The President. I answer that we're considering what the next steps by the United States should be, just as we strongly support what Prime Minister Thatcher said about collective action in the United Nations.

Q. Are you still not contemplating military intervention?

The President. No. I mentioned at the time we were going to discuss different options, which I did after that first press conference this morning. And we're not ruling any options in, but we're not ruling any options out. And so, that is about where we are right now. We had thorough briefings— you know who was at the meeting todayby General Powell [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], General Schwarzkopf [Commander of the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf] and others. But I think it would be inappropriate to discuss options.

Q. What are the chances of U.S.-Soviet cooperation in restoring peace to the Gulf?

The President. I would say they're very good. I reported to Prime Minister Thatcher on a conversation that I had with Jim Baker on the plane flying out here. And I think you could say that he would not be stopping in Moscow unless there would be a good degree of cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United States. But again, the Soviet Union is a member of the United Nations. They voted with the United Kingdom and with the United States. And so, I think there is a good level of cooperation with the Soviets and, hopefully, with other permanent members and, hopefully, with the rest of the members of the Security Council.

Q. We understand that the Soviets have announced that they are cutting off arm shipments to the Iraqis. Are the French, which is the other big arms supplier to Baghdad, also planning to cut off arms shipments?

The President. I've not talked today-I believe you had contact, Prime Minister, at some level with the French Government, but I can't answer that question.

The Prime Minister. We had contact. Douglas Hurd [British Foreign Secretary], I believe, had contact with Mr. Dumas [French Foreign Minister]. This was about the Security Council resolution which France, of course, fully supported.

Q. Mr. President, isn't Saddam Hussein [President of Iraq] at the root of this problem? Hasn't he replaced Qadhafi [leader of Libya] as sort of the bad boy of the region? Would you like to see him removed? And what can you do about him?

The President. I would like to see him withdraw his troops and the restoration of the legal government in Kuwait to the rightful place, and that's the step that should be taken. I might say that I am somewhat heartened by the conversations I had with Mubarak and with King Hussein, Mr. Salih—all of whom I consider friends of the United States-and all of them who are trying to engage in what they call an Arab answer to the question, working diligently behind the scenes to come to an agreement that would satisfy the United Nations and the rest of the world. So, there are collective efforts beginning to be undertaken by these worthy countries, and let's hope that they result in a satisfactory resolution of this international crisis.

Q. But, Mr. President, Saddam Hussein has been the source of the most recent mischief in the region-nuclear triggers, missiles, the big gun-as Prime Minister Thatcher knows about. Is he going to be a constant source of problems there in that region?

The President. If he behaves this way, he's going to be a constant source. We find his behavior intolerable in this instance, and so do the rest of the United Nations countries that met last night. And reaction from around the world is unanimous in being condemnatory. So, that speaks for itself.

The Prime Minister. Did I hear someone say Prime Minister?

The President. You hope you did. [Laughter] Please.

The Prime Minister. I'm sorry. I told you I'd finished. [Laughter] But so, I thought that that guy shouldn't have it all. [Laughter]

Q. Prime Minister, is there any action short of military intervention that Britain or the other United Nations countries could take

The Prime Minister. Yes, of course.

Q. that would be effective against Iraq?

The Prime Minister. Yes, of course. Yes, of course there is—you know, the whole chapter VII measures. And that, of course-obviously we're in consultation now as to which measures we could all agree on so the Security Council would vote them. And then they'd become mandatory. The question then is whether you can make them effective over the rest of the nations. And obviously, the 14 couldn't do it on their own. And so, there will be a good deal of negotiation as to what to put in the next Security Council resolution if Iraq does not withdraw.

Q. But are you confident that you'd be able to mobilize that kind of international support?

The Prime Minister. I believe that further chapter VII measures would have a good chance of getting through. We certainly would support them.

The President. May I add to that, that the United States has demonstrated its interest in that by the action that I took this morning by Executive order: cutting off imports from Iraq to this country.

Q. Mr. President, can I ask both of you to answer this? How does the fact that they apparently have chemical weapons now affect your decisionmaking and narrow your options?

The Prime Minister. I don't figure it affects it at all. What has happened is a total violation of international law. You cannot have a situation where one country marches in and takes over another country which is a member of the United Nations. I don't think the particular weapons they have affects that fundamental position.

Q. But doesn't it affect what actions we can take? And doesn't it make military action

The Prime Minister. No, I do not think it necessarily affects what actions we can take. The President. I would agree with that assessment.

Q. What did the Arab leaders that you talked to ask the United States to do? Did they ask you to either restrain yourself or to become militarily involved? And have you contacted Israel?

The President. We've had contact with Israel, yes. I have not personally, but we have. And they asked for restraint. They

asked for a short period of time in which to have this Arab solution evolve and be placed into effect. And they are concerned, obviously, with this naked aggression. But it was more along that line: Let us try now, as neighbors and Arabs, to resolve this. And I made clear to them that it had gone beyond simply a regional dispute because of the naked aggression that violates the United Nations Charter.

Q. What did Israel say it would do at this point?

The President. I would have to think back to the details of it; but offering cooperation, I think, was about where I would leave it there.

Q. Mr. President, we're hearing reports now that some of the Americans, particularly in the oil fields, may have been rounded up by Iraqi troops. Do you have anything to that? How does that affect your reaction?

The President. Well, I don't have anything on that right now. And secondly, it would affect the United States in a very dramatic way, because I view a fundamental responsibility of my Presidency as protecting American citizens, and if they're threatened or harmed or put into harm's way, I have certain responsibilities. But I hadn't heard that, Charles [Charles Bierbauer, Cable News Network], and I hope that that is not correct.

Q. May I also ask about British citizens? Any word? Are they safe?

The Prime Minister. We have some British citizens in Kuwait. You probably know that there was a British Airways flight there on its way to Africa, and the passengers there are now in a hotel in Kuwait. So, we have some there, and of course, we have a number of other British citizens in Kuwait. And we, too, are concerned for their safety.

Q. Mr. President, some of the smaller nations in the Persian Gulf-Bahrain, the Emirates, and the others-obviously have reason to worry about what has happened here. What can the United States and Great Britain say to those countries and those people who are feeling very concerned today?

The President. Well, the United States can say that we are very much concerned for your safety. And this naked aggression

would understandably shake them to the core. And so, what we are trying to do is have collective action that will reverse this action out and to make very clear that we are totally in accord with their desire to see the Iraqis withdraw-cease-fire, withdraw, and restitution of the Kuwaiti government. And that would be the most reassuring thing of all for these countries who, whether it's true or not, feel threatened by this action.

Q. At the risk of being hypothetical, if Iraq does not move out quickly and has gained a foothold among the smaller Gulf nations, what can the United States and other nations do militarily?

The President. We have many options, and it is too hypothetical, indeed, for me to comment on them. And I'd refer that also to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister. That's precisely why you're looking at the next stage in the Security Council; second, what other measures can be put into action mandatorily; and why the very nations to whom you referwe should also need their cooperation in putting other actions into effect.

Q. Mr. President, have you dispatched the U.S.S. Independence to the region, and have you heard from Saudi Arabia?

The President. Well, I would not discuss movement of any U.S. forces. And what was the second part of your question?

Q. Have you heard from Saudi Arabia?

The President. No, but I have a call to King Fahd, and I was supposed to have taken that call before now, but it's been delayed by a few minutes. And so, I hope before I leave here I will talk to him. I think it is very important I do talk to him. And I'd leave it there.

Q. What do you expect him to say?

The President. Well, that's too hypothetical, too. I know he'll be expressing the same kind of concern that we feel.

Q. Prime Minister, if I could, the President's Executive order this morning established a U.S. embargo on trade with Iraq. When you mentioned chapter VII measures, would you support in the Security Council a call for an international embargo on Iraqi oil?

The Prime Minister. We are prepared to support in the Security Council those measures which collectively we can agree to and which collectively we can make effective. Those are the two tests. We have already frozen all Kuwaiti assets. Kuwaitis have very considerable assets, and it's important that those do not fall into Iraqi hands. Iraq, we believe, has only very, very small assets and rather a lot of debts, so the position is rather different with her.

Note: The question-and-answer session began at 2:10 p.m. outside the residence of Henry Catto, U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

of Saudi Arabia

August 2, 1990

President Bush and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia discussed the Iraq attack on Kuwait in a telephone call at approximately 4:45 p.m. MDT. The two leaders spoke for nearly one-half hour. They agreed that the attack on Kuwait was absolutely unacceptable, and they discussed possible options for dealing with the situation. President Bush

described the conversations he had earlier in the day with other Arab leaders and with Prime Minister Thatcher [of the United Kingdom]. The President emphasized the United States demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces.

Louis Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services, is an outstanding Cabinet officer who has forcefully and effectively spoken out for the public's health and welfare. His courage is exemplary. President Bush and Chief of Staff Sununu commend his work on behalf of health and social issues, including his leadership for civil rights. He is a role model for black and white youth in America who aspire to high

achievement.

Congressman Fortney Stark's bigoted assault on the integrity and ability of Secretary Sullivan is an affront to the Congress and the Democratic Party. We trust the Democratic Party and its chairman, Ron Brown, will disassociate themselves from Congressman Stark's ill-tempered and shameful remarks.

Thank you. Lod Cook, thank you so very much for that genuinely warm welcome. I've really been looking forward to coming here. To David McLaughlin, our president, and John Phelan, the chairman, I salute you for what you are doing, what you have done. To Henry Catto, our distinguished Ambassador to the Court of Saint James, I salute him and Jessica and thank them for their hospitality. I'm honored that the Governor of the State of Colorado, Governor Romer, is here today. Thank you, sir, for being with us. And to all the Aspen alumni

and all our distinguished guests, many, many thanks for this warm welcome.

And of course, I've saved the piece de resistance to the very end, our very special guest, our friend, the distinguished world leader, Margaret Thatcher. It was very, very comforting to me today when I went out to try to represent you, the people of the United States, in expressing our views on the current emergency, I would say, in the Persian Gulf-naked aggression by the State of Iraq. I felt very comforted by the fact that as I spoke Prime Minister Thatch

er was there with me answering the tougher questions and standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States. Madame Prime Minister, let me say that for more than a decade now America has known no better friend of freedom anywhere in the world than you, and it's an honor to join you today.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? Washington is getting more like a three-ring circus-and here I am [laughter]-under the big tent. [Laughter] Of course, it's a special pleasure to experience the splendor of Aspen in August. The climate in Washington's tough this time of year. Lots of heat and temperatures rising. Everyone's hot under the collar. The weather's fine, but I'm talking about the budget summit. [Laughter]

I am delighted to celebrate with all of you the 40th anniversary of this most illustrious Aspen Institute. In those 40 years, the spirit of Aspen has come to signify the attempt to bridge the worlds of thought and action and, of course, to understand the tremendous changes taking place around us. Think back to the headlines 40 years ago, the time of that first Aspen conference, in 1950. North Korea roared across the 38th parallel. Klaus Fuchs was caught and convicted for revealing the secrets of the atom bomb to the Soviets. The "cold war"-a term introduced into our political vocabulary by Bernard Baruch-had come into its own as the shorthand to describe the halfway house of an armed and uneasy peace, a world divided, East from West. That was the world as Aspen came into being, the world Aspen sought to study, analyze, and to shape.

The 40 years since then have been a time of tremendous progress for the nations of the West, an era of unparalleled prosperity, peace, and freedom. But at the same time, we lived in a constant condition of tension, cold war and, indeed, conflict.

That world is now changing. The decades-old division of Europe is ending, and the era of democracy-building has begun. In Germany, the divided nation in the heart of a divided continent, unity is now assured as a free and full member of the NATO alliance. The Soviet Union itself is in the midst of a political and economic transformation that has brought unprecedented openness--

a process that is at once full of hope but, let's face it, still full of uncertainty.

We've entered a remarkable stage in our relationship with the Soviet Union. Just today I talked to Jim Baker in Ulan Bator. He'd just left Irkutsk. And he had very positive talks with Foreign Minister Shevardnadze. And my discussions with President Gorbachev have been open and honest. All the issues are on the table; we don't dodge the tough ones. That's been the secret to our success so far, and over time, that's how we are going to narrow our differences and seize this historic opportunity to help create lasting peace.

The changes that I'm talking about have transformed our security environment. We're entering a new era: the defense strategy and military structure needed to ensure peace can and must be different. The threat of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe launched with little or no warning is today more remote than at any other point in the postwar period. And with the emergence of democracy in Eastern Europe, the Warsaw Pact has lost its military meaning. And after more than four decades of dominance, Soviet troops are withdrawing from Central and Eastern Europe.

Our task today is to shape our defense capabilities to these changing strategic circumstances. In a world less driven by an immediate threat to Europe and the danger of global war, in a world where the size of our forces will increasingly be shaped by the needs of regional contingencies and peacetime presence, we know that our forces can be smaller. Secretary Cheney and General Powell are hard at work determining the precise combination of forces that we need. But I can tell you now, we calculate that by 1995 our security needs can be met by an active force 25 percent smaller than today's. America's Armed Forces will be at their lowest level since the year 1950.

What matters now, then, is how we reshape the forces that remain. Our new strategy must provide the framework to guide our deliberate reductions to no more than the forces we need to guard our enduring interests—the forces to exercise forward presence in key areas, to respond ef