rice-producing state in the country and a major factor in soybean production as
well.
I believe -- if you look at our trade deficit.
Let's back up and look at our
trade deficit.
If you look at our trade deficit, it's been coming down steadily
because manufacturing productivity has increased. The manufacturing sector has
gotten more aggressive, and regrettably, because wages have dropped and because
some of our business people are more alert to the opportunities in the global
environment, we will actually have a modest trade surplus this year, for example
with South Korea, a country with which we had a $10 billion deficit only five
years ago.
Our trade deficit has gone down each year with Mexico for the last five years
because of the market-opening initiatives taken on his own by President Salinas.
Our major deficits are with Japan, and that's about -- this year it'll probably
be slightly over half of our deficit, and between two-thirds and three-quarters
of that Japanese deficit will be in automobiles.
I'll come back to that in a
minute.
The second big problem we have is with the oil exporting countries, which is why
I haven't
I said in my economic -- we are more or less in balance with Europe.
seen the final numbers yet but we'll be more or less in balance, a little below,
a little above.
Our major problems are, in my opinion, here at home. We are not organized to
compete to the maximum extent in a global economy, as I said today. We are not
educated and trained to be a high wage, high growth, high opportunity society
because we are insufficiently skilled and we do not have a system for
�PAGE
13
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
retraining of our workers.
We have refused stubbornly to control health care costs at the national level,
which is making many of our manufacturers uncompetitive in the global
marketplace.
So if we were to do those things, I think our exports would
increase.
We would still have two primary problems with Japan and with the oil exporters,
and I'll say a little bit in a minute about the Mexican-American agreement. The
problem with the oil exports is that the only energy policy we have is cheap
oil.
You can't blame them for making hay while the sun shines. They're just
doing their job and raking it in.
Without having any serious jolts to an economy already in recession, we must
begin a gradual but determined move toward a new energy policy that relies more
on domestic production, especially of cheap, clean, plentiful natural gas, that
relies more
(Applause)
That relies more on R&D in the renewable resources. We have a laboratory in
Colorado established when Jimmy Carter was President, whose budget has been
strangled for the last 12 years that ought to be reinvigorated.
There are
enormous opportunities in this country for renewable long-term sources of
energy.
Finally, we ought to achieve European standards of energy efficiency in large
buildings and factories.
If we did that, we could free up a lot of money and
lower the trade deficit.
Now with Japan, Congressman Gephardt has a bill, the Super 301 bill, which I
think has a lot of merit. We're going to have to go gingerly at this with
Japan, but I think it is clear that they are much better organized and much more
sophisticated at finding 1,000 indirect ways as well as more direct ways to make
it difficult for us to pierce some of those markets.
I never blame them for what's wrong with us.
I said in my previous speeches,
until we become better educated, better organized, invest more in the future,
get into the high technology production game, we're not going to be competitive,
but we are making those moves.
I think we have to find much more precise ways to try to even the playing field
with Japan, and it is not just as clear as having some blanket selection on
automobiles.
There are a lot of automobiles with Japanese names today that have
more American-made parts in them than some automobiles with American names have.
It is not just a problem of protectionism. We have American plants in this
country today competitive in price and quality with the Japanese save for health
care costs.
But I think that the -- we have to be very careful about setting
off a trade war.
I agree with that. But if our disputes are largely with Japan
and if we can find quick ways to respond to the dumping problems and to
market-opening problems, I think we will be able to make some serious progress.
Now, let me say one thing about the Mexican-American free trade agreement, which
has become the symbol, interestingly enough, of a bad trade policy.
It means
free trade is bad.
If Mexico grows richer, it'll be better for us.
The Joint Economic Committee
did a study a couple of years ago which said that if the growth rate of Latin
America as a whole had been the same in the late 80s as it was in the mid-70s,
our trade deficit would have been 20 percent lower.
One of the things that depresses our wages in the manufacturing sector is low
wages in Mexico, and low productivity because we're under-organized and
under-educated in America because
they are crushed under foreign debt, mostly to us, that they can't pay. They
have to depress their wages.
�PAGE
14
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
So if you just signed a trade agreement that had no environmental protections,
no labor law protections, and you didn't take account of the special problems of
the farmers, especially people in citrus and vegetable in south Texas and south
Florida, it might be very unfair.
If you sign one that is a good fair trade agreement, it will lead to explosions
of growth on both sides of the Rio Grande River, as long as we also have the
changes that I recommended in our economic policy so we're not competing with
the low wage countries, we're competing with the high wage countries.
That requires also, to be perfectly fair, a different attitude on the part of
some American managers who believe that we can only be a manufacturing country
if we drive our wages down.
That is wrong. The average German factory worker
makes 20 percent more than the average American and works a shorter work week,
gets a four-week paid vacation a year, has national health insurance, and has
family leave when there's a kid born or a sick parent.
It is wrong.
You can be a manufacturing country and be a high wage country, and I'm
determined to see that we are both.
(Applause)
Q My name is Vernon Garns (ph). I'm president of Georgetown University NAACP.
As stated in your speech, foreign policy should be the direct reflection of
domestic policy.
You also mentioned the horrible violence which has plagued
black townships in South Africa.
However, the same type of violence which is inflicted on black South Africans is
equivalent to the amount of violence inflicted on African-Americans in this
country and African-Americans in Latin America.
The African-American townships or communities are war-torn communities which are
the marketplaces for illegal drugs, the overwhelming examples of the devastating
consequences of AIDS, environmental racism, and the victims of continual police
brutality.
How would you suggest that we secure human rights, civil rights, and improve
living conditions in these African-American communities, thereby transforming
them into role models for black communities abroad?
GOV. CLINTON: I think that is one of the central questions facing the United
States today.
It requires us first to make two decisions. One, that all of our
people are important to us and that
we don't have a person to waste.
Two, that if we try, we can make a difference,
because the truth is that a lot of people have given up on America's cities, a
lot of people have given up on its most violent communities.
I had a heart-rending discussion a couple of days ago in New York with a trial
judge about violence in America and what can be done about it. Very briefly,
let me tell you what I think ought to be done.
None of this is a silver bullet and it will take time to overcome, but we can
organize and direct our energies in an urgent task to revitalize our urban areas
and restore the lives of so many that are being lost.
First, let's just take
the law enforcement issues and move to the human development issues.
The first thing we have to do is try to increase security in our cities. Most
people have forgotten in some of the racist comments now being made by David
Duke and others that in these big cities most black people work and most poor
people work. Very important. Most poor people in America today have jobs, do
40 hours a week and are still living in poverty with their families, that they
live in conditions of violence virtually unequalled anywhere in the world except
where civil wars are reigning.
I think the first thing you have to do is put more police on the street and
organize public housing developments and neighborhoods for safety. There are so
few police today and so few of them are organized in grassroots community
policing efforts with close ties to the people that live in communities or in
�I
PAGE
15
Federal News Service, DECEMBER 12, 1991
housing developments that police ate only used to go in after crimes have been
committed.
I
They used to be the primary instrument of preventing crimes. Thirty years ago
there were three policeman for eve~y violent crime. Today there are three
crimes for every policeman, a wors~ning ratio of nine to one.
That's why my
idea for national service in a national police corps, where we could send
college graduates for two or threelyears back to cities where they come from to
serve as police officers in neighborhood context is very, very important.
Secondly, we should pass the Bradylbill. We should pass the Brady bill.
(Applause)
Thirdly, we should deal with the d~ug problem in a far more heads-up manner than
we are now with two things. Numbe~ one, treatment on demand without delay.
Treatment works. Appropriate treadment works.
It is an illness.
Some people
are dumb enough to want to kill th~mselves with drug addiction. Most people are
sick.
I
All the serious studies show that Jppropriate levels of treatment for
appropriate lengths of time yield d success rate slightly in excess of 60
percent. You get to play major ledgue baseball if you hit .250. This is a very
important issue, a very important ~ssue.
The second thing we ought to do is find an alternative for fist-time drug
offenders. Most people who commit drug crimes today in our big cities are given
two unacceptable alternatives. Either they are sent to prison where they cost
us a bunch of money and they reall~ learn how to be criminals, or they're put on
probation with some poor, overwork~d probation officer that's got 200 or 300
people and never pays them any atte ntion. Then they commit a second crime and
then they go to prison and do that .I
I think that every urban area shou~d have alternatives to incarceration,
community work centers where people live, are subject to extreme discipline,
adequate treatment for drug and alcehol abuse, continuing education and do
community service work and are reconnected to their communities.
(Applause)
I
Third, you got to have public health clinics in all of our neighborhoods.
You've got to have health services !in the schools. You've got to have
comprehensive drug education prograbs and every poor child in this country has
got to have available to them by th~ time they reach adolescence -- now you
listen to this, all of you -- everyl poor child in a disadvantaged home in a
disadvantaged neighborhood has got to have available to him or her by the time
they reach adolescence a personal rblationship with a successful, caring adult
through organized mentoring program~.
(Applause)
I
You cannot expect these children to live lives they cannot imagine.
The thing
our President has said, of all the ~hings he said that I disagree with most, is
the way he derided his not having what he called "the vision thing."
Let me tell you something.
I hope hone of you walk out of this room without the
vision thing.
I
(Applause)
\
The final thing I have to tell you is we have to start indigenous economic
development and housing strategies ~n these areas. There are all kinds of
housing programs that are at work that are empowering people.
I think the
Congress made a mistake in not passing more of Jack Kemp's housing initiatives
to do more for low income working p~ople, to give them the right to own their
own homes and secure their own neighborhoods.
1
1
1
I
I think that was a big mistake and I think we ought to take some development
I
I
I
�•
Federal News S~rvice, DECEMBER 12, 1991
PAGE
16
models that work and put them all lcross the country.
I'll just give you one.
The South Shore Development Bank i~ Chicago, one of the most innovative
financial institutions anywhere inlthe world, did a great deal to revitalize a
totally depressed neighborhood witnin a matter of years.
We borrowed that model and set up~ rural development bank in our state and it's
doing amazing things.
There ought ito be a development bank in every sizable
community in every city in this country to prove that we can make free
enterprise work for poor people agJin.
If we started there, we'd be making a
good start.
I
Q My name is Jeremy Bash (ph) . I represent a strong pro- Israel group on campus
and we helped to co-sponsor the evJnt today.
I want to ask you, in September we
lobbied for a loan guarantee progrJm. We lobbied Congress to help private banks
that wanted to invest in the Israe]i economy to help absorb Soviet Jews who were
fleeing anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union.
I wanted to know your opinion on ttle loan guarantee program and other programs,
private investing programs for US Banks and US firms to help stimulate the
Israeli economy, which is in dire ~traits.
'
I
GOV. CLINTON: I th1nk the loan gua~antees should be approved.
They are part of
a 20-year commitment we have to re~ocate Jews from the Soviet Union.
I think
that they should be approved in a way that makes them not part of this
negotiation process at all.
That ~s, the government should agree not to use the
loan guarantees or some substitute lfor it to expand the settlements that are now
being discussed in these peace negdtiations, but we should not hold up the loan
guarantee and undermine a 20-year ~umanitarian policy we have at a time when
those societies are collapsing in qentral Europe, and they will have their
share, and historically have had tHeir share, of David Dukes rising up.
I think we ought to go ahead and gdt those people where they want to go.
Q My name is Molly Peterson.
I'm ~ student in the School of Foreign Service, a
Student for Clinton, and a student !about to take an international trade exam.
While China is a proven violator of1 human rights, of trade regulations against
illegal importations into the us and at best a fair weather friend, there are
many industries that depend upon t~e low tariffs which most favored nation
status allows, especially the wheatll growers and the lumber industries of the
Pacific Northwest.
:
On a general basis, how do you intepd to balance the moral demands of American
foreign policy with the economic ne~ds of these specific groups?
GOV. CLINTON: Well, if it were easy, it would be done already.
I think that as
a general rule we ought to try to cpoperate with those countries that we think
we have a reasonable chance of changing through cooperative efforts and mutual
advance.
I
When countries flagrantly violate apcepted norms of international conduct and
undermine the interests that we hol~ dear and retard the forces of democracy
that are plainly welling up, then I: think we have to seriously consider whether
we should maintain most favored nat ion status.
That's why I support Senator
Mitchell's bill on China in the United States Senate.
Thank you very much.
I
END
1
I
I
�·,
----· - - · - -
•-
·~-
•:...
I
FACSiMILE COVER SHEET
OFFICE. OF THE UN·I~Eq S~ATES TRADE. REPRESENTATIVE. ·
. . Execut1ve: IOff1.~e of. the President
.
· · . . . · Washington D.C ...20506. . .·
.
Date: I
<l~ jq
!:(
Number Of Pages· Incfuding Co. ~r:.
,
.
.
·~-
. I
I .. .
Name/Contact:
De)'~ ~tltR....
I
· Agency/Company: VHtTe ~~Sc
I
Fax Number: (
) b·S/ ()~
.
.
Sent By:
Phone Number:·..__(_,..L)_ _ _ _.......
I
~
.. I
Q,., ~ '0
From.:
.
/Lu It ,'f rc..,
i
,
'
.
i
.
Policy CqordincAion
'
Phone Number: · C202)' 39S-0
·. -Fax Number:·
.
,
I
"YlJ
.
I
·. (202) . 395-3:f!@>
I
'
.I 0 o .
.
I
I
Su~~t=--------~~~~1--~--------------~------~
. . .I
I
I
.I·
:•
.
I
I .
I
I
'
.I
i'
I
..
I
'
'
...
'
�-----
.....
.,
'.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Don Baer
FROM:
David Kurapka
DATE:
November 3, 1994
SUBJECT:
Roosevelt Quotes
I
'
I found a number of quotes by FORI' that I think would wo:rk for the President's November
10 Georgetown ~h.
·
· ·
.
~~~~
.
1
A note: FD}t made etforts to expand global trade but wasn't entirely successful. Protectionist.
impulsesln other countries and at
limited his success. It wasn't until after the war. and
after FDR's death. that the GATT was formed and global economic interdependence .really
began. But FDR had thO leadership ~nd. vision to understand that that was tbC way the world
needed to go and he started the ~ss. Hopefully, sOI!le in the audience will pick up that
nuance, and understand the comp~D to Clinton's effons today to do the same.
h9me
I
I
I'll keep digging for quotes and I nUpt have a few anecdotes. too~ I'll send anything I find
over. Let me know if I can help in ~y othe~ way. I'm at 59483.
. ·.
I
·. "(decline in world trade) has Dleant iclJe hands, still machines. ships tied to their docks, ·
despairing farm households, and buJigry industrial families. It bas made infinitely more
difficult. the plannitlg for economic rFadjlistment in which the Government is now eugaged. ,
"You and I know that~e world do~ not stand s~t trade movements and relations once
interrupted can with the utmosl dit'fieulty be re.~tored; that even in tranquil and prosperous
, 'times there is a constant
shifting of trade
channels. "
.
I
'
Request /,or Authority to Consum»>tlle RedpmCIJl T'l't:ltiA Agr~~ment
I
for the Revival of Foreign 1rade
I
March 2, 1934
.
I
"... there is an intimate relationship between domestic·· prosperity. the unuammeled movement
of goods between nations and the preservation of peace ... 11
·
I
1
!
Letter to the Institute of Public Affairs.
University of Virginia
]UIU! 29, 1937
I
I.
I
.
�--·
--.-
.,.-.
Ill 003
.fOLCOORDINATION
.... V t V I
·"We cannot succeed in building a ~c:eful world unless we build an economically healthy
world." '
.
·
·
·
·
.·
"lhe coming total defeat of our enemies, and of tbe.philosophy of conflict and aggression
chance and a better cbanc:c than. we have ever
. which they have represented.· gives u~ a
had to ... substitute cOoperation and ~ business principles-for warfare in economic
relations. tl
. .
.
.
new
The Prestdenr Urges the· Congress
to strengthen lhe Trade Agreements Act .
.
' ..
I
.
.
Marr:h 26, 1945
"The point in history at which we stand. is full of promise and danger. The world. will either
move toward unity and widely shared prosperity or it will move. apart into necessarily
·
1
competing economic blocs. We have a chance~ we citizens· of the United States, lOuse our
· influenee in favor of a more united aM cooperating world. Whether we do so will deterinine
as far as it is in out· power, the kind bt lives our grandchildren can live."
·
.
.
I,
'
, .
I
I
.•.
I
I
.
'
..
On the Bretton wtJOtig proposals
FebTUlJ.ry 12, 1945
�lSI UU4
NOTE: The
recommendations
which 1 made: in the foregojng message fot legislation to guarantee
principal on Hame OWners Loan
Corporation borub (see Itenu 89
83 4I Request for Authority to Cansummate
Reciprocal Trade Agreement for ~he Revival
ofForeign Trade. March 2, 1934 /
·ro the Ctmgress:
·
I .
.
.
·
AM REQUESTIN~
the Congress to authorize the Executive to
enter into executive comme~ial agree~cnts with foreign
Nations; and in pursuance thereof, within" carefully guarded
linuta, to modify existing duties and im~ort resaictions in
. such a way as will ·benefit American agriculture and industry. This action seems opporlwle and necessary at thjs time for
several reasons.,
1.
·
First, world trade bas declined with stntl~g rapidity. Measured in terms of the volume of goods in 19!!• ~t has been reduced
to approximately 70. percent of its 19XY vol!ume;
measured
in
I
.
terms of c:lollars, it has Callen to 35 percent. "Jihe drop ii1 the for.
elgn trade of the U riited States has been cv~ ~. Om:· ex:ports jn 1938 were but !J2 percent of the 1929 yolume, and St percent of the 1929 value.
I
This lias meant idle hands. still machines' shi s tied to their
docks, des atrtn
• an unr y industrial &m·
ilies. It has ma e 1
1te y more
c t -~e panning I' economic readjustment in which· the Government is now engaged.
You and I know th the world does not stand still; .ihat trade
m.ov ments and rela6ons once interrupted qan w1 the. utmost
difficul :he restore ; at even m t.ranqu :l'fl FOSperous times
there 18 a constant shifting of ua e channe ~
.... kow much greater, how rnucli more violent is the shifting in
these times of change and of stress is clear &~ the record of cur·
us
·I
I
I
I
I
'.
I
•
I
,
r
�I
174
Re.cib:ral!lfl
Trade Program
;ao:
s-8
with other countries, it
lJ.dcquatdy protect its trad~ against cliscriminations and agmmt bargains 'urious to its intcrestli. Furthennore a promise: tu which prompt effect :
be: given is not an inducement which
can pass current at par in C:OJ~Ul'llet.c~. negotiations.
.
For this reason,
degree of authority .in the hands of the
Executive would be
The executive branches of v.lrtually all
other important uadlng
alreidy possess some such power.
Mess.se ro t:ongress
authority ro make erecudve c:ommerciaJ.~
mCJ", Marc:h :, 19:54
rional uade,
it is Amerl-
I'
1$
1ted for the
: ,markets nf
peace of the
:eduction of
·ised. At rhe
s I If we would. build conkructively for peace, we must build upon
economic foundations whic~[ are sound; and sound economics requlres
libenillzed trade. America staftds ready to· go forward With other . nations
in. this great movement.
I
··
'
1
, 1omie polic:y
· ptoduction
· Lmcr to the National Fo~ Trade Council; HoiDton, Tex.. Nov. 19. 19JJ
~tthe
ive to cntet
nd in pursu' , isting duties
1
agriculture
time fot
~his
'•
'·
. • Thls hal
pairing fum
iilitely more
,
• /ln. the belief thst therelan .;......, telationshi """""'" dam0$rie
to erity, the untramme ed "'*'nvement o
od..111 hetween narions and r e
pteservannn n peace, u; government· as promote Wl e y an su ess' fully a r~ae '~greements progrim. F.cnnnmic: :armaments And mili~.ry anna-.
menrs go hand in hlllnd lind sine~ rhe problems ate interdependent they must
be amu:Jced in a cnmprehenllire manner, by the conarred effort of all
peoples 1nd in inremar.innal a~emern:. Only thi~; way may we find the wa.y
whjc:h will lead from the moriss·of international misunderstanding to the
haven of enduring peace.
'I
Letter
to
.
thO!! Ltsrirute ol Pu~lic: AWain..
I
June Z9o $937
Unlva~
.
.
,, Virginia,, ~rlaft'eSV'iUe,
·
govemmen~
tent winning
trade tgree, retai4 their
ina position
and decisive
· o grant with ·
market for
Th~
1I
importance of the Jde agreements program as a tnovement lor
pcac:c: perhaps transcends the :importani:e of the material bene1its to bt
gained frum it.
I
·
Letter
to
the t".ol)ventlon of the National Fordsn Tnd£ O:luncll, New York
Cby, OCt. 30. 1937
!
I
I TI\e trade agreementS tha~ ·we have concluded with seventeen foreign
countries . . . ~mst to the p~gress rhat has been made~ With pAtient
persistence we are thus gradually building more secure f~undations for our
own national economic wc:ll·b~ing. At the: rsamc time. we arc sucngmening
· 8
.:e fair offen
·in a posi'l:ion ·
illingto d~
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
�~006
z.j3. Strengthlming of Trade Agr;MM&ts Ad
cannot give too much to thQse who hav~ given us Lhc heroic
. hazard of their lives.
143 (The President Urges the\ Congress to
Strengthen' the Trade Agreemc*ts Act.
March ~6, 1945.
\
To l/'18 Cfmgren:
. \
..
THE coming victory of the United Nati?ns means that they,
and not their enemies, have power r.o esta~lish the foundations
· of the future.
. ·
I·
On April 25 their_ representatives will meet in San ;Francisco
' to draw ~p the Charter for the Ge_neral \Organization of the
.· United Nations for security and peace~
this meeLing and
. what con1es after it our best hopes ~f a secur;e and peaceful world
depend. · .
·
i·
.
At the same time ·we know that ')9e c:anno~ succeed in building
a eaceful world unless we build an econo~ically health world.
e are already taking ecisivc steps to s en . . e e ts to
improve currency relationships by the Inthnational Monetary .
Fund, to encourage international invesmJnts and m:alc.e .them ·
more secure by th~ International' Dank. for IReconstruction and
Development, ,to free the air for peaceful Bight by the Chicago
civil aviation •arrange~ents, arc part o£ that \endeavor. So, too, is
the proposed Food and Agrkulture Ot-ganil\:ation of the United
Nation11.
·
We. owe it to the vision of Secretary Hull, that, another of the
essential measures we shall need to accomplfh our objective has
b~en tested and perfe~ted by ten years of n?tably successful experience under his leadership. You are al~ familiar with the
Trade Agreements Act which has been on the books sinct: ·1934
and which on three occ:asions1 since that tinie,
the Congress has
I
renewed. The present law expires. in June of this year. I recom-
qn
.·
595
.
I
,.
. i
.. .
I
. I
�...-..
I4J· Strtmgtlumi.ng of Trads Agr8f'1'1Jf'ts Att
&greement countries increased by u pcrccht as compared with
only 1 t percent from non-agreement count~es. The disruptionJ
and dislocations resulting from the war make lat.er com.paTisons '
impossible. The record published in 194~ is, nevertheless, as
valid tocJay as jt was tnen. w~ lmow, witHout any doubt, that
trade agreements build trade and that the~ will do so after the
war as they did before. All sections of ouii ·population -labor,
farmers, busiiiessmen have shared and will share in the benefits
which increased rrade brings. ,
..
~. Unfon'lina.tely, powerful forces operated against our elorts in
the yean after ~"934· The most powerful ~ere the steps of our
pr~sent enemies to prepare themselves for the war they intended
t.o let l«lCJSe upon the world. They did tl1is:by subjecting every
part of their business life, and especially dieir foreign trade, to
the ~rinciple of g~na instead of butter. In\ the face of the eco, DODllC warfare wh1ch they waged, and the tear and countermeas. urea which their conduct caused in other ci,untri.es, the success
of Secretary Hull and his interdepartmental associates in scaling
down trade barriers is all the more remarldbie. .
.
·The coming total defeat ~f our enemies ~d of the philosophy
of conflict and aggression which they
tepresented. gives ·US
--I
a new chance and a better chance. than we have
ever had to bring
about ~tions
under which_!he Nationslof
the world
substi-··-·
I
.
~···~Ute cooperation a.qd .sound businep principles·. for warfare in
~nomjc mla-liieM.
·
I
.
· ·
.·
· It is essential that we move forward aggl'essivcly and make the
moat of this opponunity. Business people
all countries want
to· know the rules under which the postwat world will operate.
Industry today is WQrking almost wholly on[war orders but once
the victory is won. immediate decisions will have to be ~ade as .
what lines of peacetime producti~n ·loo~ most profitable· for
either old or new plants. In this process of reconversion, decisions will necessarily be influenced by what !businessmen foresee ·
. as Government policy. If it. is clear that barrie1~ to foreign trade
are. coming down all around the world. bhsinessmen can and
will direct production to the things that lbok. ~ost promising
'
I
,I
.
ha;
i6
ro
·i
597
I
I
'
I
f
I!
i
I
, ·I
'.
�008 .
..
.•
143. Strengthening Dj Trllllt Agree'numts Att
trade has many fronts, and we must try tO get forward. on each
of th.cin as rapidly and a5 wisely as we can. I shall continue thcrc~re to explore the possibility also of rc&.ching a common und.erstanding with the &iendly Nations of the world on some of the
o;ther inten~alional trade problems. that con&ont m. The atr
wopriare
committees of the Congress will be fully
I.
tonsulred u
lhat work progresses. The purpose of the whole e!ort is to eliini·
.~ate economic warfare, to make practical intcrpational coopeta·
tion effective on as many frontS as possible, and so to lay the
ebonomic: basis lor the secure and peaceful world we all desire.
I When this Trade Agreements legislation and the other lcgislatton I have recommended to this Congress is adopted, and when
the· general organization of the United Nations and their various
s~ecial agencies; including nlle on trade, have been created and
are functioning, we shall have made' a good beginning at creating
al workable kit of tools for lhc new world of international coop·
to which we all look forward. We shall be equipped to
deal with the great overriding question of security. and with the
eration
and
ducial questions nf money'
exchange, international invest- .
~ent, ~~ civil aviation, laboT, and agriculture.
i As I said in my message
February u on the Bretton Woods
~roposah:
.
.
of
I ''The point in Wstory ·at which ±e sumd is full of promise and of.
danger. The world will either move ward unity and widely shared pros.
~rity or ft will mave apilrt into n cessarily competing ecnnomk blocs~ .
'fe have a chance. w.e citizens of the United Srates, to use our inBuence
;n favor o( a Jnore united and cooperating world. Whether we dn so wlll
~etermine, as was it iii~ our power, the kind of lives our grandchi1dren
can live.··
.
I
I
NOTE: Alter the fint World War, free Bow of world trade. By raising
Nadon after Nation embarkecl on iu tariff, the United States made it
~ program of rampant economic vh·tually impossibl~ for foreign
· dationalism. The United States was boTTnwers to repay American loaiU
·dn~ of the: kading o1fendeTS .in thiS by selJing foreign goods in the
shicidal race to raise tariff baTriers
~nd app.ly other rigid foreign .tr:ldP.
cbrltrols which interfered with the
I
I
I
United States.
This short-sighted policy was carried fun:~ter in the Hawley~moot
6oo
·
�...:, ..
rI
The State of lnrlividuals 1776-4976
I
i
I
(
·rv.s
To
SATISFY HuMAN NEEDS
~~e histo~
is the most difficult -of.the lectures on
of
the thousand years o(the growth ofpubhc authonty.
. What happened in the last two hundred years is fairly
clear to me, but it is not easy to convey, even to those of you
,,ho are familiar with the framework of much of my thinking.
--'"----(-)nL'-rcason-foLthis.. difficulry,_clearly,.is_the_complexity-oLthe----'-----•
~ubjcct itself; but then the preceding eight hundred years were
quite as complex as the last two hundred. A mU<:h more funda-.
mental reason for the difficulty is this: The reality of the last
rwo hundred years of the history of Western civilization, including the history of our own country, is not_ reflected in the
.t:encral brainwashing you have received, in the political mythology you have been hearing; or in the historiography of the
period as it exists today.
..
I will divide the period from 1776 to 1976. into two parts.
The first. to about 1890, was a period of expansion of industrial
~ocicty; the last approximately eighty years have been an age
of profound crisis, not only in our own. country, but in Western
ci\ ilization-the unit in which I- carry on my thinking on the
'ubjcct. To deal with this period, I have to go back to fundamentals, and particularly to the fundamentals of human values. and to do that, we must have paradigms. .
. The whole thousand years, as I explained in my first lecture,
1
~ a shift from a society in· 976 made up of communities to a
~(~ciety today composed both of states of monstrous power and
· ot atomized individuals. I will use certain definitions: A society
·. " an organization of persons and artifacts-things made by
peoplc--:-to satisfy human needs. It would not.exist if it had noi
mmc into existence to satisfy human needs. Notice: I do not
.
'·Rt-:,\T TF.ACHERS OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERYICE
23
�The State of l11dividuals 1776:_1976-
CARROLL QUIGLEY
say human desires. One of the striking things about our society
today is the remoteness of our desires from our needs. I(yoti
ask anyone what he wants, what he desires, he will give you·
lists of things as remote as can be from human needs.
In our society, the process we have been tracing for a thousand years is the growth of the state. As I indicated in the first
lecture. a state is not the same thing as a society, although the
(;reeks and Romans thought it was. A state is an organization of
power on a territorial basis. The link between a society, whether
it is made up of communities or individuals, and a state is this:
Po~:rr !t'sts on the ability to satisfy human needs.
i-
The "l-evels ofCulture."Now I will put on the board something
with which former students are familiar-the levels of culture,
the aspects ofa society: military, political, economic, social,
-emotionai-;-Teligious;-intcllectuat--'fhose-are-your-basic-human
needs, arranged in an evolutionary sequence·. Millions of years
ago. even before our species became humans, we had a need
for defense of the group, because it is perfectly obvious that
our species canr.ot live outside of groups. We can satisfy our
·needs only by cooperating within a group. Indeed, humans will
not become human unless they grow up in communities. We
will come back to that because it is the basis of this lecture.
If you have a ·group, it must be defended against outsiders;
that is military. Even before men came out of the trees they
had that need. If your needs are to be satisfied within some
kind of a group, you must have ways of settling disputes and
_ arguments and reconciling individual problems within the
group; that is political. You must have organizational patterns
for satisfying material needs, food, clothing, and shelter; that is
rmnomtc.
'fhen came two needs that have been largely destroyed or
frustrated in the last thousand years of Western civilization.
People have social needs. They have a need for other people;
they have a need to love and to be loved~ They have a need to
be noticed. Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy because no
one had ever noticed him and he was determined that, from
then on, someone would know he existed. In fact, most of these
"motiveless" assassinations are of this type. Someone went up
to the top of the University ofTexas tower and shot something
-~-
like seventeen people before they caught him. That was because no one had ever noticed him. People need other people.
That is the social need. The basis of social interrelationships is
reciprocity: if you cooperate with others, others will cooperate
with you.
The next is the emotional need. Humans must have emotional experiences. This is obtained in two ways that I can see:
moment-to-moment relationships with other people and moment-to-moment relationships with nature. Our society has so
cluttered up our lives with artifacts-c-television sets or automobiles or whatever-and.organizational structures that moment-to-moment relationships with nature are almost
impossible. Most people do not even know what the weather
outsiaeislilre:-Someone saia recentlytnat we~na<rjust naa~a--
grcat drought here in Washington, and four or five people standing there said, "That's ridiculous." We had a shortage of about
eight inches of rain, I believe, but no one noticed it. Because
they are in buildings, it does not matter to them whether it is
raining or not.
The next need is the religious. It became fashionable in
Western civilization, particularly in the last hundred years, to
be scornful of religion. But it is a fact that human beings have
religious needs. They have a need for a feeling of certitude in
their minds about things they cannot control and do not fully
understand and, with humility, will admit they do not understand. When you destroy people's religious expressions, they.
will establish secularized religions like Marxism.
People also have intellectual needs. I used to tell students
that Marilyn Monroe had profound intellectual needs. And
when no one would treat her as an intellect or even as a potential intellect, she became starved for intellectual experience.
That's why she married a man like Arthur Miller: she thought
he was an intellectual.
.
So, those are human needs. Power is the ability to satisfy
those needs. And someorie who says that power is organized ·
force, or that power is the outcome of an election, or that power
'\
'I.
f;Rf<:AT TEACHERS OF THE GEORGETOWN. SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE
25
�CARROLL QUIGLEY
is the ability to cut off our si1pply of oil, hasa completely inadequate way of looking at it. My experience and study of the
dcstrtlction of civilizations and the collapse of great empires
have convinced me that empires and civilizations do not col~
lapse because of deficiencies on the military or political level.
The Roman army never met an army that was better than it
was. But the Roman army could not be su~tained when everything had collapsed and no one cared. No one wanted to serve,
no one wanted to pay taxes, no one cared.
ludh·iduals, Communities, and State.'i. Now you must put these
things together to some extent. Persons, or personalities if you
,,·ish. can be made qnly in communities. A commu11ity is made
up ilf intimate relationships among diverse types of individu~tls-a kinship group, or a local group, a neighborhood, a vii~----~- --lage.- a large family. Without communities, no infant wilroc-sufficiently socialized. A boy may grow up to be forty years
old. he may have made an extremely good living, he may have
cniendcred half a dozen children, but he is still an infant unless he has been properly socialized, and that occurs in the first
four or five years of life.
In our society today, we have attempted to throw the wh~lle
burden of socializing our population upon the school system.
to which the individual arrives only at the age offour or five. A
few years ago there were big programs to take children to school
for a few hours at age two and three and four, but siiCh programs will not socialize them. The first two years are import<int. The way a child is treated in the first two days is of vital
importance. He has to be loved; above all, he has to be talked
to.
A state of individuals, such as we have now reached in Western civilization, will not create persons. The atomized individuals who make it up will be motivated_ by desires that do not
necessarily reflect-needs. Instead of needing other people, they
need a shot of heroin; instead of some kind of religious conviction, they have to be with the winning team.
Human needs are the basis of-power. The state, as I said, is
a power structure on a territorial basis, and the state will sura6
(-;RF:.\T TF.ACHERS OF T!fE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL_OF FOREIGN SERVICE
r
ll
!
I
f
!
The S!rlte of l11dividua/s 1776-1976
vive only if it has sufficient ability to satisfy enough of these
needs. It is not enough for it to have organized force, and when
_a politician says "Elect me President and I will establish law
arid order," he means organized force or organized power of
other kinds. On this complex point I will simply say here that
rhe object of the political level is to legitimize power: that is,
to get people, in their minds, to recognize and accept the actual power relationship in their society.
Next Tuesday a decision will be made as to who will be
President of the United States. That will not necessarily reflect th~ actual power relationships in the Ur:tited States at all.
If all the people who are intellectually frustrated would vote,
the result might be quite different. Many of you have come ~o
these lectures because you are· intellectually frustrated, and
you want to be exposed again to my insistent demands tha(
\Oil think about things.
We no longer have intellectually satisfying arrangements in
our educational system, in our arts, humanities, or anything
else; instead we have slogans and ideologies. An ideology is a
religious or emotional expression; it is not an inte_llectual expression. So·in the last couple of centuries when a society is
reaching its end, you have what I call misplacement of satisfactions. You find your emotional satisfaction in making a lot
- of money, or in being elected to the White House in 1972, or
in proving to the poor, half-naked. people of South~ast Asia
that you can kill them in large numbers.
111e Sovereign State. The state is a good state if it is sovereign
arid if it is responsible. It is more or l_ess incidental whether a
state is, for example, democratic. If democracy reflects the
structure of power in the society, then the state should be
democratic. But ifthe pattern of power in a society is not democratic, then you cannot have a democratic state. This is what
has happened in some countries in Latin America,Africa, and
similar places: when they have an election and the army does
not like the man who is elected, they move in and throw him
o_m. The outcome of the election does not reflect the power
snuation, in which organized force is the dominant thing.
r;RP.I\T TEACHERS OF THE GF.ORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE
�.....
The Statio! f11dividua/s 1776-1976
CARROLL QUIGLEY
When I say governments have to be responsible, I am saying
. utterly potential. When persons become personalities, such
the same thing as when I said the:y have to be legitimate: they
ourselves, then they have traits th~t they acquired out of
must reflect the power structure of the society. Po~itics is the
their potentialities as the result of expenences over numerous
area f1ir.establishing responsibilit-y by legitimizing power, that
~a~
.
is. by somehow demonstrating the power structure to people;
· · This is why people could get along without a state in 976: all
and it may take a revolution, such as the French Revolution,
the significant controls were internalized. I took the year 976
and it may take a war, like the American Civil War. In the Ameribccau~e, although Western civilization had come into existence
can Civil War, for example, the structure of power in the United
about two hundred years before that, in 976 it began to exStates was such-perhaps unfortunately, I don't know-that
p;md. producing more goods per _per~on per day or per year.
the South could not leave unless the North-was willing. It was
You know what I mean by exl?anston tfyou took my freshman
that simple. But it took war to prove it.
.
.
course: increased output per capita, increased knowledge, inSnvrrrzf?tlt)' has eight aspects: ( 1) defense; (2) judicial-setcreased geographic area for the civilization itself, and increased
rling disputes; (3) ad~inistrative--discretionary actions for the
population. That began in 976.
·
public need; (4) taxation-mobilizing resources (this is one of
The economic expansion was achieved chiefly by specialthe powers the French governmeri_t_did_noLhave_in-1-7-76);-(-S)-----izatinn ancl excnange:-insteao-of each-little group's trying to
-~~!!;islation-the. finding of rules and establishment of rules
,;nisfv all its own needs, groups began to concentrate, for exthrough promulgation and statute; (6) executive-the enforce;llnpi~ ro produce only wool and exchange it for other things.
ment of laws andjudicial decisions. Then there are two which
Th;H process of increasing specialization and·exchange; which
arc of absolutely paramount importance today: (7) monetaryi' the basis of expansion in our civilization, I call commercializathe creation and control of money and credit-if that is not an
ti""· As long as the society is expanding, that process of comaspect of the public sovereignty, then the state is far less than
mcrcialization will continue, as it has for a thousand years in
o11r society, where today everything is commercialized, polifully sovereign; and (8) the incorporating power-the right to
say that an association of people is a fictitious person with the
tics. religion, education, ideology, belief, the armed services.
right to hold. property and to sue and be sued in the courts.
Practically everything is commercialized; everything has its
Notice: the federal government of the United States today does
pnn.:.
not hav·e the seventh and eighth~ but I'll come back to that
\\'hen this' expansion reaches a crisis, you get increasing
later.
·prditiri':..fltioii:The expansion is slowing up, and you are no longer
;Htempting to achieve increased output per capita, or increased
Then and Now. If we go back before 976, when there were comwealth, or increased satisfactions, or whatever is motivating you,
munities. the main core of people's lives and experience that
h\' i:conomic expansion, but are going to do it by mobilizing
controlled their behavior and determined their desires--con- ~
power. We have seen this going on in our society for almost a
n:mury.
· trois and rewards, I call it-was in the religious, emotional, and
social levels. They had religious beliefs, and they had 'social
.-\nd then, as the society continues and does not reform, you
and emotional relationships with the people they saw every
·l:ct increased militarizatio11. You can certainly see that 'process
day. That was the core of their lives. The significant thing is
in \\'estern civilization and in the history of the United S~ates.
In the last forty years our society has been drastically militathat those controls and rewards were internalized, acquiredyery
nzcd. It is not yet as militarized as other societies and other
largely in the first four or five years of life. When a child is
periods have been; we still have a long way to go in this
born, he. or she is nor a person, but only a human being. A- child
:::we
a
·'
-..
.
<
(-.·1
;I
;
r.RF.AT TEACHERS OF THE
GEORGE~OWN
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN
~ER''JCF
-
'•JU \l TF.A(:ttERS OF
TH~
(fEORCOETOWN
SCHO~L
OF FOREIGN SERVIC.E
�r
I
CARROLL QUIGLEY
The State of lndividt~als 1776-1976 ·
direction-a couple of centuries to go, I would guess, although
\\'HAT HAPPE~ED AFTER 1 776?
.things are moving faster than they did in anycivilization before
In t776, Western civilization was approaching a revolutionary
this one.
situation. A revolutionary situation is one in which the strucAs this process goes on, you get certain other things. I've
~urc of power-real power-is not reflected in the structure of
hinted at a number of them. One is misplacement of satisfac-.
Jaw. institutions~ and conventional arrangements. Law and lerral arrangements, including constitutional structures, were not
tions. You find your satisfactions-your emotional'satisfaction,
· your social satisfaction-not in momenr-to-moment relationkgitimate in much of Western civilization in 1776. They were
ships "·ith nature and with other peopk, but with power, or
ntit responsible because they did notreflect power. Whether it
with wealth, or even with organized force-sadism, in some
was the English Parliament, which had a legal right y:> rule
cases: Go out and murd~r a lot of people in a war, a just war,
:\merica; or the nightmarish constitution of France, which no
naturallv.
longer reflected the structure of power in French society_ in
·rhe second thing that occurs as this goes on is an increasing
anv way; or, east of the Rhine, the enlightened despotismsremoteness of desires f~om neeos, followed by an increasing
th~ Jaws of the polity did not reflect the power structure of
conf11sion between means and ends. The ends are human needs;
~ Ell rope at all. as Napoleon very soon showed them. This, there___ -_____ hut_iLLasked people_whauhese..needs._ar.e, thqr~could_hardly ___
· ---f1 ,re;-was-a-mvoltltionary-situation~--~--------------~
tell me. Instead they would want the means they have been
Let us look a little ·more closelyat these.
brainwashed to accept, that they think wiii satisfy their needs.
Jn Englind, the laws of the polity est~b_lished control of the.
But it is perfectly obvious that__the methods we have been uscountry in an oligarchy of landowners, the Whig oligarchy.
\!embers of the House of Commons were sent to Parliament
ing arc not working:Never ..was any society in human history as
lw pieces of Iimd, and anyone who owned a piece of land with·
rich and as powerful as Western civilization and the United
States. and it is nota happy society. Just this week, I looked _at
the right to send a member to Parliament could do so whether
a hook called The Joyless Economy by economist Tibor Scitovsky,
anvone lived on the piece of land or not. It was not a reflection
who diagrammed some of these things.
of .the power structure of England to say tpat pieces of land
were powerful. I do not have to demonstrate to you that the
In the final aspect of this process, controls on behavior shift
from. the intermediate levels of human experience-social,
legal arrangements by which the British Parliament made rules
emotional, and religious.:_to the lower-military and politicalto govern life in the United States were equally unrealistic.
or to the upper-ideological. They become the <?xternalized
In Central Europe we had what was called enlightened des;controls of a mature civilization: weapons, police, bureaucrapotism: small principalities ruled by despots who had a legal
cies, material rewards, or ideology. Customary conformity is reright to say, "This will happen; that will happen; so·mething
placed by conscious decision-making, and this usually implies
else will happen." In the period from 1776 onward, for about
a shift from your own conformity to someone else's decision. In ...
twenty-five years, they tried to establish a more rational life in
their principalities, but they couldn't do it. Their systems of
its final stages, the civilization becomes a dualism of almost
totalitarian imperial power and an amorphous mass culture of
weights and measures......:..I won't attempt to describe them to
atomized individuals.
you-were absolute, unholy chaos. They had a different weight
All of that is for the sake of establishing a few paradigms.
or measurement for every city and those measurements
changed as you went from village to village or from district to
district. They also h·ad been changing in size for hundreds of
vcars,,because the power or" the creditors was so great: if you
I
30
(;RE.\T TEACHERS OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE
f;RF.AT TEACHERS O_F THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE
31
�The State of Individuals 1776-1976
CARROLL QUIGLEY
owed a bushel of whe'at to your landlord, all the landlords together. over generations, could make the bushel a larger measure.
In Eastern Europe in this period Poland disappeared, because the Polish landlord class preferred to keep their serfs than
he politically independent. They were unwilling·to organize a
modern army with modern weapons and modern military training to defend Poland against outside enemies, such as Prussia,
Russia. or Austria. As a result, those three gottogether and divided up Poland in 1795, so Poland no longer existed. Under
Napoleon there was a Grand Duchy of Warsaw, but Poland did
not exist again until 1919.
In France rhc polity had reached a condition of total paralysis. The government did not have sovereignty. It did not have
---- --thc.."-taxing-power~- it-did not-have the-legislative-power;-it-did-not have the incorporating power; it did not have the judicial
power; it did not have most of the eight aspects of sovereignty.
And in 1776 the g:>vernment became aware of this when they
tried to abolish the guilds and could not do so, because under
the law the guilds could not be abolished unless their debts
were paid. The government could not pay their de.bts because
it did not have the taxing p~wer. And it did not have the taxing
power because it did not have the judicial power: if it took someone to court, the judges would say, "No, you have no right to
examine his income. You can ask him only what he has been
paying for the last couple of hundred years on that piece of
property (or whatever it is)."
The result was the explosion of the French Revolution, which
produced, by the time of Napoleon, let us say 1805, the most
sovereign state in Europe. Notice: Napoleon was an enlightened despot, the last one in Europe. Anyone who says, as does
Robert Palmer, for one, that France was leadi[lg the parade in
17HY in terms of government and public authority, just does not
know what he is-talking about. In 1789 France was bringing up
-the absolute rear as far as public a\Jthority and sovereignty were
concerned. That is why France got its enlightened despot so
late. l-Ie was not even ·a Frenchman; he was an Italian-and he
imposed an Italian government on France. Because it was so
32
GREAT TEACHERS OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SER\'JCE
rational, so powerful, so well-organized, and the new sovereignty
. was embodied in a new entity, the nation, it had a power that
made it possible for Napoleon to conquer almost all of Europe.
He was ultimately defeated, though, as most conquerors of all
Europe have been throughout history, witness Henry V of Eng- .
land in the early fifteenth century, Philip' II in the sixteenth
century, Wilhelm II in 1918, and Hitler in 1945.
After Napoleon: The Long-running Age of Expansion. By 1820, af-
-
ter the Napoleonic system had been replaced, however unstable
these four geographical zones I have mentioned may have been,
they were much more stable, and much more legitimate, than
they had been in 1776. And although in 1820 they were fundamentally not that stable, we know there was political stability
in E-urope-for-at-least-three-generations-after-that-date,until-at
least the 1860s (we_ won't go into the brief war in 1866 ). That
stability of Europe from 1815 to about 1885 is something on
which we now look with nostalgia.
The reasons for this apparent stability had nothing to do with
the structure of the state, except for the degree to which it had
become rationalized and sovereign through the period of revolution from 1776 to about 1820. With additional.events, the
situation looked like stability, and these additional events pro:..
duced a new Age of Expansion.
The first of these events was the expansion of technology, including the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions. The Agricultural Revolution of about 1720 and onward made it possible
to produce more and more food from land with less and less
labor. The Industrial Revolution began about 1750 and was the
application of inanimate energy to the production process on a
large scale. (Incidentally, 1776 .is a very significant year, and
this is not just because the American Revolution began during
it. Among other occurrences, Watt's patent of the steam engine
was in 1776; Adam Smith's Ht>alth of Nations was published in
177.6; and the failure of the French to reorganize their political .
system occurred in 1776.) The disruption of communities, the
lkstruction of religion, and the frustration of emotions were
greatly intensified by the Industrial Revolution: by its railroads
liR~AT
TEACIIER.S OF
T~E
GEORGETOWN ScHOOL
~p
FOREIGN SP.:RVICE
�\.,CARROLL QUIGLEY
and factories; the growth of cities, and the technologicalrev0 _
lution in the countryside and in the growing offood... ·t.·hc ap~earance of s~ability in the nineteenth century Age ·
ot l·.xpansiOn was also due to the extemolization of rewords and
m11tmk This eventually brought on an acceleration of the. main
focus of society's activities downward again in the levels of culture, from the areas of internal controls to the areas of external
controls. If you can be bought, with a higher salary, to go to San
Diq!;o and give up all your friends and associations, that is an
external control. If you can be forced to go there by power, if
you can be sent there by the draft, that is militarization.
. _
34
Modern Myths. Another thing which became very obvious in
the nineteenth century was the increasing role ofpropaganda for
__!he J~urQose of c_hangiP.g_people's-ways-of-looking--at-society:The success of this propaganda helped to create an impression
of stability. At the beginning of the lecture, I offended some of
you by saying you have been brainwashed. That is not an insult; it is a simple statement of fact. When an infant is born and
socialized in a society, even if he is socialized to became a mature individual, he has been brainwashed. That is, he has been
given a structure for categorizing his experience' and a system
_of values applied to that structuring or categories.
But in our society, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this socializing process has become a propagandist system
in which increasing emphasis is put on the future: Think only
of the.: future. This is the ideology against which the young
people of the 1960s and 1970s rebelled. Future preference: plan;
study hard; save. All the things I used to hear from my maiden .
aunts: "\Vise bees save honey; wise boys save money," and they
each secretly gave me a dollar as I was leaving. "A penny saved
is a penny earned." "A stitch in time ... "--everything that's in
PoorRirhord, the Benjamin Franklin propaganda machine.
Another aspect of this nineteenth century propaganda system is the increasing emphasis upon material desires. If you had
the mai:crial things you wanted-a nice house in the suburbs, a
swimming pool, a couple of big cars, a place in the country, a
motor boat, a trailer to take it back and forth----=-you sho~ld f?e
<;RF.AT TEACHERS OF .THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOR.-!IGN SERVICE
The State of Individuals 1776-1976
happy and sat:sfied. No~ the list is endless-_a pocket comuter, citizen,s band radto, whatever you want.
p A third idea we were brainwashed into believing was that
the only important thing was-individualism. Theycalled it freedom. There is no such thing as freedom. There is something
called liberty; it is quite different._ Freedom is freedom from
restraints. We are always under restraints. The difference be-.
tween a stable society and an unstable one is that the restraints
in an unstable one are external. In a stable society, government ultimately becomes unnecessary; people are self-disci'"
plined, and the restraints on people's actions are_ internai._They
arc the restraints you have accepted because they make It possible for you to ~atisfy all your needs and desires to the degree
that is good for you.
·
---~ -Another thing d1cy have orainwasfieo---us-into believing i_n_ __
the last 150 years is that quantitative change is superior to any
qualitative attributes. In oth~r words; if we can turn out.more
amomobiles this year than last, it doesn't matter if they're half
as good. The same is true of everything. We are quantifying
everything, and thi~ is why we are now trying to put everything on computers. Governments no longer have to make
decisions; the computers will do it.
Another thi'ng they have succeeded in doing is to give us
r:imrio11s satisfactions for many of our frustrations. It is unbelievable to see how the American people are hung up on vicarious experiences: television, movies, mass spectator sports.
You have no idea what the small towns and cities of America
arc like on Friday nights, -when the local high school football
or basketball team is engaged in competition with their neighbor eighteen miles away. And what a gloomy place the chapel
or church is Sunday morning if they lose. People need exercise; they do not need to watch other people exercise, particularly people who have already had too much exerci::e. Another
vicarious satisfaction is the sexy magazine; this is vicarious sex.
To anyone rushing out to buy one, I'd like to say, "The real
thing is better." ·
The brainwashing which has been going on for 150 years
has also resulted in the replacement of intellectual activities
(;RF.AT TEACHERS OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE
35
�The State of Individuals 1776._1--976
CARROLL QUIGLEY
and rcligio~ by ideologies and science. It is hardly possible today
The True State of the State. In 1820, the state was thus essen~
to discuss the problems of the historical past without running
rially unstable, in spite of appearances. It was not fully soverup against Marxist interpretations. I have nothing against Marx,
eign. It did not, for example, have the control of money and
except that his theories do not explain what happened, and this,
credit in most places; it did not have control of corporati?ns in
to me, is a fatal defect. The very idea that there is some kind of
most places. It was not stable because the nation is not a satiscontlict between science and religion is completely mistaken.
factory community. The very idea that, because everyone who
Science is a method for investigating experience, and religion
speaks French is in the same nation and, in the nineteenth cenis something quite different. Religion is the fundamental, neewry. in the same state, they must therefore be in the same comessary internalization of your system of more permanent valmtlnity, is just not true. The nation or the state, as we now have
it in terms of the structure of power, cannot be a community.
ucs.
Another thing they have tried to get us to believe in the last
Another thing that may serve to point out the instability of
t.SO years-and the idea is now dying in front of us-is the myth
the power system of the state: the individual cannot be made
that tht· nation as the repositot~V of sovereignty can he both a state
,
the basic unit of society, as we have tried to do, or of the state,
since the i~ternalization of ~ontrols mt~St be th_e pr~pond~ra~t
and ~~ community. ~his is the gre.at ide~logical innovation ~f
~-thc--1· rcnch Revoluuon;--you--see;-1--he nauon-ean-be~the-rep_ost----~-- -intluence-m~any-stable-soctety;-Even~m-a~soctety -tn~whtch·tt---tory of sovereignty, But suppose weapons systems m a soctety
!
appears that all power ~s in the hands of the government-Soarc such that it is possible for a government to impose its will
!1
\·iet Russia, let's say-at least 80 percent of all human behavior
over an area a thous.:.nd miles across. And suppose that in that
is regulated by internalized controls socialized in the people by
thousand mile area t~ere are a number of n~tions,_such as the
the way they were treated from the mo~ent ~hey were born. As
Bretons, the Catalomans, the Welsh, the Ltthuamans. These
j
a result, they have come to accept certam thmgs that allow the
arc as much nations as the ones that somehow or other became
i
Soviet state to act as if it can do anything, when it obviously
the embodiments of sovereignty in the nineteenth century.
!
cannot and knows it cannot.
Why did the English, the French, the Castilians, the
Hohct~zollerns, and others become the repositories of soverWeapons Af(ain. Also related to the problem of internalized coneignty as nations? They did so because, at that time, weapons
trols is the shift of weapons in our society. This is a profound
systems made it possible to compel obedience over areas approblem, and I have spent ten years studying it throughout all
p-roximately the same size as those inhabited by the national
of history. The shift of weapons in any civilization and, above
groups I have mentioned. As a result, those with the weapons
all, in our civilization, from shock weapons to missile weapons
were able to crush other nationalisms, such as the Scots, the
has a dominant influence on the ability to control individuals:
Welsh, the Irish, the Catalonians (who had a much longer and
Individuals cannot be controlled by missile weapons.
more cultured history than the Castilians), the Provenr;als, and
If you go back several hundred years to the Middle Ages, all
weapons were shock weapons, that is, you came at the enemy
manv others.
In. other words, nationalism is an episode in history, and it fit
with a spear or a sword. Even as late as 1916, in the First World
a certain powe~ structure and a certain configuration of human
War, you came at the enemy with· bayonets after a preliminary
life in our civilization. Now what's happening? They all want
harragc with artillery. But we have. now shifted almost comautonomy. The Scots think they can get their independence
pletely to missile weapons. Missile weapons are weapons that
and cont~ol the ~il in the North Sea, and then England will
'·ou hurl. You may shoot, you may drop bombs from an airplane,
You may throw a hand grenade: these are missile weapons.
become a colonial area for Edinburgh.
I
I
r;R~·,\T
TEACHERS OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE
L
.-;RF.AT TEACHERs oF THE
GE~RGETOWN
ScHooL ·op FOREIGN SERVICE
. 37
�The State of Individuals 1776-1976
CARROLL QuiGLEY
The essential difference between a shock weapon and a missi lc weapon is this: a missile weapon is either fired or it isn't
fircd. It cannot be half-fired. Once you let it go, it is out ofvour
control. It is a killing weapon. But a shock weapon-a billy
. club or a bayonet---can be used to any degree you wish. If you
say to someone, "Get out of the room," and you pull out a rnachine gun, or you call in a B-52 bomber, or you pull the pin in a
hand grenade ... ? But with a bayonet, you can persuade him.
In our society, individual behavior can no longer be controlled
by any system of weaponry we have. In fact, we do not have
enough people, even if we equip them with shock weapons, to
contr~>l the behavior of that part of the population which does
not ha,-e internalized controls. One reason for that is clearly
that the 20 percent who do not have internalized controls are
____ concentrated in certain'areas. Nor caJigl,Jerrillg_ resistan~j_~r=--rori.sn1. and the rest be controlled by any system or organized
structure of force that exists, at least on a basis ofmissile weaponry (and, as I said, shock weaponry would take too many
I
people).
We have now done what the Romans did when they started
:
to commit suicide: We have shifted from an army of citizen
i
sol_d icrs to ~n arr_ny
me~cenaries, and thos_e mercenarie~ are
I!
bcmg recrmted m our society, as they were m Roman society,
1
from the 20 percent of the population that lacks the internal,I
izcd controls of the civilization.
i
The Mis!!ttided Nineteenth Century. The appearance of stability
from 1840 to about 1900 was superficial, te~porary, and destructive in the long run, because, as I've said, you must have
communities, and communities and societies must rest upon
cooperation and not on competition. Anyone who says that so~
cicty can be run on the basis of everyone's trying to maximize .
his mvn greed is talking total nonsense. All the history of human society shows that it is nonsense. And to teach it in the
schools, and to go on television and call it the American way of
Iifc~ docs not make it true. Competition and envv cannot become the
I
I
I
of
'I'
I
basis of flii_V society or any community.
.
The economic and technological achievements of industri_GRF.AT TI!ACHI!RS OF THI! GI!ORGI!TOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN 51!1\VICI!
a-lization in this period _were also funda~~ntally m_istake~. (I'll
, not to get too techmcal.) The economtc expansiOn of mdus~dalization has been based on plundering the natural capital of
h. ulobe that was created over millions of years: plundering
t en
..
he soils of their fertility; plundering human commumttes,
:,.hether our own or someone else's, in Africa or anywhere else;
or plundering the forest. _In 17?6 ~he wealth of_ forest in North
-\merica was beyond behef; wtthm 150 years, tt had been de-_
~rroved and more than 90 percent of it wasted. And it had in it
thre.e hundred years of accumulated capital savings and investment of sunlight and soil fertility. (And now that our bread is
going to have five t!mes as much _fiber by be in~ made out of
sawdust, we are going to have to go on plundenng the forests
wan even larger degree; this, I am sure, is one of the reasons
__why__-rwo d~ys ago Pr~sident Ford signed the new bill allowing
clc~r-cutting in the National Forests. We need that r_o_u_g--,-h-a-g-=e------1
or fiber in our bread-having taken all the natural fiber out of
the wheat and thrown it away.)
The energy that gave us the Industrial Revolution--coal,
nil. natural gas-represented the accumulated sunlight that
managed somehow to be saved in the earth out of three billion
~·cars of sunshine. That. is _what ~tie fossil fuels are. T_his is not
mcome to be spent; this ts capital to be saved and mvested.
Bm we have wasted it.
-
·
WHAT
Is
WRoNG
WITH TwENTIETH CENTURY SociETY
The fundamental, all-pervasive cause of world instability today is the destruction of communities by the commercialization- of all human relationships and the resulting neuroses and ·
psychoses. The technological-acceleration of transportation,_
communications, and weapons systems is now creating power
areas wider than existing political structures. We still have at
least half a dozen political structures in Europe in the 1970s,
but our technology and the power system of Western civilization today are such that most of Europe should be a single power
system. This creates instability.
~vledical ~cience and the population explosion have ~ontinued
39
�The State of Individuals 1776-1976
CARROLL QUIGLEY
produce more and more people when the supply of food and
United States, more than half of otir food is wasted, maybe
the supply of jobs are becoming increasingly precarious, not
because it-is not that good. Exercise, moderation, and the likeonly in the United States, but everywhere, because the whole
it is all the old stuff we used to get in Sunday School. It just
purpose of using fossil fuels in the corporate structure is to
happens to be correct.
eliminate jobs. "Labor-saving," we call it, as if there were
Our agricultural system is another cause of instability. It used
. something wrong with working. Working is one of the joys of
to be system in which seed was put into the earth to create
life. And if we have created a society in which working is a pain
food by taking sunlight, rain, and the wealth of the soil, but we
in the neck, then we have created a society not fit for human
have replaced it with an agricultural system that is entirely capibcings. (It will be obvious to you that I have enjoyed my work,
tal-intensive. We have eliminated labor and have even elimi_although now, at the end of my career, I have no conviction
nated land to a considerable extent, so that we now pour out
that I did any good. Fortunately, I had a marvelous father and a
what we call food, but what is really a chemical synthetic. We
marvelot.Js mother, who taught us that you do not have to win,
have done this by putting a larger and larger amount of chemiyou just have to give it all you've got.)
cal fertilizers arid pesticides from fossil fuels into a smaller and
To get back to sovereignty and the structure of the state,
smaller amount-of soil. To give you one figure: Every bushel of
_another ca~se of today's instability is that we now have a soci-:-_·__ , _ _ _corn we send to the Russians represents one gallon of gasoline,_~- - - - - - 1
ety in America, Europe, and much of the world that is totally
.
:\nd then they tell us-that by selling our grain to the Russians
dorriina~ed by the two elements of sovereig~ty that ar~ not in- ~,-c arc earning the foreign exchange that will allow us to pay ..
eluded m the state structure: control of credtt and bankmg and
tor petroleum at fourteen dollars a barrel. No one has stopped
_the corporation. These are free of political controls and social
ro ask how many gallons·were used to grow that grain and ~end
responsibility, arid they have largely monopolized power in
it ~o the Russians.
In the thirty years from 1940 to 1970, three million AmeriWestern civilization and in American society. They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labor, entrepreneurialcan farms were abandoned because the families who worked
managerial skills, and everything else the economists once told
them could not compete with the corporate farmers using the
us were the chief elements of production. The only element of
new chemical methods of producing crops. Thirty million
·people left these abandoned farms and rural areas and went
production they are concerned with is the one they can control:
capital.
into the towns and cities, millions of them to get on relie[ In
. So now everything is capital-intensive, including medicine,
1970, two thousand farms a year were going out of production.
·and it has not worked. I'll give you just one example. No one
These are the farms on which we brought up your grandparhas a more capital intensive medical system than the United
cnrs, the people who won the Civil War, indeed, the people
States, and many of you may be well satisfied with it. I simply
who fought in the First World War and, in many cases, even in
want'to point out a couple offacts. Let us look at a ten-year-old
the Second. Will the tractors be able to fight the next war when
boy in the United States today. His expectation of life is less
there are no more farm boys to fight? (Of course, whether there
. than that in thirty other countries, according to United Nations
arc farm boys or not, they won't want to fight.)
statistics. We pay more than the people in any of those thirty
In a similar way, by urban renewal and other things, we are
destroying communities in the cities. Much of the legislation
countries for a capital-intensive medical system devoted to
keeping people who are almost dead alive a few more days,
of the last forty years in this country has been aimed at the
instead of making "people grow up healthy by teaching them
destruction of families, neighborhoods, ghettos, parishes, and
that work is fun, that they don't have to be gluttons-in the
any other communities. '
to
a
I
GREAT TEACHERS OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE
<>R~AT
TEACHERS OFTHE GEORGETOWN ·SCHOOL OF FOREIGN
SE~VICE
41 .
�.
,...
. The State of Individuals 1776-1976
CARROLL QUIGLEY
All these processes create frustrations on every level of human experience, and result in the instability and disorder we
-sec around us every day.
can be impeached by a vote of the Congress: indictment by
rhe House, conviction by the Senate. This does not require
common law procedures; it does not require judicial process. ·
It is not a judicial action at all. It is a simple political action: if
yoU have the votes, he cari be removed, simply by counting
~hem.
The horrible thing about the whole Nixon business is that
im6eachment will never again be used in the history of the
United States, because every member of the Judiciary Committee has to be a lawyer, and the Judiciary Committee has to
recommend impeachment. And they require all kinds of procedures you would use in a court of law if you were accused of
holding up a bank. The result is that never again will anyone
rry to impeach a president. It would take years and be indeci-
THE CRISIS IN AMERICA'S GOVERNANCE
____. _
j.
i
l
I
!
Now I come to a topic of some delicacy: the United Stai:es constitutional crisis. The three branches of government set up in
1789 do not contain the eight aspects of sovereignty. The Constitution completely ignores, for example, the administrative
power. The result is that the three branches of government
have been struggling ever since to decide which of them will
control the administrative power. The growth of political parties was necessary to establish relationships among the three
branches. And· as a result of ~he way the three branches were
~et up,.each has tried to gc:>_outsid-e the_ye_ry2ph~re in which it _ _
· J~--sive,_when_you_could__simply_have-taken-a-vote-and-had-the-----~
should be restrained.
whole thing done in one morning. ·
- _
Another aspect .of our constitutional crisis can be summed
There are a lot of other things in the Constitution that are
perfectly obvious, but you can't get any constitutional lawyer
up in what young Scltlesinger~that's Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.called the Imperi~l Presidency. When I look at the president of
to agree with you on them. It is perfectly obvious, for example,
the United States, what I see_ is Caesar Augustus. He is comrhatif the three branches of government cannot agree to do
mander-in-chief; that's what imperotor, emperor, means. He is
something, it should not be done. Tha·t was the theory behind
the head of the executive branch. He is the head of state, which
the Constitution. But no--we have to have someone supreme:
mean~. he is the. representative 9f the. United States governrhe Court will make the ultimate decision.
mem in all foreign affairs and all ambassadors are ~ccredited to
And there is something else: secrecy in government. Secrecy
him. He is the head of his political party. And, he is head of the
.
in government exists for only one reason: to prevent the Ameri1
administrative system, which is increasingly making all the
can people from knowing what's going on. It is nonsense to
decisions as to what will be spent and who will spend it. Do
believe that anything our governm~nt does is not known to
the Russians at about the moment it happens.
you know who is making the decisions in our Bureau of Managemem and Budget as to who will get how much?
To me, the most ominous flaw in our constitutional setup is
The preside~t is also the symb~l of national unity, the focus
the fact that the federal government does not have control of
of our emotional feelings regarding our country. This is one of
money and credit and does not have control of corporations. It
the reasons why it is so difficult to get rid of an incumbent
is therefore not really sovereign. And it is not really responprcsidem, either by election or by impeachment.
.
sihle, because it is now controlled by those two groups, corpoWe have today a general paralysis of government in the
1
rations and those who control the flows of money. The new
United States, especially in the administrative power, by the
public financing of the presidential elections is arranged so that
very thing we praise most: the so-called rule oflaw, which should
.·
they can spend as much as they want: voluntary contributions,
rather be called the nile of lawyers. Let me give you one exnor authorized by the candidate, are legaC
.
ample. It is perfectly clear in the Constitution that a president
The administrative system and elections are dominated
I
42
GREAT TEACHERS OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE
GRF..\T TEACf!ERS OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE.
·43
�The State of Individuals 1776-1976
CARROLL QuiGLEY
today by the private power of money flows and corporation
activities. I want to read you a summary from James Willard
Hurst, The. Legitimacy of the Business Corporaiion in the Law of the
Unitrd_States, 1780-1970 (Virginia, 1970). He points out that
there was powerful anticorporation feeling in.the United States
in the 1820s.· Therefore, it was established by the states tharcorporations could not exist by prescription; they had to have
charters. They had to have a limited term of life and not be
immortal. (Corporations today are immortal: if they get charters,
thev can live forever and bury us all.) They had to have a limited
purpose. (Who is giving us this bread made of sawdust? ITT,
International Telephone and Telegraph, the same corporation
that drove lvar Kreuger suicide in Paris in April1931, when
it actually was an international telegraph corporation, controlled
__ -----by-J.P.-Morgan.)~ - · ~---_ ~ - · --~- - - Hurst tells us further that in those nineteenth century days
certain thin regulations were established in the United States
regarding corporati()ns: restricted purpose and activities, especiallv bv banks and insurance companies; prohibition of one
corp~ra~ion 's holding the stock of another without specific statutory grant; limits on the span of the life of a corporation, requiring recurrent legislative scrutiny; limits on total assets; limits
on new issues of capital, so that the proportion of control of
existing stockholders could be maintained; limits on the votes
allowed to any stockholder, regardless of the size of his holdI
I
ing; and other such regulations.
Bv 18<JO all of these had been destroyed by judicial interpretatio-n, which extended to corporations-fictitious personsthose constitutional rights guaranteed, especially by the
Fifteenth Amendment, to living persons. This interpretation
was made possible by Roscoe Conklin, known as "Turkey Strut''
Conklin, who told the Supreme Court that there were no records
kept by the committee of the Senate that had drawn up the
Fifteenth Amendment. But he had kept private notes which
showed they had intended the word "person" to include corporations. It was most convenient. The corporation that was
hiring him to do this suitably rewarded him.
·
to
I
I
44.
GRt:AT
TEAC~ERS
OF THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SE-RVIC.E
Now I come to my last statement. I regret ending on what is, I·
suppose, such a pessimistic note_:_l am not personally pessimistic. In the end, the American people will ultimately prefer
communities. They will cop out or opt out of the system. Today
everything is a bureaucratic structure, and brainwashed people
who are not personalities are trained to fit into this bureaucratic
structure and say it is a great life-although I would assume
that many on their death beds must feel otherwise.
The process of copping out will take a long time, but notice:
we are already copping out of military serVice on a wholesale
hasis; we are already copping out of voting on a large scale. I
neara an eStimate tonightdiatthe president will probably be
chosen by forty percent of the people eligible to vote and that
the percentage of voters who were registered but did not vote
will be higher for the fourth time in sixteen years. P~ople are
;II so copping out by refusing to pay any attention to rlewspapers
or to what's going on in the world, and by increasing. emphasis
on localism, what is happening in their own neighborhoods.
In this pathetic election, I am simply amazed that 'neither of
rhc candidates has thought about such important issues as the
rights of local areas to make their own decisions about those
rhings affecting them. Now, I realize that if there's a sulphur
mine or a sulphur factory a few miles aw.ay, localism is not much
help. But I think you will find one extraordinary thing in this
election: a considerable number of people will go to the polls
and vote for the local candidates, but not for the president. That
is rhe reverse of the situation fifty years ago.
.
But do not be pessimistic. Life goes on; life is fun. And if a
ci\·ilization crashes it deserves to. When Rome fell, the Chrisrian answer was, "Create our own communities."
f;RF.,\T TP.ACHF.RS O.F THE GEORGETOWN SCHOOL OF FOREIGN
SERVIC~
45
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Don Baer
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Communications
Don Baer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994-1997
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36008" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431981" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Description
An account of the resource
Donald Baer was Assistant to the President and Director of Communications in the White House Communications Office. The records in this collection contain copies of speeches, speech drafts, talking points, letters, notes, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, excerpts from manuscripts and books, news articles, presidential schedules, telephone message forms, and telephone call lists.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
537 folders in 34 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Georgetown 11/10 Speech [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Communications
Don Baer
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 29
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0458-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431981" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1/12/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7431981-20060458F-029-016-2014
7431981