The President's News
Conference Following the Soviet-United States
The President. I have a statement.
First, if just this one time I might speak for all of you as well as myself, I
would like to extend my thanks to General Secretary Gorbachev, all of his
associates in the Soviet Government, and the people of Moscow for all they've done
to make our stay here a pleasant one and this summit conference the success it
has been.
This
is my fourth summit. For some in our governments and some of you in the media,
the number is higher. But a good deal of important work has been accomplished
here in
In
addition, spokesmen for the Soviet Government have noted the change of policy,
indeed, the profound change of policy that has occurred in their own
government. The
From
our standpoint, this approach has borne fruit at previous meetings and at this
summit conference. And here, permit me to go back for just a moment to our
first summit meeting at
We
also set out a broad agenda and initiated a new process of dialog to address
the sources of tension in U.S.-Soviet relations. Since
For
the past 3 years, General Secretary Gorbachev and I have worked to build a
relationship of greater trust. And we both recognize that one way to do that is
to improve understanding between our two countries through broader
people-to-people contacts. A series of agreements to expand U.S.-Soviet
bilateral cooperation, including cultural exchanges, have been concluded. We
agreed to expand our student exchange programs, with a goal of allowing
hundreds, and eventually thousands, of Soviet and American high school students
to study in each other's classrooms. For our future relations, academic,
cultural, and other exchanges are of greater importance.
Turning
to regional issues, Mr. Gorbachev and I agree that there must be peaceful
solutions to these conflicts. Our goal is to advance independence, security,
and freedom. The Soviet decision to withdraw from
Each
of our summit meetings moved us farther toward an INF treaty, capped by today's
exchange of ratification instruments, which now makes it a reality. Each
meeting has also moved us farther toward meeting the even greater challenge of
crafting a treaty to reduce our strategic nuclear arsenals. In
Here
in
Finally,
let me say how deeply moving I have found my discussions with various citizens
of the
And
now I will be happy to take your questions. And, Helen [Helen Thomas, United
Press International], we begin with you.
Soviet-U.S.
Relations
Q.
Mr. President, I know you've touched on this, but at your first news conference
in 1981, you said that the Soviets lie and cheat and pursue their ends of world
domination. What has really changed your mind? Can the American people really trust
the Russians now? And I'd like to follow up.
The President. Well, Helen, that was the first press conference that I'd held
since being elected President. And the question that came to me was: Could we
believe the Russians, or would they lie to us? And my answer at that time was
not expressing my opinion. I said, I will answer that with their
own words. And then I cited some of the leaders of the Communist
movement in the Soviet Union that said that the only immorality was anything
that slowed the growth of socialism and that there was no immorality in lying
or cheating or doing anything of that kind, as long as it advanced the cause of
socialism. Now, that was my answer. So, it wasn't an opinion. I was quoting
what their leaders themselves -- the beginners of that particular system -- had
said.
Q.
Well, that's what you thought then. Do you still think that, and can you now
declare the cold war over?
The President. I think right now, of
course, as I've said, dovorey no provorey
-- trust but verify.
Q.
Well, is that the atmosphere now?
The President. But I think that there
is quite a difference today in the leadership and in the relationship between
our two countries. And we have held very productive meetings that I think were
productive for both sides.
Arms
Control
Q. Mr. President, on the START treaty, what are
the areas of progress, and what's the specific progress that you achieved here? And why do you think
that you can conclude a treaty this year, when Senate leaders are urging you to
go slow, and this summit, with all its momentum, wasn't able to break the
impasse?
The President. Well, the Senate
leaders themselves brought the verification -- or the ratification papers here
that we just received today on the INF treaty. It meant changing their own
schedules a great deal and speeding up the ratification process. I think that
we could count on them to feel the same if we are coming to final agreement on
a START treaty.
But
I want to remind you of one thing that we've said over and over again. The
START treaty is infinitely more complex than the INF treaty, and therefore,
there is going to be continued negotiation on a number of points. And then it
will depend on the Senate once -- if we have agreed upon a treaty, it is their
responsibility to thoroughly study that treaty and then issue ratification of
it if they find it satisfactory.
We
can hope. I would hope that before the year is out that we could eliminate the
differences that still exist. But if not, I would hope that my successor would
continue because here we are getting at, I think, the most important reduction
that should take place in nuclear weapons. The most destabilizing are the
intercontinental ballistic missiles in which someone pushes a button and
minutes later a part of the Earth blows up. And the thing that I express my
hope about is that not only have we said 50 percent, but in that first meeting
in
Q.
To follow up, sir: Could you go over the areas of progress on START that you
achieved here?
The President. No, I don't think that
I should go on. The conversations are still going on, and there are things
still being discussed. And as I say, progress has been made, or we wouldn't
still be talking the way we are. But --
There's
a young lady in the back that I think is native to the scene.
Soviet-U.S.
Relations
Q.
Mr. President, is there something in Soviet-American relations that you would
advise your successor to leave behind? And is there something that you would
especially advise to take to the future?
The President. Wait a minute. If I heard the entire question -- special advice on what?
Q.
Is there something in Soviet-American relations that you would advise your
successor to leave behind, and is there something specific that you would
advise him to take to the future? To follow up, yes.
The President. Yes. If these
negotiations and so forth are still going on, I will do everything I can to
persuade my successor to follow up and to continue. And as a matter of fact, I
think I'll tell him that he will find the Russian people most warm and
hospitable and friendly.
Human
Rights
Q.
Mr. President, Soviet officials have told us they have dossiers on all of the
dissidents and that some of those people -- in fact, they've said that all
those people are not the best people representing Soviet society. How do you
feel about the fact that they have kept dossiers on these dissidents with whom you
met, and doesn't that contradict your view that there have been improvements
here and that this is a more open society under Mr. Gorbachev?
The President. Well, no, the figures
themselves reveal that improvements have been made. Some 300 people have been
freed from imprisonment. The lists that we bring are names that have been
brought to our attention by relatives or friends -- their own relatives, for
example, living in our country now -- and I have brought those names to the
General Secretary and explained the personal interest that we have in them. And
a great many of them have since been allowed to come to our country or to other
countries that they preferred, such as
Q.
But, sir, what about the fact that the very people with whom you met have now
been investigated by Soviet authorities and might be subject to some form of
retaliation? Mr. Gorbachev said today that you no longer feel that this is the
``evil empire,'' that you told him that within the Kremlin walls. Doesn't this
contradict your new feeling of optimism about the
The President. No, because as I say,
he has received the latest list that I brought here,
and previous experiences with this -- a great many of those people have been
allowed to come to our country.
Soviet-U.S.
Relations
Q.
Sir, yesterday you did say you no longer believed the Soviet Union is an ``evil
empire.'' You said that was another time, another era. What's changed? Is it
just Mr. Gorbachev's succession to the General Secretaryship,
or have you yourself changed or expanded your view of the
The President. No, I think that a
great deal of it is due to the General Secretary, who I have found different
than previous Soviet leaders have been; but that also as we have pursued this,
we have found them willing to enter into negotiations with us. And I think that
enough progress has been made that we can look with optimism on future negotiations.
Q.
Sir, I suppose I'm asking if you think that there's anything that you have
learned, that you personally have expanded or changed your views because you've
had an opportunity to learn more about this country over the years and about
their system so that you think you are part of the process; or is it just Gorbachev?
The President. Well, a large part of
it is Mr. Gorbachev as a leader. And I think there have been changes here as
they have sought to make -- well, I read ``Perestroika,'' and I found much in
it that I could agree with.
Bill [Bill Plante, CBS
News]?
Strategic
Defense Initiative
Q.
Mr. President, Mr. Gorbachev said in his news conference that he thought you
could have achieved more in this summit. Specifically, he went on to say that
on the issue of the ABM interpretation of the treaty -- said that you had gone
back on your word, that in Geneva you had agreed that you would no longer seek
military superiority, and that by holding to the development of SDI you were
seeking superiority in outer space, and that, therefore, you had gone back on
your word. Are you seeking superiority in outer space? Can you reach a START
agreement without some accommodation on SDI and the ABM question?
The President. SDI, in my mind -- maybe
some of my people wouldn't agree with me -- but the whole thing was my idea to
see if there could not be developed a defensive weapon that would make it
virtually impossible for nuclear missiles to get through to their targets in
another country. And from the very beginning, I have said that if and when such
a system can be developed I would support the idea of making it available
worldwide, because since we all know how to make nuclear missiles, sometime
there could be a madman come along, as a Hitler came along, who could then make
those missiles -- but that my idea would be the sharing of the knowledge of SDI
as a defensive weapon -- would be accompanied by the total elimination of
nuclear weapons. And I happen to believe that this will be a lot better world
if we get rid of all the nuclear weapons. And that is what my dream of SDI is:
that it can be the tool by which we eliminate.
Q.
Well, sir, if I may follow up, Mr. Gorbachev said today that he did not believe
that it's for defensive purposes.
The President. I know you said that
before, and I -- --
Q.
Well, you failed to convince him, despite the fact that you're on such good
terms with him.
The President. Well, maybe he just
doesn't know me well enough. But from the very first, I have said that that is
my goal for that defensive weapon. There is nothing offensive about it. It
cannot hurt or kill anyone. It can just make it impossible for missiles to get
through the screen.
Now,
you, and then I'm going to start spreading around
here.
Arms
Control
Q.
Mr. President, I want to ask you about this effort you again stated today to
try to get a START treaty before you leave office. You have less than 8 months
left in office. Mikhail Gorbachev could have 20 years. By setting up any kind of
deadline, no matter how unofficial, aren't you putting all the pressure on the
The President. Oh, no, no. We set no
deadline. I said we're going to continue working toward that. And I could hope
that maybe in that period of time -- but, no, I am dead set against deadlines.
You don't make a treaty just to simply have it be
achieved at a certain point in time. The treaty is ready when it is a good
treaty and good for all sides involved. And that's what we'll do instead of
setting a deadline and then saying, well, let's sign it because we've reached
the deadline. It has to be good.
Future
Soviet-U.S.
Q.
If I might follow up, sir: There is also talk about a fifth summit sometime
this year to sign a treaty, which might come sometime in the fall. To prevent
U.S.-Soviet relations from being mixed up in politics, are you willing to rule
out a summit until the Presidential campaign is over in November?
The President. I'd make any decision
of that kind based on how I thought it could affect the situation. And if it
gave a promise of success, then go for it.
Terms
for National Leaders
Q.
Mr. President, you were asked by one of the students at
The President. Well, I would hesitate
to comment on that. I mean, this system of government
here -- you do not have a national election in which all of the people vote to
see who would be the leader. My objection to the constitutional amendment that
was passed in our country limiting a President to two terms was the fact that
that is the only office in the
Soviet-U.S.
Relations
Q.
Mr. President, if I may just ask one more question on the students, you talked
a lot about how it is a positive thing for students from both countries to mix
and mingle, to get to know each other, to understand each other. Do you think
part of your positive feeling about the
The President. Well, I have found that
Mr. Gorbachev and I have, I think, a very satisfactory relationship. But at the
same time, I am never going to relax my belief in the need for verification of
agreements that we might make, and I'm quite sure he feels the same way.
Now,
where is the gentleman?
Troop
Reductions in
Q.
I'm here, Mr. President. I understand that in your first meeting with Mr.
Gorbachev he suggested the reduction of half-a-million military personnel as
certain condition, but there was no followup, as it
were. Was this subject raised again, and what was your response?
The President. No, this proposal --
that was just -- been a suggestion made of the removal of a half-a-million men
on the NATO line in the European front. This has to be considered. We think
that we are coming to a point -- and that he himself is willing to -- of
reductions in conventional weapons along that front, and conventional forces as
well as the nuclear forces. But the simple removing of a half-a-million men
would not be exactly equal because his military would be moved a short distance
back away from the front. Well, there's a 3,000-mile ocean between where our
men would have to be moved, and in the event of an emergency, we'd have an
ocean to cross to get our men back there and equal. So, that has to be
considered.
Human
Rights in the
Q.
Mr. President, General Secretary Gorbachev, in his remarks earlier this
afternoon, was talking about your comments here on human rights, and he said,
``I did not have a lot of admiration for that part of the trip.'' When you met
with the General Secretary privately, we know, of course, that you discussed
human rights. Did he say anything to you specifically about the meeting with
dissidents or your remarks at Danilov Monastery or
the remarks yesterday at the Writers Union?
The President. No, but I do know that
he and others have had a feeling that in some way our concern with this is
interfering with your internal government policies. I have explained to him,
and I think maybe he has seen the point. Our country is very unique. All of us,
either by ourselves or through our ancestors or our grandparents or parents,
came from someplace else -- about the only nation in the world that can say
that. As a matter of fact, the estimate is that one out of eight Americans trace their parentage and their heritage, if not their own
immigration, to the Eastern bloc.
And
so, I have put it this way: that you don't stop loving your mother because
you've taken unto yourself a wife. So, the people in
A
wife, who's been waiting for 8 years for her husband to be allowed to leave
this country to join her -- things of this kind we don't think are really
interfering with someone else's business. We think it's very much our business
to bring it to the attention where we feel that there is an injustice to the
Government. And I have explained this to the General Secretary, and I think he
has seen the justice of what I've said because many of the individuals that
we've brought to his attention have now been released from confinement here and
have been allowed to emigrate -- come to other countries, to our country.
``Peaceful
Coexistence'' Pledge
Q.
Mr. President, Mr. Gorbachev says that he proposed a draft statement that would
use the words ``peaceful coexistence.'' And he said that your first response to
that was, ``I like it.'' But that when you came back from meeting with your
aides, you seem to have changed your mind. Did you, and why?
The President. Well, I liked the whole
tone, the general tone of it, and what it was seeking to achieve was what we're
both seeking to achieve. But I said at the same time, I would take it to our
people. And I took it there, and they studied it and saw where there could have
been certain ambiguities in there that would not achieve the general thought of
what was being proposed. We were in agreement with the general thought. So,
some rewriting was done by our own people. And when the total statement is
released to you, I think you will find that we have achieved what it was he had
with the paragraph that he proposed. And it's been achieved and improved to the
point that it is clear and unmistakable, that it achieves the purpose that he
had in mind.
Q.
Well, if I could follow up, sir: You've sort of teased us now. If you could
give us some sense of what you've proposed to substitute for peaceful
coexistence? What's the better term that your aides had advised you to use?
The President. No, peaceful
coexistence -- both pieces achieve the same end, but the other one had
ambiguities in it. And I don't think they were intentional, but they could have
been used to justify doing something else that was not in keeping with the
entire goal of the statement here.
Government
Bureaucracy
Q.
Mr. President, if I could follow up on your comments on emigration: Yesterday
when you were talking about a family denied the right to emigrate, you called
it a bureaucratic problem; you said you blamed the bureaucracy. Do you believe
that essentially it is just bureaucratic lethargy that has caused that problem
in the
The President. Well, now, somebody
distracted me back there. I think someone else thought I had pointed at them
instead of you.
Q.
Yesterday, when you spoke to the students about -- you were talking about
emigration and a family in particular that had been denied the right to
emigrate, and you said you blamed the bureaucracy. Do you view the emigration
problem from the
The President. I'm afraid that I have
to confess to you that I think one of the sins of government, and one with
which we must deal and never have been able to be completely successful with,
and this includes our own government, is that the bureaucracy once created has
one fundamental rule above all others: Preserve the bureaucracy. And I think
that governments will always find that they are having
to check on bureaucracy and make sure that it is not abiding by its own rules
and taking the easiest course. And so, I wouldn't -- picking
on one government other than another.
Human
Rights in the
Q.
If I could follow up: You said that you believed you persuaded Mr. Gorbachev on
some of these emigration questions. But he said on human rights in the
The President. I think that there is a
mistaken view, and, oh, how I yearn to have him come to our country for long
enough to see some of our country. I think there is a mistaken view about the
things that occasionally dominate the press about prejudice, racial or
religious, in our country, about the so-called street people that apparently
have no place to live. And I think these are socioeconomic problems in our
land; we have them, of course. We also try to deal with them. But I don't think
he quite could understand a recent situation. A young lady
living on the sidewalks of
Soviet
Emigration
Q.
Mr. President, in this room on Monday, you heard moving stories of people who
had been -- [inaudible] -- and you wrote it off to bureaucracy. Is that really
your view that it is only the bureaucracy? It is not a willful policy of the
Government here to keep these people from emigrating?
The President. No, I can't say that
it's one. I don't know that much about the system, but it was a question that
was presented to me on the basis that it possibly was a bureaucratic bungle.
Maybe I should illustrate to you why I feel the way I do about bureaucracies.
Once during the war, I happened to be involved in a situation in which one
level of the military wanted a warehouse full of filing cabinets -- wanted
permission to destroy the files so they could use those filing cases. And they
were able to prove that the documents had no historic value. They had no
bearing on present-day government at all. They were just useless. And so, the
message went up through the ranks, requesting permission to destroy these
obsolete files. And then, back down through the ranks, from the top command,
endorsed by each level of command, came the reply: Permission granted, providing
copies were made of each file destroyed.
Q.
Can I follow that up? Don't you think you're letting Mr. Gorbachev off a little
easy on just saying it's a bureaucracy?
The President. No, as I said, I don't.
The way the question was framed, I thought that there was a possibility of
that. No, but I just have to believe that in any government some of us do find
ourselves bound in by bureaucracy, and then sometimes you have to stomp your
foot and say, unmistakably, I want it done. And then maybe you get through with
it. But I have great confidence in his ability to do that. Lou
[Lou Cannon,
Strategic
Arms Control
Q.
Thank you, sir. You said starting at the beginning of this year and going into
this summit that if there was this progress toward a START treaty you would be
willing to come together a fifth time and sign it, but only if it was a good
treaty. You've referred to that today again several times. What is your
judgment, your best judgment, on the basis of this summit: Have you made enough
progress that you now think that a START treaty is likely within your term?
The President. Lou [Lou Cannon,
Washington Post] -- and I honestly cannot answer that. I don't know. Let me
just give you what the mechanics are: that our people have been steadily in
Geneva -- both sides, Soviet people and our people -- working on this treaty,
knowing what we hope to achieve, and they're working there. And as I say,
they've made progress. There is no way to judge, and there is no way that I
would give them a date and say, please, you have to get this by such and such a
time because that's not the way to get a good treaty. I want a good treaty.
Future
Soviet-U.S.
Q.
Sir, if I could follow up: Is the only condition under which you would have a
fifth summit with Mr. Gorbachev is if there was, in fact, what you thought was
a good START treaty ready to be signed?
The President. Well, you can't rule
out. Something else might come up that necessitates our getting together and
settling something other than that particular treaty. So, no one can say, no,
there will be no need for a summit.
Q.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The President. When Helen [Helen
Thomas, United Press International] says that, I'm sorry, I have to leave.
Soviet
Women
Q.
Mr. President, what have you learned about the
The President. I'm going to do one
answer because I've wanted to say this, and I say it anytime I get a chance. I
think that one of the most wonderful forces for stability and good that I have
seen in the
Note: The President's
news conference began at