| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
President William J. Clinton Press Conference, Excerpt: Comments on Cuba Sanctions The White House, Office of the Press Secretary Washington, DC, June, 28, 2000 |
 QUESTION: Mr. President, after seven months, the Elian Gonzalez case is coming to a conclusion, removing a thorn from U.S.-Cuban relations. And House Republican leaders have struck a deal to ease decades-old sanctions against Cuba. Would you accept that legislation? Is it time to normalize relations with Fidel Castro's government? What would that take? THE PRESIDENT: Let me deal with the questions separately; first, on the question of the legislation proposed by Mr. Nethercutt. If I believe that the legislation essentially allows for the sales of American food and medicine to Cuba or to other countries, but has some protection for us for extraordinary circumstances that foreign policy might require, like Senator Lugar's bill does in the Senate, then I would be inclined to sign the bill and to support it. I've always wanted to sell more food and medicine, not only to Cuba, but to other countries, as well. I have some concerns about it, and I just have to analyze the bill as it passed and whatever legislation finally makes its way to my desk, because, as I understand it, they put some new restrictions on travel to Cuba, which might undermine our people-to-people contacts, which had been more and more extensive over the last several months and which I believe to be very important. And since no federal programs can be used to help finance these food sales, as they can be to other countries, we need an analysis of whether there actually will be more sales under the legislation. So I guess what I want to know and I just haven't had time to get the analysis from our folks, is whether this will be a net plus in terms of our strategy, which is to reach out to the Cuban people without supporting the Cuban government. Now, the second question you ask is whether it's time to move toward normalization. Let me just do a little history here. In 1992, when I was running for president, the Congress passed the Cuba Democracy Act and President Bush signed it, and I strongly supported the bill. The bill seemed to strengthen economic sanctions on Cuba, but actually provided a specific, step-by-step way for us to move toward normalizing relations. And we were in the process of doing that. We did it in '93, '94, '95. We were moving toward sort of -- we would do something, they would do something. It was working, I thought, quite well. And I thought the law was actually quite good. And then, the Cuban Air Force shot the planes down and killed American citizens, illegally and deliberately. And so, since -- after that, the Helms-Burton bill passed, and it codified the embargo. So the real answer to your question is, I don't believe that we can change that law until there is a bipartisan majority which believes that there has been some effort on the part of the Cuban government to reach out to us, as well. I like the old law, I thought it was working well. The killing of those innocent people in those two airplanes changed all that. And now we're in a position where until there is a bipartisan majority of Congress persuaded that there has been a fundamental change, we can't do more than what I've been doing, which is to try to aggressively expand people-to-people contacts. That brings us back to the Nethercutt bill. If I think on balance, it allows the President -- not just me, my successor as well -- to pursue our foreign policy interest, and will, on balance, further that policy, then I would support it. But I want to analyze it for the reasons that I said. QUESTION:Mr. President, you've spoken to the congressional constraints that are attached to your ability to deal with Cuba, and yet, a hallmark of your foreign policy, sir, has been a commitment to engagement, the idea that American trade and investment, ideas and practices can be powerful engines of change -- China, Russia, Vietnam, now even North Korea. Do you think, sir, that it's in the American interest not to have those tools available in dealing with Cuba? Do you think there's any prospect at all that the current policy will actually work? And after 40 years and now nine presidents, do you think the time has come to reassess? THE PRESIDENT: I think the next -- I like -- I'll go back. I like the system that exists under the Cuban Democracy Act. I think Congress has a role to play here, but I like the Cuban Democracy Act. I think it's not wise to take away from the President all the tools of diplomacy with regard to one country that he might have, or she might have, some day with another country. So I like that. But I will say again, there was a reason for that. All these other countries you mentioned, none of them -- none of them -- by order of the leader of the country, killed, murdered two airplanes' worth of people. I think there were four people involved -- these people were killed, illegally. It violated the Chicago Convention. Even if you believe that those planes were in Cuban airspace -- which we believe they were not -- they could not legally be shot down. That changed everything. The deliberate decision to murder those people changed everything. And it made me wonder whether Mr. Castro was hoping we never would normalize relations, so then he could use us as an excuse for the failures of his regime. But we are where we are here. What have I done? I was aggressively moving to implement the Cuban Democracy Act before that happened. Since then, we have done everything we could -- and I noticed there was one article about it last week which pointed out how Secretary Albright had dramatically increased the people-to-people contacts and the travel to Cuba. We are doing what we can. Obviously, I think that anything we can do to engage the Cuban people, to get them involved in the process of change, to get them to look outside the world, to get them to look beyond the present system they have is a positive thing to do. And that's why I answered in response to that very first question, to evaluate the legislation in the House on the food and medicine sales, I've got to really have an analysis of it to say, will the restrictions and personal contact, which the legislation imposes -- which I think are a mistake -- be outweighed by the increased sales of food and medicine, in terms of the ultimate benefit to the Cuban people. And I will look at it and see. [end of document]
|
