Home About us Products Services Contact us Bookmark
:: wikimiki.org ::
Kremlin Accords

Kremlin accords

The Kremlin accords were a series of treaties signed between Presidents Bill Clinton of the United States of America and Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation on January 14, 1994. These treaties stopped the preprogrammed aiming of nuclear missiles at targets on any nation and provided for the dismantling of the Russian nuclear arsenal in Ukraine.

Treaty

A treaty is a binding agreement under international law concluded by subjects of international law, namely states and international organizations. Treaties can be called by many names: treaties, international agreements, protocols, covenants, conventions, exchanges of letters, exchanges of notes, etc.; however all of these are equally treaties, and the rules are the same regardless of what the treaty is called. Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held legally liable for that breach. The central principle of treaty law is expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servanda--"pacts must be respected."

Vienna Convention

The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is the authoritative treaty on the international law of treaties, establishing the procedures by which treaties are adopted, interpreted, and invalidated. It is considered mostly a codification of already existing and binding customary law on treaties, and so aside from some necessary gap-filling and clarification, it is not viewed as a change in existing international law. This means that unlike most treaties, the Vienna Convention could arguably be binding to even non-parties. There is a Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States, and on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations. Most states have ratified these treaties. The Vienna Convention on Succession of States with Respect to Treaties has comparatively few parties. Many states reject its provisions as not adequately reflecting the customary international law on the subject.

Consequences of terminology

One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law. Hence, nations can be very careful about terming an agreement to be a treaty. For example, within the United States agreements between states are compacts and agreements between states and the federal government or between agencies of the government are memoranda of understanding. Conversely, perhaps the most significant thing about the Anglo-Irish Treaty was that it was explicitly a treaty and hence implied British recognition of Irish sovereignty. Another situation can occur when one party wishes to create an obligation under international law, but the other party does not. Such as the case with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China in 1984. The wording for the document was very carefully designed to make it possible to interpret it either as a treaty or as a communique. Similar factors have been at work with respect to discussions between North Korea and the United States over security guarantees and nuclear proliferation. The terminology can also be confusing because a treaty may and usually is named something other than a treaty, such as a convention, protocol, or simply agreement. Conversely some legal documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi are internationally considered to be documents under domestic law.

Bilateral and multilateral treaties

A multilateral treaty has several parties, and establishes rights and obligations between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often, but not always, open to any state; others are regional. Bilateral treaties by contrast are negotiated between a limited number of states, most commonly only two, establishing legal rights and obligations between those two states only. It is possible however for a bilateral treaty to have more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss ("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally; it does not establish any rights and obligations amongst the EU and its member states.

Reservations

Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. These can be qualifications or denials of specific obligations, or the insistence upon particular interpretations of treaty language. These must be included at the time of signing or ratification--a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty. Some treaties expressly forbid all reservations or just specific ones. Treaties may also expressly authorize certain reservations. Otherwise, reservations may be permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goal and purpose of the treaty. Though the allowance of reservations means that not all parties to a treaty will be bound under the same precise obligations, states will often nevertheless consent to reservations to gain as many parties to the treaty as possible for the sake of a general goal. If a reservation is considered unacceptable, the reserving party may be excluded from the treaty, or the reservation may be considered severable from the party's ratification, meaning that the reservation is ignored but the party is still bound under the treaty.

Execution and implementation

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'--a change in the domestic law of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes. The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a treaty, as a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted upon without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the necessary domestic laws.

Interpretation

The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted “in good faith” according to the “ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” International legal experts also often invoke the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties. No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. Consent may be implied, however, if the other parties fail to explicitly disavow that initially unilateral interpretation, particularly if that state has acted upon its view of the treaty without complaint. Consent by all parties to the treaty to a particular interpretation has the legal effect of adding an additional clause to the treaty--this is commonly called an 'authentic interpretation.' International tribunals and arbitors are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations. To establish the meaning in context, these judicial bodies may review the preparatory work from the negotiation and drafting of the treaty as well as the final, signed treaty itself.

Invalidation

Articles 46-53 of the Vienna Convention set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated--considered unenforceable and void under international law. A treaty will be invalidated due to either the circumstances by which a state party joined the treaty, or due to the content of the treaty itself. Invalidation is separate from withdrawal, suspension, or termination (addressed below), which all involve an alteration in the consent of the parties of a previously valid treaty rather than the invalidation of that consent in the first place.

Ultra vires treaties

A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it was given by an agent or body without power to do so under that state's domestic law. States are reluctant to inquire into the internal affairs and processes of other states, and so a “manifest” violation is required such that it would be “objectively evident to any State dealing with the matter". A strong presumption exists internationally that a head of state has acted within his proper authority. It seems that no treaty has ever actually been invalidated on this provision. Consent is also invalid if it is given by a representative who ignored restrictions he is subject to by his sovereign during the negotiations, if the other parties to the treaty were notified of those restrictions prior to his signing.

Misunderstanding, fraud, corruption, coercion

A state's consent may be invalidated if there was an erroneous understanding of a fact or situation at the time of conclusion, which formed the "essential basis" of the state's consent. Consent will not be invalidated if the misunderstanding was due to the state's own conduct, or if the truth should have been evident. Consent will also be invalidated if it was induced by the fraudulent conduct of another party, or by the direct or indirect "corruption" of its representative by another party to the treaty. Coercion of either a representative, or the state itself through the threat or use of force, if used to obtain the consent of that state to a treaty, will invalidate that consent.

Peremptory norms

A treaty is null and void if it is in violation of a peremptory norm. These norms, unlike other principles of customary law, are recognized as permitting no violations and so cannot be altered through treaty obligations. These are limited to such universally accepted prohibitions as those against genocide, slavery, torture, and piracy, meaning that no state can legally assume an obligation to commit or permit such acts.

Ending treaty obligations

Withdrawal

Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty. Human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of the importance and permanence of the obligations. Withdrawal by a party may also be permitted if all other parties under the treaty consent. If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force between the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to the treaty.

Suspension and termination

If a party has materially violated, or breached, its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself. A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. The issue must be presented to an international tribunal or arbitror (usually specified in the treaty itself) to legally establish that a sufficiently serious breach has in fact occurred. Otherwise, a party that prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspends or terminates its own obligations due to an alleged breach itself runs the risk of being held liable for breach. Additionally, parties may choose to overlook treaty breaches while still maintaining their own obligations towards the party in breach. Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may terminate if a defined event occurs if the treaty is meant to exist only under certain conditions or in the absence thereof. A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if it was unforeseen, if it undermined the “essential basis” of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries.

Treaties and indigenous peoples

Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing. In some rare cases, such as with Ethiopia and Qing Dynasty China, the local governments were able to use the treaties to at least mitigate the impact of European colonization. This involved learning the intricacies of European diplomatic customs and then using the treaties to prevent a power from overstepping their agreement or by playing different powers against each other. In other cases, such as New Zealand and Canada, treaties allowed native peoples to maintain a minimum amount of autonomy. Such treaties between colonizers and indigenous peoples are an important part of political discourse in the late 20th and early 21st century, but the treaties being discussed are internationally considered to be part of the nation's domestic law, and to have little international standing.

Role of the United Nations

The United Nations Charter states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century. The Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. In function and effectiveness the UN has been compared to the pre-Constitutional United States Federal government by some, giving a comparison between modern treaty law and the historical Articles of Confederation.

United States law

In US law, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted sense than in international law. US law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements. All three classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal US law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification (by the 2/3rds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone) and their relationship to US domestic law. Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. However, throughout U.S. history, the President has also made "international agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole executive agreements made by the President alone. Though the constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative procedure and although some noted constitutional scholars, such as Laurence Tribe, believe that CEAs are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has considered these agreements to be valid, and that any disagreements are a political question for the executive and legislative branches to work out amongst themselves. In addition, U.S. law distinguishes between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws. These distinctions of procedure and terminology do not affect the binding status of such agreements under international law. Nevertheless, they do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive competence of the states. By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President, while an executive agreement can only cover matters within the President's authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President. While the ratification process for treaties is different from the process for CEA's, which venue is more advantageous for passage depends on the relevant circumstances. In general, arms control agreements are ratified by the treaty mechanism because it is simpler to go through one house of congress than two. At the same time, trade agreements are generally voted on as a CEA because the two-thirds requirement makes it possible for agricultural interests to veto any tariff reduction in the Senate. The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law than many other nations, particularly in Europe. Unlike nations which view international agreements as always superseding national law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independently of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments. The Supreme Court has also ruled in Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979) that the President has the power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty without the consent of Congress or the Senate. The case in question involved President Jimmy Carter's termination of a defense treaty with the Republic of China on Taiwan. The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has nonetheless taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid (what is in violation of the US constitution? anything that the US judiciary claims is), and also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier.

See also


- List of treaties
- [http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp UN Treaty Reference Guide] Category:International law ja:条約 simple:Treaty

Signature

.]] A signature is a handwritten (and sometimes stylized) depiction of someone's name (or some other identifying mark) that the person writes on documents as a proof of identity and will. It acts as a seal. The traditional function of a signature is evidential: it is to give evidence of (a) the provenance of the document (identity); and (b) the intention (will) of an individual with regard to that document. For example, the role of a signature in many consumer contracts is not to provide evidence of the identity of the contracting party, but rather to provide evidence of deliberation and informed consent. Signatures may be witnessed and recorded in the presence of a Notary Public to carry additional legal force. There are many other terms which are synonymous with 'signature'. One is 'John Hancock', named after the first of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. A signature of a famous person is sometimes known as an 'autograph', and is typically written on its own or with a brief note to the recipient, rather than providing authentication for a document. Special signature machines exist that are capable of automatically reproducing an individual's signature. These are typically used by people required to sign many documents, for example celebrities, heads of state or CEOs. Several cultures whose languages use writing systems other than alphabets do not share the Western notion of signatures per se, in that the "signing" of one's name results in a written product no different than the act of "writing" one's name in the standard way. To write or to sign involves the same written characters. Two examples including Chinese and Japanese; in Japanese culture, people typically use name-seals or inkan with the name written in tensho script (seal script) (also see Calligraphy). A user of e-mail and newsgroups can set custom text known as a signature block to be automatically appended to his messages. This text usually includes a name, contact info, and sometimes quotes and ASCII art; some web sites also allow graphics to be used. These are not related to electronic signatures or digital signatures. The sheet of paper that travels through a printing press which is later cut into separate pages is also referred to as a signature.

See also


- Images of signatures Category:Authentication methods Category:Personal identification Category:Writing ja:署名

President

President is a title held by many leaders of organizations, companies, universities, and countries. Etymologically, a "president" is one who presides, who sits in leadership (from Latin prae- "before" + sedere "to sit"). Originally, the term usually referred to the presiding officer of a ceremony or meeting (i.e. chairman); but today it most commonly refers to an official with executive powers. Among other things, President is today a common title for the head of state of a republic, whether popularly elected, chosen by the legislature or a special electoral college. It is also often adopted by dictators. The bulk of this article is dedicated to this usage by heads of state. For more on other kinds of presidents, see Non-Governmental Presidents, below. For more on the usage of term "president", see President (history of the term). President (history of the term) (1789-1797)]]

History

Though there had been several republican countries in the past, it was the United States of America which popularized the position of President when the post was created as the new republic's Head of State (and Head of Government) in 1789. As South America became independent from Spanish rule, so too did these new republics adopt the title of "President" for their leaders, creating constitutions purposely similar to that of the US. The first European president was the President of France, a post created in the Second Republic of 1848. (The First Republic had harkened back to the ancient Roman Republic by appointing several consuls at its head.) The first Asian president was Emilio Aguinaldo the President of the 1st Republic of the Philippines (1898) though the first Asian President recognized internationally was the President of the Republic of China (1912), and the first African President was the President of Liberia created in 1848. Today, the majority of countries have a President as their Head of State.

Presidents in democratic countries and international organizations

Presidential systems

In states with what is called a Presidential system of government, the President is also the head of government, as well as the head of state. Countries with such a system include the United States and most nations in Latin America. In this system the office of President is very powerful, both in practice and theory. In the United States, the President is indirectly elected by the U.S. Electoral College made up of electors chosen by voters in the presidential election. In most U.S. states, each elector is committed to voting for a specified candidate determined by the popular vote in each state, so that the people, in voting for each elector, is in effect voting for the candidate. However, in several close U.S. elections (notably 1876, 1888, 2000), while one candidate received the most popular votes, another candidate managed to win more electoral votes in the Electoral College and so won the presidency.

Parliamentary systems

2000 (1950-1962)]] Other states have what is called a Parliamentary system of government, in which the President is only head of state, and the Prime Minister is the head of government. Countries with such systems include Finland, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy and Singapore, as well as Portugal (which has a very similar system but slightly different from the aforementioned). Under such a system, executive authority is often vested in the president, with the Government governing in his or her name, producing phrases such as "His/Her Excellency's Government" in some formal state documentation. However a president may also possess some reserve powers or powers which can be exercised by the President without formal advice (ie, binding instruction) from 'His' or 'Her' Governnment. Usually in parliamentary systems, the president's role is primarily ceremonial. However, due to the combination of constitutionally established "reserve powers," protocol (which may require them to formally chair cabinet meetings and/or have access to all cabinet memoranda), and his or her role as the person in whose name executive authority is vested, often gives the president a degree of informal influence not often publicly realised. An example of this influence is the following: between 1870 and 1940, and again from 1945 to 1958, France operated a classic parliamentary system of government, with power in a cabinet chosen by the National Assembly, and a largely though not totally symbolic president; in 1877, President Mac-Mahon showed that his office was constitutionally significant when he dismissed the then prime minister before calling new elections, in the hope of achieving a royalist majority to restore the monarchy (the plan failed).

"President of Government" in parliamentary systems

Mac-Mahon (1982-1996)]] Some countries with parliamentary systems use the term 'president' in connection with the head of parliamentary government, often as President of the Government, President of the Council of Ministers or President of the Executive Council. However, such an official is explicitly not the president of the country. Rather, he or she is called a president in an older sense of the word to denote the fact that he or she heads the cabinet. A separate head of state generally exists in their country that instead serves as the president or monarch of the country. Thus, such leaders are really premiers, and to avoid confusion are often described simply as 'prime minister' when being mentioned internationally. There are several examples for this kind of presidency:
- Under the French Third and the Fourth Republics, the "President of the Council" (of ministers) was the head of government, with the President of the Republic a largely symbolic figurehead.
- The prime minister of the Irish Free State from 1922 to 1937 was titled President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State. At the same time, the Irish Free State was a kingdom with a reigning monarch, the King of Ireland, as well as a resident Governor-General carrying out many head of state functions.
- The Prime Minister of Spain is officially referred to as the President of the Government of Spain, and informally known as the "President". Spain is also a kingdom with a reigning King of Spain.
- The official title of the Prime Minister of Serbia is President of the Government, while the country has a President of Serbia.

Semi-presidential systems

President of Serbia (1958-1969), wearing the Legion of Honour as grand-master of the order.]] A third system is the semi-presidential system, also known as the French system, in which like the Parliamentary system there is both a President and a Prime Minister, but unlike the Parliamentary system the President may have significant day-to-day power. When his party controls the majority of seats in the National Assembly the president can operate closely with the parliament and prime minister, and work towards a common agenda. When the National Assembly is controlled by opponents of the President however, the president can find himself marginalized with the opposition party prime minister exercising most of the power. Though the prime minister remains an appointee of the president, the president must obey the rules of parliament, and select a leader from the house's majority holding party. Thus, sometimes the president and PM can be allies, sometimes bitter rivals. This situation is known as cohabitation. The French semi-presidential system, which can be considered a hybrid between the first two, was developed at the beginning of the Fifth Republic by Charles de Gaulle. It is used (of course) in France, Russia, Sri Lanka , and several other post-colonial countries which have emulated the French model.

Collective Presidency

Only a tiny minority of modern republics do not have a head of state; examples include:
- Switzerland, where the headship of state is collectively vested in the seven-member Swiss Federal Council despite the fact the system includes a President of the Confederation. The President is a member of the Federal Council elected by the Swiss Federal Assembly (the Swiss Parliament) for a year; and the President is merely primus inter pares (first among equals). Nevertheless, on the international stage he or she is treated as head of state. Letters of Credence appointing ambassadors are formally addressed to him or her by other heads of state.
- Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has a three-member Presidency, each of which are elected by a different constituent nation. The position of the President of the Presidency rotates between the three members.
- San Marino, which has two Captains Regent elected by the Great and General Council.
- The European Union is governed in part by the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, a rotating post held by the member states of the European Union. In the past this has been one individual state presiding for a six-month period; as of 2007 it will be three states sharing the presidency during their overlapping 18-month terms. There is also a President of the European Commission.

Presidents in dictatorships

In dictatorships, the title is frequently taken by self-appointed and/or military-backed leaders. Such is the case in many African states; Idi Amin in Uganda, for example. Sometimes the title is even extended into the more presumptuous form of "president for life." In some communist states, the head of the Communist party was also given the presidency, such as Fidel Castro in Cuba and Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. On other occasions in the Soviet Union, the real power was exercised by the General Secretary of the Communist Party, with some local notable holding the presidency. Soviet Union of Yugoslavia.]] President for Life is a title assumed by some dictators to ensure that their authority or legitimacy is never questioned. The first well-known incident of a leader extending his term indefinitely was Roman dictator Julius Caesar, who made himself "Perpetual Dictator" (commonly mistranslated as 'Dictator-for-life') in 45 BC. His actions would later be mimicked by the French leader Napoleon Bonaparte who was appointed "First Consul for life" in 1802. Ironically, most leaders who proclaim themselves President for Life do not in fact successfully serve a life term. Even so presidents like Alexandre Sabès dit Pétion, Rafael Carrera, Josip Broz Tito and François Duvalier died in office. The only living officially proclaimed president for life is Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan. Many of them do not proclaim it officially "for life" even if it is evident that they are, like Fidel Castro of Cuba, or Ceausescu of Romania, who ruled until his execution (q.v. Romanian revolution Several presidents have ruled until their death in democratic countries, but they have not actually been made and/or proclaimed themselves as President for Life. For instance, Archbishop President Makarios became president of Cyprus late in his life (in 1960) and ruled until his death in 1977, having successfully won re-election several times.

Presidential symbols

As the country's head of state, in most countries the president is entitled to certain symbolic honors, as well as luxury perks that come with the office. For example, most of the world's presidents have a special residence; often a lavish mansion or palace. The President of the United States for example resides in the famous White House. As well as an official residence, in some nations the Presidency brings with it certain symbols of office, such as an official uniform, decorations, or other accessories. Perhaps the most common presidential symbol are the presidential sashes worn by the presidents of Latin America. In these countries, the sash is a symbol of the presidency's continuity, and presenting the sash to the new president is a key part of the inauguration ceremony.

Presidential chronologies


- Albania
- Algeria
- Angola
- Argentina
- Austria
- Bangladesh
- Benin
- Bolivia
- Botswana
- Brazil
- Burkina Faso
- Burundi
- Cameroon
- Cape Verde
- Central African Republic
- Chad
- Chile
- Colombia
- Comoros
- Costa Rica
- Côte d'Ivoire
- Croatia
- Czech Republic
- Dominican Republic
- Ecuador
- Ethiopia
- Fiji
- Finland
- France
- Gabon
- Gambia
- Germany
- Ghana
- Greece
- Guatemala
- Guinea
- Guinea-Bissau
- Guyana
- Haiti
- Honduras
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Iran
- Iraq
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Kenya
- Korea, North
- Korea, South
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Liberia
- Lithuania
- Mexico
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Nigeria
- North Yemen
- Pakistan
- Panama
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Romania
- Russia
- Serbia
- Singapore
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Somalia
- Somaliland
- South Africa
- South Yemen
- Sri Lanka
- Switzerland
- Tajikistan
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Turkey
- Uganda
- Ukraine
- United States
- Uruguay
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
- Yemen
- Zambia
- Zimbabwe

- European Commission
- Leaders of post-Soviet independent states

Specific information


- President of Argentina
- President of Austria
- President of the Republic of China
- President of the People's Republic of China
- President of Fiji
- President of France
- President of Germany
- President of India
- President of Ireland
- President of Israel
- President of Malta
- President of Mexico
- President of Pakistan
- President of the Philippines
- President of the Republic of Poland
- President of Serbia
- President of Serbia and Montenegro
- President of Switzerland
- President of Trinidad and Tobago
- President of the United States

Additional reading

The powers, functions and functioning of presidents were reviewed by six international experts for Australia's Republic Advisory Committee in 1993. Reports by among others Professor Klaus Von Beyme (on Germany), A.G Noorani (on India), Jim Duffy (on Ireland) and Sir Ellis Clarke (on Trinidad and Tobago) outline the role of various presidencies. The full report is called An Australian Republic: The Options - The Appendices (ISBN 0644325895)

Non-governmental presidents

President is also used as a title in some non-governmental organizations. The head of a university or non-profit corporation, particularly in the United States of America, is often known as president. President is also a title in many corporations. In some cases the president acts as chief operating officer under the direction of the chief executive officer. In British constitutional practice, the chairman of an Executive Council, acting in such a capacity, is known as a President of the Executive Council. Usually this person is the Governor but is not always so. In university systems with multiple independent campuses, the relationship between the roles of president and chancellor can become quite complicated. See chancellor. Many other organizations, clubs, and committees, both political and non-political are led by Presidents as well. Examples can vary from the President of a political party, to the president of a chamber of commerce, to the President of a students' union and even the president of a high school chess club. In French legal terminology, the president of a court consisting of multiple judges is the foremost judge; he chairs the meeting of the court and directs the debates (and this thus addressed as "Mr President", Monsieur le Président, or appropriate feminine forms). In general, a court comprises several chambers, each with its own president; thus the most senior of these is called the "first president" (as in: "the First President of the Court of Cassation is the most senior judge in France").

See also


- List of democracy and elections-related topics
- CEOs of major corporations
- Head of state
- Governor-General
- Monarch
- Prime Minister
- List of national leaders
- Heads of state timeline
- Federal World Government
- President Category:Management occupations President Category:Titles zh-min-nan:Chóng-thóng ko:대통령 ja:大統領 simple:President th:ประธานาธิบดี

Bill Clinton

William "Bill" Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe, III on August 19, 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. Clinton served five terms as the Governor of Arkansas. His wife, former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, is currently the junior U.S. Senator from New York. Generally regarded as a moderate populist, and a member of the moderate New Democrat wing of the Democratic Party, he headed the centrist Democratic Leadership Council in 1990 and 1991. During his tenure as president, his domestic priorities included efforts to create a universal healthcare system, upgrade education, to restrict handgun sales, to strengthen environmental regulations, to improve race relations, and to protect the jobs of workers during pregnancy or medical emergency. His domestic agenda also included more conservative themes such as reforming welfare programs, expanding the "War on Drugs", and increasing law enforcement funding. Internationally, his priorities included reducing trade barriers, preventing nuclear proliferation, and mediating the Northern Ireland peace process and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Clinton was the third-youngest president, behind Theodore Roosevelt (the youngest president) and John F. Kennedy (the youngest to be elected president). He was the first baby boomer president.

Early Life

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe, III in tiny Hope, Arkansas and raised in Hot Springs, Arkansas. He was named after his father, William Jefferson Blythe, Jr., a travelling salesman who had been killed in a car accident in Scott County, Missouri between the towns of Sikeston and Morley three months before his son was born. His mother, born Virginia Dell Cassidy (1923–1994), remarried in 1950 to Roger Clinton. Billy, as he was called, was raised by his mother and stepfather, assuming his last name "Clinton" throughout elementary school, but not formally changing it until he was 14. Clinton grew up in a traditional, albeit blended, family; however, according to Clinton, his stepfather was a gambler and an alcoholic who regularly abused Clinton's mother, and sometimes Clinton's half-brother Roger, Jr.. Clinton was an excellent student and talented saxophonist. He even thought of dedicating his life to music, but a visit to the White House of President John F. Kennedy following his election as a Boys' Nation Senator led him to pursue a career in politics.

Arkansas political career and education

Clinton received a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service (B.S.F.S.) degree from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington DC, where he became a brother of Alpha Phi Omega, worked for Senator J. William Fulbright, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and won a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford (at the University College, Oxford) in England. After attending Oxford, Clinton obtained a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Yale Law School. While at Yale, he met a classmate who would eventually be his future wife, Hillary Rodham; the couple married in 1975. 1975 In 1974, his first year as a University of Arkansas law professor, Clinton ran for the House of Representatives. The incumbent, John Paul Hammerschmidt, defeated Clinton with 52% of the vote. In 1976, Clinton was elected Attorney General of Arkansas without opposition in the general election. In 1978, Bill Clinton was first elected governor of the state of Arkansas, the youngest to be elected governor since 1938. His first term was fraught with difficulties, including an unpopular motor vehicle tax and popular anger over the escape of Cuban prisoners (from the Mariel boatlift) detained in Fort Chafee in 1980. In the 1980 election, Clinton was defeated in his bid for a second term by Republican challenger Frank D. White, becoming a victim of the Reagan Republican landslide. As he once joked, he was the youngest ex-governor in the nation's history. But in 1982, Clinton won his old job back, and over the next decade helped Arkansas to transform its economy. He became a leading figure among the so-called New Democrats, who called for welfare reform, smaller government, and other Reagan-like ideas. Clinton's approach mollified conservative criticism during his terms as governor. However, one or two personal transactions made by the Clintons during this period became the basis of the Whitewater investigation, which dogged his later presidential administration. After very extensive investigation over several years no indictments or charges of any kind were made against either of the Clintons in respect of matters that took place in their Arkansas years..

Presidency

Whitewater

Presidential campaign

Clinton's first foray into national politics occurred when he was enlisted to speak at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, introducing candidate Michael Dukakis. Clinton's address, scheduled to last 15 minutes, became a debacle as Clinton gave a notoriously long and uninspiring speech that lasted over half an hour [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/15/potus.speech/]. Four years later, Clinton prepared for a run in 1992 against incumbent President George H. W. Bush. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Bush seemed unbeatable, and several potential Democratic candidates — notably New York Governor Mario Cuomo — passed on what seemed to be a lost cause. Clinton won the Democratic Party's nomination. Clinton chose U.S. Senator Albert A. Gore Jr. (D-Tennessee) to be his running mate on July 9, 1992. Initially this decision sparked criticism from strategists due to the fact that Gore was from Clinton's neighboring state of Tennessee which would go against the popular strategy of balancing a Southern candidate with a Northern partner. In retrospect, many now view Gore as a helpful factor in the 1992 campaign. Many character issues were raised during the campaign, including allegations that Clinton had dodged the draft during the Vietnam War, and had used marijuana, which Clinton claimed he had smoked, but "didn't inhale". Allegations of extramarital affairs and shady business deals were also raised. While typically these types of allegations would have resulted in a candidate withdrawing from the race, Clinton displayed the resiliency in the face of scandal that would later be pivotal in his presidency. As the candidate with the most money and the best-articulated campaign strategy — creating more jobs — Clinton was able to stay in the race the longest, fending off all rivals long before the Democratic convention. [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/campaign.96/index2.html] Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.01% of the vote) against Republican George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote), largely on a platform focusing on domestic issues; a large part of his success was due to George H.W. Bush's steep decline in public approval. Previously described as "unbeatable" due to his approval ratings in the 80 percent range during the Persian Gulf conflict, Bush's public approval rating dropped to just over 40% by election time. Three factors made this possible. First, the campaign came in the midst of the recession of 1992. While in historical terms the recession was mild and actually ended before the election, the resulting job loss (especially among middle managers not yet accustomed to white collar downsizing) fueled strong discontent with Bush, who was successfully portrayed as aloof, out of touch, and overly focused on foreign affairs. Highly telegenic, Clinton was perceived as sympathetic, concerned, and more in touch with ordinary families. Second was the decision by Bush to accept a tax increase. Pressured by rising budget deficits, increased demand for entitlement spending and reduced tax revenues (each a consequence of the recession) Bush agreed to a budget compromise with Congress (where rival Democrats held the majority). Not having been in Congress at the time, Clinton was able to effectivley condemn the tax increase on both its own merits and as a reflection of Bush's honesty. Effective Democratic TV ads were aired showing a clip of Bush's infamous 1988 campaign speech in which he promised "Read my lips ... No new taxes." Finally, Bush's coalition was in disarray. Ross Perot's independent campaign played to moderates' concerns about the budget deficit, siphoning crucial swing votes from Bush. Meanwhile, conservative voters — especially social conservatives-- lacked confidence in Bush, an avowed moderate. Previously, conservatives had been united by anti-communism; with the end of the Cold War, old rivalries re-emerged. Meanwhile, despite a fractious and ideologically diverse party, Clinton was able to successfully court all wings of the Democratic party, even where they conflicted. To garner the support of moderates and conservative Democrats, he cannily attacked Sista Souljah, a rap musician whose lyrics Clinton condemned. Clinton could also point to his moderate, New Democrat record as Governor of Arkansas. More liberal Democrats were impressed by Clinton's academic credentials, 60's-era protest record, and support for social causes such as a woman's right to abortion. Supporters remained energized and confident, even in times of scandal or missteps.

Significant events

Clinton was the first Democrat to serve two full terms as president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. His election ended an era in which the Republican party had controlled the White House for 12 consecutive years, and for 20 of the previous 24 years. That election also brought the Democrats full control of the political branches of the federal government, including both houses of U.S. Congress as well as the presidency, for the first time since the administration of the last Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. Clinton's first act as president was to sign executive order 12834 (entitled "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees"), which placed substantial restrictions upon the ability of his senior political appointees to lobby their colleagues after they leave office. Clinton rescinded the order shortly before he left office in executive order 13184 of December 28, 2000. 2000 Shortly after taking office, Clinton fulfilled a campaign promise by signing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which required large employers to allow their employees to take unpaid leave because of pregnancy or serious medical condition. While this action was popular, Clinton's initial reluctance to fulfill another campaign promise relating to the acceptance of openly homosexual members of the military garnered criticism from both the left (for being too tentative in promoting gay rights) and the right (for being too insensitive to military life). After much debate, Clinton implemented the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which remains official military policy. The most important item on Clinton's legislative agenda, however, was a complex health care reform plan, the result of a taskforce headed by Hillary Clinton, aimed at achieving universal coverage. Though initially well-received, it was ultimately doomed by well-organized opposition from conservatives and the health insurance industry. It was the first major legislative defeat of Clinton's administration. After two years of Democratic party control under Clinton's leadership, the mid-term elections in 1994 proved disastrous for the Democrats. They lost control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years, in large part due to stalled legislation, including the failed attempt to create a comprehensive health care system. mid-term elections in 1994 during the Oslo Accords on September 13, 1993.]] After the 1994 election, the spotlight shifted to the Contract with America spearheaded by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. The Republican-controlled Congress and Clinton sparred over the budget. The inability of Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress to come to an agreement resulted in the longest government shutdown to date. In the 1996 presidential election, Clinton was re-elected receiving 49.2% of the popular vote over Republican Bob Dole (40.7% of the popular vote) and Reform candidate Ross Perot (8.4% of the popular vote), while the Republicans retained control of the Congress losing but a few seats. Clinton developed a close working relationship with Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, when he was elected in 1997. In 1998, as a result of perjury regarding his personal indiscretions with a young female White House intern (Monica Lewinsky), Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He was tried in the Senate and found not guilty of the charges brought against him. Clinton initially denied having any improper relationship with Lewinsky, but later admitted that in fact an improper relationship with Lewinsky had taken place. He apologized to the nation for his actions, agreed to pay a $500,000.00 court fine, settled his sexual harrasment lawsuit with Paula Jones for $800,000.00 and was disbarred from practicing law. In 1999, through Clinton's and the Congress's efforts, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969. He took a personal interest in The Troubles in Northern Ireland and paid three visits there while he was president in order to encourage peace. His involvement was an important element in the peace process which set in motion the disarmament of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) on October 23, 2001. In 2002, a UPI story stated that documents discovered in Afghanistan showed that al-Qaeda may have plotted to assassinate Clinton toward the end of his term.[http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=04022002-082828-8434r]

Legislation and programs

Major legislation signed


- February 5, 1993 - The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
- August 10, 1993 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Raised income tax rates; income tax, top rate: 39.6%; corporate tax: 35%
- September 21, 1993 - creation of the AmeriCorps volunteer program
- November 30, 1993 - Brady Bill
- September 13, 1994 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, part of an omnibus crime bill, the federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses (see Federal assault weapons ban)
- 1995 - Executive Order 12958, created tough new standards for the process of classifying documents.
- February 1, 1996 - Communications Decency Act
- February 8, 1996 - Telecom Reform Act: eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups.
- February 26, 1996 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a welfare reform bill
- March 14, 1996 - authorized $100 million anti-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists.
- April 9, 1996 - Line Item Veto Act
- April 24, 1996 - Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
- August 20, 1996 - Minimum wage Increase Act
- September 21, 1996 - Defense of Marriage Act, allowed states the power to refuse to recognize gay marriages granted in other states, among other things
- August 5, 1997 - Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
- October 28, 1998 - Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- October 31, 1998 - Iraq Liberation Act

Major legislation vetoed


- national budget
- H.R. 1833, partial birth abortion ban
- Twice vetoed welfare reform before signing
- the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Congress overrode the veto, however, to enact the bill into law.

Proposals not passed by Congress


- Health care reform
- Campaign finance reform (1993)

Initiatives


- Appointed a committee on Social Security Reform and then dismissed their recommendations without ever proposing legislation.
- Tried to get Ehud Barak of Israel and Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian National Authority, to agree to a final settlement agreement.
- Initiated the Don't ask, don't tell policy toward gays in the military, 1993.
- Reversed a ban on senior Sinn Féin politicians entering the U.S.
- Proposed a national challenge to end the racial divide in America, the One America Initiative.
- Extraordinary rendition, or "torture by proxy" got approval for the first time in the USA from the Clinton administration.

Cabinet

Extraordinary rendition

Supreme Court appointments

Clinton appointed the following justices to the Supreme Court:
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 1993, making Clinton the first Democratic president to appoint a female supreme court justice.
- Stephen Breyer - 1994

The economy

During Clinton's tenure, the U.S. enjoyed continuous economic expansion, reductions in unemployment, and growing wealth through a massive rise in the stock market. The economic boom ended shortly before his term ended, possibly indicative of a stock market bubble; Although the reasons for the expansion are continually debated, Clinton proudly pointed to a number of economic accomplishments, including:
- More than 22 million new jobs
- Homeownership rate increase from 64.0% to 67.5%
- Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years
- Higher incomes at all levels
- Largest budget deficit in American history converted to the largest surplus of over $200 billion
- Lowest government spending as a percentage of GDP since 1974 [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/guide04.html]
- Higher stock ownership by families than ever before The reasons for this growth are hotly debated, but Clinton supporters cite his 1993 tax increase as the reason that eventually led to the reduction in the annual budget deficits every year of his tenure. These deficit reductions stimulated consumption and consumer spending, and strengthening the dollar, which encouraged foreign investment in the United States economy. Alan Greenspan supported the 1993 tax increase, which was approved by Congress without a single Republican vote [http://www.dickinson.edu/~rudaleva/greenspan.htm]. His critics credit Alan Greenspan, the Republican Congress' 1995 spending cuts, the Contract with America initiatives, and Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut.[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_25/b3888032_mz011.htm] Critics also point to the fact that the economic recovery had already begun before Bill Clinton took office. Some further contend that the 1993 tax increase actually hurt the economy and that the negative impact of that tax increase was stymied by reduced interest rates during the same period. Additionally, Republicans point to the fact that the recovery did not pick up momentum until 1995 and 1996, after the GOP took over Congress.

Trade

President Clinton strongly supported the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was negotiated by his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, but it was passed by the United States Congress in 1993, after Clinton and Vice President Gore lobbied heavily for it. The Clinton administration used the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights thirteen times and prevailed in the WTO thirteen times ([http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/07/20050725_b_main.asp] audio 12:40-16:30).

Foreign policy

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Clinton deployed the U.S. military several times under hostile circumstances. In 1993, U.S. troops, initially deployed to Somalia by the Bush administration, fought the Battle of Mogadishu which attempted to capture local warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The administration withdrew U.S. troops after suffering 18 casualties (19 according to the show Black Hawk Down) and 73 wounded in the battle. In 1994, Clinton sent U.S. troops into Haiti to restore Jean-Bertrand Aristide as president, ending a period of intense violence. Aristide, who had been elected, had been ousted in a coup just seven months into his term in 1991. Clinton also committed troops twice in the former-Yugoslavia to stop ethnic violence, most notably in Kosovo. In addition, Clinton launched military strikes on Iraq several times to punish violations of UN sanctions and an attempt to have former President George H. W. Bush assassinated. Clinton did not intervene militarily to end the Rwandan genocide, a decision he later regarded as a "personal failure".[http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/07/23/clinton.rwanda.reut/] In 1994, Clinton negotiated and signed the Nuclear Accords with North Korea. The underlying concern was that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons technology under the guise of a nuclear power plant. In exchange for assistance with energy needs, North Korea agreed to abandon all ambitions for acquiring nuclear weapons. However, by the mid 1990s defectors from North Korea, along with reports from the IAEA, indicated that North Korea was violating both the Nuclear Accords and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In December 2002, North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors from its Yongbyon nuclear facility, and announced (privately in 2003 and publicly in 2005), that they possessed nuclear weapons. In November, 1995, Clinton committed troops to the Balkans saying the mission would be “precisely defined with clear realistic goals” that could be achieved in a “definite period of time." Clinton assured Americans the mission would take about one year. In October 1996, shortly before Clinton's reelection, the Clinton Administration denied any change in the plans to withdraw troops in December, 1996. However, shortly after reelection, Clinton announced troops would stay longer. Troops ultimately stayed in Bosnia for nine years. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176728,00.html] On February 17, 1998, Clinton gave a speech signaling the danger of rogue nations providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations with global reach. Clinton specifically pointed to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.[http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/] In August 1998 UN weapons inspectors left Iraq, leading to Operation Desert Fox in December. During Clinton's tenure, Al-Qaeda began to emerge as a major terrorist threat. In 1998, the group bombed the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In retaliation, Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach, which involved cruise missile strikes on terrorist camps in Kandahar, Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons facility in Khartoum, Sudan that was believed to be tied to bin Laden. [http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/] Clinton also gave orders authorizing the arrest or, if need be, assassination of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. At the end of his term, in late 2000, the terrorists struck again with the USS Cole bombing. By this time, Clinton has stated he regarded Al-Qaeda as the foremost threat to national security. [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0320-07.htm] In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the independent investigating commission was critical of Clinton for focusing more on diplomatic than military means to eliminate the bin Laden threat.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18972-2004Mar23.html] Some critics argue that the American attacks in Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and Afghanistan violated international law. [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/ClintonWarCriminal_Herman.html], [http://agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990607clintoncriminal.php], [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14713] After his presidency, Clinton identified his proudest foreign policy accomplishments as mediating peace talks between Israel and the PLO, resulting in the Oslo Accords (1993). Subsequent events, including the collapse of the 2000 Camp David Summit and the commencement of the al-Aqsa Intifada, resulted in the Oslo Accords being widely discredited within Israel and in various Palestinian factions by 2004. Clinton identified his major foreign policy failure as lack of response to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Along with the United Nations, the Clinton administration initially did not publicly acknowledge that genocide was occurring.

Impeachment and other scandals

Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. Later he was acquitted by the Senate of perjury and obstruction of justice in an impeachment trial. He joined Andrew Johnson as the only other impeached president. Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment. A lawsuit brought by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones in 1994 alleging sexual harassment on the part of then Arkansas Governor Clinton eventually led to Clinton being impeached as President of the United States on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on four counts. The charges were perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice arising from the Lewinsky testimony before a federal Grand Jury and a federal judge hearing the Jones case. The House passed two of the four counts. The Senate acquitted Clinton on both counts in a trial concluding on February 12 1999. The day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/9/181815.shtml][http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2001/111301pzor.html] Clinton's resignation was mostly symbolic and will have little practical effect. He has never practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to in the future. Clinton also was assessed a $90,000 fine by federal judge Susan Webber Wright for contempt of court. The Paula Jones lawsuit was settled out of court for $850,000. In addition to impeachment and the Whitewater scandal, the Clinton White House was the subject of many lesser scandals. Travelgate refers to the firing of White House travel office civil service staffers. Filegate refers to the request for access to FBI files on White House personnel, without asking for the individuals' permission. Chinagate involved Democrats allegedly accepting improper campaign contributions; supposedly the ultimate source of this money was the Chinese government. Pardongate refers to a grant of clemency to FALN bombers in 1999 and pardons to his brother, tax-evading billionaire Marc Rich and others in 2001 (see List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton). In March, 1998 Kathleen Willey, a White House aide, alleged that Clinton had sexually assaulted her. Also in 1998, Juanita Broaddrick alleged that Clinton had raped her in 1978. No charges were filed in either case. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy was acquitted on each of 30 charges of illegally accepting gifts such as sports tickets, lodging, and transportation from companies regulated by his department in exchange for favors. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/counsels/stories/espy120498.htm] HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of lying to the FBI about the amount of money he gave his mistress, political fundraiser Linda Medlar. Medlar plead guilty to 28 counts related to the investigation. Both Medlar and Cisneros were pardoned by Clinton. Webster Hubbell, appointed by then Governor Clinton as chief justice of the Arkansas State Supreme Court, and later by President Clinton as associate Attorney General of the United States, plead guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges in connection with his handling of billing at the Rose Law Firm where he worked with Hillary Clinton.

Timeline


- November 3 1992 - Clinton is elected, defeating Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush and billionaire businessman H. Ross Perot.
- January 20 1993 - First inauguration.
- February 26, 1993 - World Trade Center terrorist attack. The World Trade Center bombing killed 6 and injured over 1,000 people.
- April 19, 1993 - A government siege of the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas, results in the deaths of 80 people when a cult leader allegedly sets fire to his own compound. Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno receive criticism for mishandling the stand-off.
- July 20, 1993 - Clinton friend and confidant Vince Foster is found dead of a gunshot wound; later determined to be suicide.
- September 13 1993 - Clinton brings together Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn.
- October 3, 1993 - Battle of Mogadishu - Ranger Units receive heavy casualties in Somalia (the Black Hawk Down incident).
- January 14, 1994 - Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin sign the Kremlin accords which stop the preprogrammed aiming of nuclear missiles to targets and also provide for the dismantling of the nuclear arsenal in Ukraine.
- November 8 1994 - Republicans elected to majorities in both houses of Congress.
- April 19, 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing - Terrorist bombing of federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma results in the deaths of 168 people, 19 of whom were children.
- November 14, 1995 - Budget negotiations between Congress and Clinton break down, resulting in a temporary shutdown of the federal government until November 19. A longer shutdown will last from mid-December 1995 until early January 1996.
- November, 1995 - Clinton organizes peace talks for Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, eventually resulting in the Dayton Agreement.
- December, 1995 - Clinton visits Ireland, leading to the establishment of an International Commission chaired by former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell.
- June 25, 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers.
- November 5, 1996 - Clinton is reelected, defeating Republican challenger Bob Dole and Reform Party founder H. Ross Perot.
- January 20 1997 - Second inauguration.
- October, 1997 - Visit by President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin to the White House.
- August, 1998 - Clinton orders cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan to hit Osama Bin Laden and a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan. Republicans cried "wag the dog" as Monica Lewinsky testified before a grand jury about her relationship with Clinton.
- August 17 1998 - Clinton testifies before a grand jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In the evening, he delivers a [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/speech/transcript.html nationally televised address] in which he describes the relationship as "not appropriate" but also "nobody's business." (See Clinton impeachment.)
- December 19 1998 - Clinton is impeached by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice. (See Clinton impeachment.)
- January 7 1999 - The trial of Clinton in the Senate begins. (See Clinton impeachment.)
- February 12 1999 - Clinton is acquitted of all charges by the Senate.
- March 24 to June 10 1999 - NATO bombs Kosovo and Serbia. (See Kosovo War.)
- May 7 1999 - U.S. planes accidentally bomb China's embassy in Belgrade. (See Kosovo War.)
- June 10, 1999 - Serbia hands control of Kosovo to the United Nations. (See Kosovo War.)
- November 1 1999 - Visited Norway to participate in a Memorial sermon in Oslo in respect of the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
- October 5 2000 - The defeat of Slobodan Milošević in earlier elections leads to mass demonstrations in Belgrade and the ultimate collapse of the regime's authority. Opposition leader Vojislav Koštunica takes office as the Yugoslavian president the next day. (See Kosovo War.)
- January 20 2001 - Leaves office at the end of second term.

Public approval

While Clinton's job approval rating varied over the course of his first term, ranging from a low of 36% in 1993, to a high of 64% in 1993 and 1994[http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Clinton], his job approval rating consistently ranged from the high 50s to the high 60s in his second term[http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm], with a high of 73% approval in 1998 and 1999[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/newsid_238000/238677.stm]. A CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll,[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/10/cnn.poll.clinton/] conducted as he was leaving office, revealed deeply contradictory attitudes regarding Clinton. Although his approval rating at 68 percent was higher than any departing president since polling began more than seven decades earlier, only 45 percent said they would miss him. While 55 percent thought he "would have something worthwhile to contribute and should remain active in public life", and 47 percent rated him as either outstanding or above average as a president, 68 percent thought he would be remembered for his "involvement in personal scandal" rather than his accomplishments as president, and 58 percent answered "No" to the question "Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy?" 47% of the respondents identified themselves as being Clinton supporters.

Public image

2001 As the first Baby Boomer president, Clinton was seen during his presidency and during his candidacy as a change from the presidents of the World War II Generation. With his sound-bite-ready dialogue and pioneering use of pop culture in his campaigning (he appeared on The Arsenio Hall Show playing the saxophone during the 1992 campaign), Clinton was described, often negatively, as the "MTV president". Despite criticisms that his appeal to young voters lacked substance, Clinton won among Generation X voters in the 1992 election, with the highest Gen-X turnout ever. Clinton clearly came across as popular to young people. Until his inauguration as president, he had earned substantially less money than his wife, and had the smallest net worth of any president in modern history, according to My Life, Clinton's autobiography. Clinton was also very popular overall among African-Americans and made improving race relations a major theme of his presidency.[http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=122950] Many people saw the couple as an unprecedented political partnership. Some even suspected that Hillary, and not Bill, was the dominant force behind the team, and many jokes implied that Hillary, not Bill, was the real President of the United States. Social conservatives were put off by the impression of Clinton having been a "hippie" during the late 1960s, his coming-of-age era. In the 1960s, however, Clinton might not have been viewed as such by many of those in the hippie subculture. Clinton avoided the draft with a student deferment while studying abroad during the Vietnam War. Clinton's marijuana experimentation, clumsily excused by Clinton's statement that he "didn't inhale" further tarnished his image with some voters, although he was actually to the right of previous Democratic candidates for the presidency on many issues - he supported the death penalty, curfews, uniforms in public schools, and other measures opposed by youth rights supporters, and he expanded the War on Drugs greatly while in office. War on Drugs, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and their wives at the funeral of President Richard Nixon on April 27, 1994.]] Starting from 1992 Presidential election campaign, rumors about Clinton's adultery were