TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE CONDUCTED BY THE HON GEORGE
BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE HON
PAUL KEATING MP PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA
2 JANUARY 1992
E& OE PROOF COPY
Prime Minister:
President: Prime Minister: Could I now invite the President to make
some introductory remarks and then I'll
follow him.
My remarks Mr Prime Minister will be very
brief and I simply want to once again thank
you, thank all of our official hosts and
thank the people of Australia for the
warmth of the reception on this visit. We
have enjoyed it, it has been a busy time, I
hope that we have made progress on the
issues, for we may have differences, I
should say issue, because I think there is
only one area of difficulty and we have
talked about that very frankly with you
Sir, with the Opposition, with agriculture
leaders and I feel it has been very
fruitful in terms of the US on all of this.
But otherwise I would simply say to you, we
are very pleased to be here and thank you
for your hospitality and I would be glad to
take my share of the questions.
Mr President can I thank you for those
remarks and say what an honour it has been
for me to represent the Government and
people of Australia in welcoming you and
Mrs Bush to Australia and having you here.
You have had a warm reception from the
Australian public which I think has been
evident to everybody and we have been most
pleased about that and it is true that we
have had broad discussions which I think
have increased
Journalist:
President: the bonds of friendship between our two
countries, and certainly given me as Prime
Minister a chance, an opportunity to get to
know the President and his views and -to
also make a couple of what we think are
important points to him. And that was the
importance that Australia places on having
the United States engaged in a political
and economic framework in the Asia-Pacific
and the importance of having won the CoLd
War and in setting up an institutional
framework of a Bretton Woods style but in
trade. And we see this best being accommodated
with the GATT, a successful conclusion to
the GATT round, as a framework for the reentry
of countries re-entering the world
economy for the first time in either half a
century or most of a century. So on those
very broad fronts we have had extensive
discussions as the President said on the
other issues we dealt with them in a
working like way and he has very kindly met
our farm representatives and I think we
have a reasonable understanding of our
positions on those issues.
So could I now invite questions.
Alan Sunderland, SBS Television. My
question is in relation to the EEP. I
understand following your discussions with
farmers you have agreed to have some sort
of consultative process operating in future
before decisions are made. How exactly do
you envisage that consultative mechanism
will work and do you envisage that it will
have the effect in future of stopping EEP
areas that have in the past affected
Australia? Well we discussed having some consultative
arrangement and I suggested it would be
very useful to the farm leaders if they
come, they have been to the States several
of them, if they come again and consult on
this EEP. There were some factual
differences presented at the meeting by our
expert and by them and so I think we ought
to just try to eliminate differences where
possible. And I made very clear to them,
and I'd like to say it once more, that the
EEP legislation was not aimed at Australia.
It was aimed to try to get the EC, who are
subsidising 10 times as much as the United
States, to come into line and to get on
board on a sound GATT agreement. So we
Journalist: President: Journalist: will see how that works out but we didn't
set up any procedures in any exact threepoint
program for eliminating differences
that we might have. The answer though,
that they do agree with me on, and I'm sure
the Prime Minister does is to get a
successful conclusion to the GATT round and
I told him that we are pledged to that end,
and I know they have tried, these farm
leaders have travelled to Europe and they
have been to England and, I believe, France
and Germany and so they are fully engaged
with private sector. I think now it is
important given the Dunkel Report that I as
President, the Prime Minister as Prime
Minister, engage to the fullest to try to
get the one answer to EEP that's going to
make the most sense and that is a
successful conclusion of the GATT round on
agriculture. Mr President, last week your Commerce
Secretary Bob Mosbacher said that Japan was
partly responsible for the recession in the
United States. Was he reflecting official
policy in saying that?
Well Mr Mosbacher always reflects official
views except when I disagree with him and
that is very, very seldom and on this one I
haven't heard his statement so I would only
want to see it in full context. But look,
we have got tremendous imbalance with
Japan, tremendous, and one of the reasons
we are going there is to see if we can't
find ways to sort that matter out. But we
are enduring sluggish times and not
enjoying them very much and Prime Minister
has impressed on me that Australia is
having difficult economic times and the
answer to all of this, whether it is in
Japan-US or Australia-US it is to get
these economies going through expanded
trade and so I want to know in context what
Bob said but any time you have an
extraordinarily big trade imbalance I think
you would say that that would be
contributing to a lack of economic growth.
And so if that is what he said, I certainly
couldn't find a way to differ with him.
Don Woolford, Australian Associated Press
Mr Bush are you able to give a commitment
that irrespective of what might happen in
other sectors of the Eurogray rounds the
United States Government will accept
nothing less in agricultural trade than has
been proposed by Arthur Dunkel and Mr
President: Prime Minister: Keating how satisfied you are with Mr
Bush's response both to our EEP submissions
and to our concerns that NAFTA could under
some circumstances develop into a tri-polar
trading block?
Let me answer, we see some very positive
elements in the Dunkel paper. We certainly
don't want to accept less if that was your
question and there is some things there
that we would like to see improved. But I
do think that there has been a lot of good
work done there and we will be working
closely with the Europeans to try to get
agreement, and I'd leave it right there
because I don't want to indicate that we
think that we've gotten everything that the
United States wants nor do we think that
the Cairns Group has gotten everything that
the Cairns Group wants out of the Dunkel
paper. All we're saying is its a good
position from which to finalise the
agricultural part of trade and the rest of
it too. We have got some difficulties with
some parts, agriculture we see has moved
fairly well.
Can I add to that, I think that the thing
which is most comforting to Australia I
think in answering the question, I make
three points. The first is it is a matter
of great comfort to us that we have an
internationalist as President of the United
States, someone who has committed himself
to an open trading system, multilateral
trading system, that resisted protectionist
pressures and is committed to seeing the
GATT round successfully concluded. Now as
the President has said, there are elements
of the GATT round that can't be, it's a
package, some parts all countries would be
more satisfied with than others but it is a
package and it is a package about around
I which we believe discussions can take
place. If there is a successful conclusion
of the GATT round many other things will
change and including that would be, of
course, mandatory windbacks under EEP which
you asked me about and the President has
agreed this morning that we will have an
information exchange on EEP. That is, at
least we will now more about the operation
of EEP and as well as that we have asked
him that where the US has not engaged in
sales in markets where the European
Commission is engaged in sales, that is in
non-EEC markets would he examine those
markets with a view to keeping the
Journalist: President: Journalist: President: subsidisation of EEP f rom them. He can'It
obviously, at this point, give a clear
commitment on the markets, but he has
agreed to look and to examine them and we
are very happy about that.
So on the general point, we believe that
the GATT offers the best opportunity on
trade generally that the Dunkel package is
just that, a package, and if adopted would
lead to significant improvements in the
trade and agriculture and including the
impact on EEP.
CNN. Mr Bush, what do you see as the
consequences if Europe does not buy into
Dunkel' s proposal?
Well, I see that it would be very, very bad
if we don't get a successful conclusion to
the GATT round and we have not discussed
here in Australia fall-back positions, we
are not prepared to give up on the
successful conclusion of the GATT round but
without trying to predict disaster I can
simply say I think it would be a very bad
thing because I think you would see more
protection, more selfishness in the trading
system that would inevitably shrink markets
and cost countries jobs and so we must go
forward and we must try to get a successful
conclusion. I feel more strongly about that since I've
had the benefit of several long
conversations with this Prime Minister, who
is very knowledgeable on these
international financial matters, and also
with the agricultural sector in this
country. I really had my, I'Im more highly
attuned even than I was to the importance
of getting this done so I don'It want to
worse case it but I can just say that it
would be totally unsatisfactory to see that
GATT round fail to come to satisfactory
conclusions. Do you see the possibility Sir, of three
world trading blocs as the Prime Minister
has discussed?
Well, we don't want any trading blocs that
don't include Australia and I went out of
my way to say that as we're negotiating for7
free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada
for example, I want our Australian friends
to know that that would not be detrimenta.
to our free trade with them and one of the
Journalist: President: Journalist: President: things the Prime Minister and I discussed,
and I'll clearly defer to him on this, : Ls
the fact that we don't want to see Asia and
Australia kind of pushed aside into some
separate bloc so you might have an European
Ntroardthi, n g Sobulothc , anadn CAmareirbibceaann tarnadd inagn bAlsoica, n'
bloc. That is not the way you get more
jobs. The way you do that is to have broad
expanded trade between them so I don't want
to predict and suggest that this would be
an outcome, but it would be an outcome that
we certainly would not find satisfactory.
Jeremy Thompson, The Canberra Times
The United Nations seems to be dragging its
feet a little bit on the Cambodian peace
plan, there is no concrete plan in place,
no budget being put forward. Have you been
asked or do you intend to urge in the
United Nations that more speed be taken on
these matters? Certainly Mr Hun Sinn,
Prime Minister of Cambodia, is extremely
concerned about this matter.
Well I wasn't asked to accelerate anything
on this visit. I was told by the
Australian leadership of the importance of
this. We feel that way. Secretary Baker,
as you know, has been involved in it and we
strongly support this concept that the UN
acting in this peace keeping role but I
wasn't asked to take on a specific
assignment in that regard. But it is
important with agreement having come this
far that it be followed up on now, that it
not be allowed to fall apart.
Mr President, Democratic leaders and
Congress this week said that the success or
failure of the trade mission will depend on
whether you obtain any major concessions
from Japan. Do you agree, and at this
point are you at all hopeful that you will
be hopeful to obtain any major concessions.
In the first place, I don't take much stock
in what the Democratic leaders and what the
Congress say, setting up goals for a trip
or knocking them down, I'm just not
inclined to run the foreign policy of the
United States in that regard. It's been
happening for three years and they're
entitled to their opinion but that won't
influence how I conduct myself on this trip
and I certainly am not going to accept
their standards for success or failure of a
mission. Having said all that, I want to
Journalist: President: Journalist: President: see us get more jobs created in the United
States, eventually by concessions made or
by positions taken in Japan. I think it is
very important and we need more access to
their markets, we need to have more content
in autos that are made in the United
States, have US content there, have a fair
shot at it, but I don't think that I should
let the agenda be set by some political
challenge in an election year. That is not
the way one conducts sound foreign policy.
I saw all kinds of crazy, well if he
doesn't get this or that were going to
throw in this legislation. We know
political posturing when we see it, and I
know what's good policy and it is to stay
involved internationally and it is to
create more jobs at home, not by trying to
protect and pull back into some
isolationistic fear but by expanding
markets and that is what this trip is
about. offer concessions that you consider
inadequate. Are you prepared to
It's too hypothetical a question, let me
cut it off right there, I cannot go in'to
hypothetical we haven't even gotten to
Japan yet. We're still in Australia
remember!
Kim Griggs, Knight Ridder Financial News
Mr President you refer to the sluggishness
of the US economy, do you feel the recent
cut and discount rate to 3.5% is sufficient
to stimulate your economy and if you think
extra measures are needed when would you
expect to announce these?
No question that it will have a stimulatory
affect. It takes a while for that to get
through something as complex as is the US
economy but it has been very, very well
received at home and I think that it is
well known at home that I plan additional
stimulatory measures to be announced in the
State of the Union Message which comes at
the end of this month and they will not be
counter-productive, they will not be on the
cheap politically, something that has a
nice political ring to it but then would be
counter-productive in terms of interest
rates but I do think that the US economy
could use a sound fiscal stimulation and I
will be proposing that kind of a program in
our State of the Union Message. But yes,
this is very, very important.
Journalist: President: Journalist: President: ABC News. President Bush, doesn't this
whole flap in Australia about agricultural
subsidies in the United States, which you
indicated you are not in a position at this
time to abolish, undermine your
credibility, Sir, when you get to Japan
wearing the mantle of a free trader asking
for concessions there?
No, because nobody is pure. We have
differences with Australia on this. I
don't want to necessarily bring them up : Ln
front my Australian congenial host here,
but I had a chance to tell him the things
I'd like to see Australia do, which we
might feel could be a little less
protection. He was very clear and very
forceful in telling me his. I don't
consider it a flap, incidentally, when you
discuss an issue where you have
differences. I think it's very important
that the American people and the President
understand how the agriculturalists in this
country look at this Export Enhancement
Program. And so I don't think it's
contradictory at all. We've never said
we're totally pure. We are working for
freer and fairer trade. And certainly the
Japanese should be working for freer and
fairer trade. And if one country could
hold up its hand and say we have never had
any protection of any kind and
subsidisation of any kind, that country,
then, should be holier than thou, be able
to make the point. We are going there into
Japan and asking for equity, fairness, fair
play. And so I don't think a discussion, a
healthy discussion of an export program
that is causing great concern in this
country is either a flap or diminishes my
credibility as I go into a market where we
are getting real problems in terms of
access.
Dennis Grant, Mr Bush, from the Australian
7 Network. We of course welcome you,
perhaps with the observation that it only
took 25 years for the White House to find a
map of where we live since the last time a
President visited. Following on from that
question, isn't there just
I'm not sure that I got that point.
Journalist: President: Prime Minister:
President: Journalist: President: Journalist: President: Journalist: President: Prime Minist~ er: Twenty five years since we last saw an
American President here.
Oh, President.
Held like you here more often, I think he's
trying to say.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Wondered if you lost the map, perhaps.
Oh, I see.
So, fo llowing on f rom that last question,
is there not just the faintest whiff of
hypocrisy here that you are demanding of
the Japanese that they lower their barriers
so that you can sell more motor vehicles * to
them, but you impose and extend barriers on
our meat and sugar in particular?
No, I don't think SO. We were
extraordinarily helpful in opening the
Japanese markets on meat. And indeed the
agricultural leaders I met with today
thanked me for that. Similarly for citrus.
So, besides that, I love coming to
Australia so I take your point that if
somebody takes that as a matter of neglect,
that's too bad because this relationship is
very very strong. But I'm glad to be here
now and I was glad to be here as Vice
President, glad to be here earlier on as a
private citizen, and undoubtedly will come
back. Mr President, President Miyazawa in honour
of your trip, a few days in advance of your
trip anyway is urging his auto makers ' to
buy more US auto cars and urging consumers
to buy more American cars. Do you consider
that already a success for your mission, or
do you think the Japanese still need to do
more? Well I want to f ind out exactly what all
this means, how it's going to be
translated. But clearly we welcome
statements of that nature. I think that's
very very good, very heartening. But I
have not had a chance to sit down with Mr
Miyazawa and talk about that in some
detail. Perhaps a couple of more questions. One on
this side Michelle ( Grattan).
Journalist: President: Journalist: President: Prime Minis-ter:
President: Journalist: Michelle Grattan, The Age. President Bush,
could you just clarify this matter of
consultations for us. The farmers seem
very convinced you have given an
undertaking to have consultations before
subsidised sales. That doesn't seem -to
square with what you said early in this
press conference. If that's not right, you
haven't gone as far as that. How does your
undertaking about consultations differ from
those given by your predecessor?
Well I'm not sure if I understand I'm
not sure what they said publicly. What
they said is they, the farmers would like
to come over and consult and I said come
on, let's go, this would be good. And I'd
like to have some American farmers there as
well as Government officials. It wasn'It
tied in, as far as I know, to any specific
pending action under the export program.
and not in relation to any future
actions? They asked that there be consultation on a
whole array of things. I think we're
getting it mixed up a little bit with
I think it's a mix up between information
and the Government and also with thiLs
private sector group. These farmers were
there not as Government officials but
wanting to come over and talk to our
agricultural experts and to our farmers
themselves about this whole program, and I
said come on, we would welcome you. But
that's where that one was left. Now the
other one, I've not been able to make I
think the Prime Minister let me put it
this way I subscribe to the way hie
phrased it.
Change of pace, if I may, Sir. John
Cocheran from NBC. There's a new movie
called JFK which has not wafted its way
down here yet, but it casts some
dispersions on the findings of the Warren
Commission's reports, and also it raises
some questions about possibly the CIA's
role in this. You're a past CIA director7.
I wonder, I know you possibly haven't seen
the movie, are you concerned about movies
like this which may trouble people who
weren'It even born at the time of John
Kennedy's assassination?
President: Journalist: President: Journalist: President: Prime Minister:
Journalist: President: Well I don't know much about the movie. I
haven't seen it. And there is all kinds of
conspiratorial theories floating around on
everything. Elvis Presley is rumoured to
be alive and well some place. And I can't
say that somebody won'It go out and make a
movie about that. I have seen no evidence
that gives me any reason to believe that
the Warren Commission was wrong. None
whatsoever. And so if it is helpful to
reassure the American people in this way by
saying that, fine. But I don't, it
wouldn't lead me to suggesting that Mr
Stone be censored or something of that
nature.
As a former CIA director, did you ever go
back in the CIA's findings during that
period to satisfy any of your curiosity?
About this subject?
Yes. No I didn't have any curiosity because I
believed that the Warren Commission, which
acted what time was that finding? When
was the Warren Commission finding? Was it
' 63, which was about twelve years before I
was out at the Agency I saw no reason to
question it. Still see no reason to
question it.
One more, this gentleman here.
AFP. You say to the Prime Minister again
today to maintain a military presence in
the region at an appropriate level. People
in the region are not so sure. What does
appropriate mean and for instance, is the
ANZUS Treaty in fact dead?
Well the appropriate level of security
depends on conditions at the time. What I
was addressing myself to was the fact that
some felt that at the closing of Subic,
that we would withdraw and pull away back
from any possible security commitments.
And I think one has to know, I can't tell
you what that means in terms of keeping our
security interests alive here, or keeping a
military presence here. It depends on
events, it depends obviously on deployments
of various naval groups. But all I wanted
to do was reassure the people of this area
that we are not, because of the closing of
Subic, that we are not pulling back from
Journalist: President: Journalist: President: Prime Minister: future security considerations. We are a
Pacific power, we think, we know we are a
Pacific trading power, and we are going to
stay involved with the security concerns of
our friends. I can't tell you exactly what
that means in terms of troops, where
they'll be, vessels, where they'll be.
That depends on the situation that might
exist at the time. We had a very different
security deployment in the Middle East a
year ago than we have today. And so things
can change dramatically. But all I'm just
doing is giving proper assurances that our
military as well as our economic interests
are still housed in the Pacific to a large
degree. Do you still need the ANZUS treaty with the
countries of the region?
Do I what?
Do you still need the ANZUS treaty?
Well we still need the treaty that exists,
that we refer to as ANZUS. As you know
there's been some difficulties with that.
There's no point in going into that now as
much as this is the last question. But,
nevertheless, the concept of the ANZUS is
very very important to us.
Important to both of us. That will do us.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Thank you
Mr President.
President: Thank you very much.
Minister. Thank you Prime
ends