THE WHITE HOUSE                    Office of the Press Secretary                   (Vancouver, British Columbia) _________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release                               April 4, 1993  	                      PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT                         WITH RUSSIAN PRESS 	                                 Canada Place                    Vancouver, British Columbia    2:46 P.M. PDT  	     	   	     Q	  I had two questions for both Presidents, so you  could probably answer for Boris, too.  (Laughter.) 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  I'll give you my answer, then I'll  give you Yeltsin's answer.  (Laughter.) 	      	     Q	  The first is that this is the meeting of the  Presidents, so the money that's being promised is government  money, and naturally it's going to be distributed through the  government.  But you've indicated that three-quarters are going  to be going to businesses.  So the question is how the Russian  businesses themselves are going to be consulted, if ever?  What  are the priorities, because there are several association of  Russian businessmen existing already, so will they be invited to  participate in setting up priorities for investment?   	      	     This is the first.  And second, to you.  We know  that polls, public polls in America do not show that Americans  are very enthusiastic about giving this aid.  Like Newsweek polls  say that about 75 percent don't approve it, and New York Times  published that 52 percent support if it just prevents civil war;  42 percent if it fosters democratic reform; and only 29 percent  if it just personally supports Yeltsin.  How are you going to  sort of handle this problem that Americans themselves are not  very enthusiastic?  Thank you. 	      	     Q	  I have a question, I'm sorry -- is there going  to be a translation of everything into Russian?  No, just the  answers.  Just the answers.  Okay. 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  The answer to the first question is,  it depends on what kind of aid we're discussing.  For example,  the funds that will be set up for financing new businesses will  obviously go to those businesses who apply and who seem to be  good risks and make the application.  The privatization fund will  be used to support the privatization of existing public  enterprises.  Then there are some other general funds in the  Democracy Corps and other things which people in Russia will have  some influence over the distribution of.   	      	     With regard to your second question, let me say that  I would think that there would be people in both countries who  would not feel too warmly toward simply the American government  giving money to the Russian government.  There's opposition to  that in Russia.  And in our country, throughout our whole history  there has been an opposition to foreign aid of all kinds.  That  is, this has nothing to do with Russia.  If you look at the whole  history of America, any kind of aid program has always been  unpopular.   	      	     What I have tried to tell the American people is, is  this is not an aid program, this is an investment program; that  this is an investment in our future.  We spent $4 trillion -- trillion -- on armaments on soldiers and other investments  because of the Cold War.  Now, with a democratic government in  Russia, with the newly independent states, the remainder of them  working on a democracy and struggling to get their economies  going, it seems to me very much in our interest to make it  possible to do whatever we can for democracy to survive, for the  economy of Russia to grow because of the potential for trade and  investment there, and for us to continue the effort to reduce  nuclear weapons and other elements of hostility on both sides, on  our side and on the Russian side.   	      	     So I don't see this as an aid program; this is an  investment for the United States.  This is very much in the  interest of the United States.  The things I announced today, the  second stage of the program, which I hope to put together next  week, in my view are things that are good for my country and for  the taxpayers and workers of my country.   	      	     Russia is a very great nation that needs some  partnership now, some common endeavor with other people who share  her goals.  But it would be a great mistake for anyone to view  this as some sort of just a charity or an aid issue.  That's not  what it is, it's an investment for America and it's a wonderful  investment.   	      	     Like all investments, there is some risk.  But  there's far less risk with a far greater potential of return than  the $4 trillion we spent looking at each other across the barrier  of the Cold War. 	      	     Q	  Mr. President, first of all thank you very  much, indeed, for coming here and talking to us.  In the memory  of the living correspondents, this is the first time an American  President is doing this to the Russian press corps, so it's kind  of a very measured breakthrough.   	      	     I have two questions.  One, in your introductory  remarks of the other press conference, you mentioned in brief  that you discussed the START II and START I issues.  Could you  tell us:  Did you reach an agreement with President Yeltsin as to  what might be done in order to have Ukraine join the ratification  of START I and the NPT regime?  And my second question is, how  confident you are that the United States Congress would be eager  to support you in lifting Jackson-Vanik and other restrictions  inherited from the Cold War?   	      	     PRESIDENT CLINTON:  First, we discussed the issue of  Ukraine with regard to START I and NPT, and generally, with  regard to the need to proceed to have the other independent  states all be non-nuclear; but also to have the United States  develop strong relationships with them.  We know that one thing  that we could do that would increase, I think, the willingness of  the Ukraine to support this direction is to successfully conclude  our own negotiations on highly enriched uranium, because that  would provide not only an important economic opportunity for  Russia, but also for Ukraine, and it would show some reaching out  on our part.  But we agreed that basically the people who signed  off on the Lisbon Protocol have got to honor what they did, and  we agreed to continue to press that. 	      	     I, myself, have spent a good deal of time trying to  reassure Ukraine's leaders, specifically the President and the  Foreign Minister, that I want strong ties with Ukraine, that the  United States very much wants a good relationship with Ukraine,  but that, in order to do what we need to do together to  strengthen the economy of Ukraine and to have the United States  be fully supportive, the commitment to ratify START I and to join  the NPT regime is critical. 	      	     What was the second question?   	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  With regard to Jackson-Vanik and  COCOM, I would make two points:  First, I have agreed with the  Republican and Democratic leaders in the Congress that we will,  as soon as I return, have a list of all the legislative and other  restrictions, some of them are regulatory in nature, imposed on  relations between the United States and Russia, that are legacies  of the Cold War.  And we will see whether they're -- how many of  them we could agree to do away with right now, at least among the  leadership of the Congress. 	      	     With regard to Jackson-Vanik, I think there will be  an openness to change the law if the Congress is convinced there  are, in fact, no more refusniks, no more people who wish to  emigrate who are not being allowed to.  If the fact is that there  is no one there who would have been -- who the law was designed  to affect, then I think that the desire to keep the law will be  much less. 	      	     With regard to COCOM, my guess is, and it's nothing  more than a guess, that the leadership of Congress and indeed my  own advisers, might prefer to see some sort of phased movement  out of the COCOM regime.  But I think they would be willing to  begin it in the fairly near future. 	      	     Q	  Mr. Clinton, when I read your speech in  Annapolis, I got the impression that you have a completely  different personal -- and I stress that -- personal, not  political approach towards Russia, compared to the approach of  Mr. Bush.  Could you formulate in a few words, what is the  difference between you as a personality and your approach -- the  difference between your approach to Russia and the approach of  Mr. Bush?  And who made you -- why did you cite Akhmatova in the  last part of your speech? 	      	     THE PRESIDENT:  Let me say, first, I do not wish to  compare myself with President Bush or anyone else.  I can't say  what was in his heart about Russia.  I can say that since I was a  boy, I have been personally fascinated with the history, the  music and the culture, and the literature of Russia.  I have been  thrilled by Russian music since I was a serious student of music  for more than 30 years now.  I have read major Russian novelists  and many of your poets and followed your ballet and tried to know  as much as I could about your history.   	      	     And I went to the Soviet Union -- but it was then  the Soviet Union -- you may know it was a big issue in the last  presidential campaign that I spent the first week of 1970 alone  in Moscow and did not return again until three days before Mr.  Yeltsin was elected President.  But all that time I was away, I  was following events there very closely and hoping for the day  when we could be genuine partners.  So I have always had a  personal feeling about Russia.   	      	     I remember, for example -- a lot of you know I like  music very much.  One of the most moving experiences for me as a  musician was when Leonard Bernstein took the New York  Philharmonic to Moscow and played Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony  to the Russians.  And he played the last movement more rapidly  than anyone had ever played it before because it was technically  so difficult.  That is something I followed very closely when it  occurred.   	      	     These are things that have always had a big impact  on my life.  And I had just always hoped that someday, if I ever  had the chance to, I could play a role in seeing our two  countries become closer partners.  (Applause.) 	      	     THE PRESS:  Thank you.