Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel Conclude Press Conference; Discussion of the Press Conference

Aired February 09, 2015 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR (through translator): And these elections are an essential point that will then enable us to say, "Well, maybe now there can be contacts even without a Trilateral Group." And this is after all on the agenda of the many talks that we need to make, but I can very well understand the Ukrainian side, that on the territory that they consider to be part of their territory, and that anything else would violate the territorial integrity, that they want to actually see that elections take place there, and that has also been stated by the President Putin that he wishes to see those elections happening there.

Now, on the NSA issue, I think there are still different assessments on individual issues there, but if we look at the sheer dimension of the terrorist threat, we are more than aware of the fact that we need to work together very closely.

And I, as German chancellor, want to state here very clearly the institutions of the United States of America have provided us and still continue to provide us with a lot of very significant, very important information that also integral (ph) our security, and we don't want to do without this.

There are other possibilities, as with the cyber dialog for example, to continue to talk about the sort of protection of privacy, versus data protection and so on, and security, but this was basically, combating terrorism was basically...

(CROSSTALK)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: With respect to providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, it's important to point out that we have been providing assistance to the Ukrainian military, generally. That's been part of a long-standing relationship between NATO and Ukraine. And our goal has not been for Ukraine to be equipped to carry on offensive operations, but to simply defend itself.

And President Poroshenko has been very clear, he's not interested in escalating violence, he is interested in having his country -- his country's boundaries respected by its neighbor.

So, there's not going to be any specific point at which I say, "ah, you know, clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here." It is our ongoing analysis of what can we do to dissuade Russia from encroaching further and further on Ukrainian territory. Our hope is is that that's done through diplomatic means. And I just want to emphasize here once again for the benefit not just of the American people but for the German people, we are not looking for Russia to fail. We are not looking for Russia to be surrounded and contained and weakened. Our preference is for a strong, prosperous, vibrant, confident Russia that can be a partner with us on a whole host of global challenges. And that's how I operated throughout my first term in office.

Unfortunately, Russia has made a decision that I think is bad for them strategically, and bad for Europe, and bad for the world. And you know, in the face of this aggression and these bad decisions, you know, we can't simply try to talk them out of it.

We have to show them that the world is unified in -- in imposing a cost for this aggression. And that's what we're going to continue to do.

With respect to the NSA, I'll just make this point very briefly. There's no doubt that the Snowden revelations damaged impressions of Germans with respect to the U.S. government and our intelligence cooperation. And what I have done over the last year, year and a half is to systematically work through some of these issues to create greater transparency and to restore confidence, not just for Germans, but for our partners around the world.

And we've taken some unprecedented measures, for example, to ensure that our intelligence agencies treat non-U.S. citizens in -- in ways that are consistent with due process and their privacy concerns: something that I put in a presidential order and has not been ever done not only by our intelligence agencies, but I think by most intelligence agencies around the world.

There are going to still be areas where we've got to work through these issues. We have to internally work through some of these issues because they're complicated: they're difficult.

You know, if -- if we are trying to track a network that is planning to carry out attacks in New York or Berlin or Paris, and they are communicating primarily in cyberspace, and we have the capacity to stop an attack like that, but that requires us then being able to operate within that cyberspace, how do we make sure we are able to do that, carry out those functions, while still meeting our core principles of respecting the privacy of all our people?

And, given Germany's history, I recognize the sensitivities around this issue. What I would ask would be that the German people recognize that the United States has always been on the forefront of trying to promote civil liberties. That we have traditions of due process that we respect. That we have been a consistent partner of yours in the course of the last 70 years and certainly last 25 years in reinforcing the values we share.

And so, occasionally, I would like the German people to give us the benefit of the doubt, given our history, as opposed to assuming the worst, assuming we have been consistently your strong partners and that we share a common set of values. And if we have that fundamental, underlying trust, there are gonna be times where there are disagreements. Both sides may make mistakes and there are gonna be irritants, like there are between friends, but the underlying foundation of the relationship remains sound.

Christi Parsons (ph)?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. The Iran nuclear negotiators have now missed two deadlines. Should the upcoming March deadline for talks be the final one? And what are the circumstances in which you think it would be wise to extend those talks?

Also, sir, some have suggested you are outraged by the Israeli prime minister's decision to address Congress. Is that so? And how would you advise Democrats who are considering a boycott?

OBAMA: First of all, we understood I think from the start when we set up the interim agreement with Iran that it would take some time to work through incredibly complex issues and a huge trust deficit between the United States and Iran -- and the world and Iran -- when it comes to their nuclear program. So I think there was always the assumption that although the interim agreement lasted a certain period of time that we would probably need more time to move forward.

The good news is is that there have been very serious discussions. That time has been well spent. During this period of time, issues have been clarified, gaps have been narrowed, the Iranians have abided by the agreement, so this is not a circumstance in which by talking they've been stalling and meanwhile advancing their program.

To the contrary, what we know is the program has not only been frozen, but with respect to, for example, 20 percent enriched uranium, they've reversed it, and so we're in a better position than we were before the interim program was set up.

Having said all that, the issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified, where we're at a point where they need to make a decision. We are presenting to them in a unified fashion -- the P- 5-plus-1, supported by a coalition of countries around the world, are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

And if, in fact, what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that, in fact, according to their supreme leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. They should be able to get to yes.

But we don't know if that's gonna happen. They have their hard- liners, they have their politics.

And the point I guess is, Christi (ph), at this -- at this juncture, I don't see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that they're not pursuing a nuclear weapon. Now, if -- if the framework for a deal is done, if people have a clear sense of what is required and there's some drafting and t's to cross and i's to dot, that's a different issue.

But my view -- and I presented this to members of Congress -- is that we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical; the issues now are, does Iran have the political will and desire to get a deal done?

And we could not be doing this were it not for the incredible cohesion and unity that's been shown by Germany, by the other members of the P5-plus-1, which I should acknowledge includes Russia. I mean, this is an area where they've actually served a constructive role, and China's served a constructive role, and -- and there has been no cracks in this -- on -- on the P5-plus-1 side of the table, and I think that's a testament to the degree to which we are acting reasonably and trying to actually solve a problem.

With respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu, as I've said before, I talk to him all the time. Our teams constantly coordinate. We have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections.

As much as I love Angela, if she was two weeks away from an election, she probably would not have received an invitation to the White House, and I suspect she wouldn't have asked for one.

So, you know... (LAUGHTER) ... the ... (LAUGHTER) So, you know, this is just -- you know, some of this just has to do with how we do business, and I -- I -- I think it's important for us to maintain these -- these -- these protocols, because the U.S.- Israeli relationship is not about a particular party. This isn't a relationship founded on affinity between the Labor Party and the Democratic Party or the Likud and the Republican Party. This is the U.S.-Israeli relationship that extends beyond parties and has to do with that unbreakable bond that we feel and -- and our commitment to Israel's security and the shared values that we have.

And the way to preserve that is to make sure that it doesn't get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. Whether that's accurate or not, that is a potential perception, and that's something we have to guard against.

Now, I don't want to be coy. The prime minister and I have a very real difference around Iran -- Iran's sanctions.

I have been very clear -- and Angela agrees with me, and David Cameron agrees with me, and the others who are a member of the negotiations agree that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they're about to be completed and we should play that out. If, in fact, we can get a deal, then we should embrace that.

If we can't get a deal, then we'll have to make a set of decisions and, as I've said to Congress, I'll be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against Iran. But what's the rush? Unless your view is that it's not possible to get a deal with Iran and it shouldn't even be tested. And that, I cannot agree with, because as the president of the United States, I'm looking at what the options are if we don't get a diplomatic resolution. And those options are narrow, and they're not attractive.

And from the perspective of U.S. interest -- and I believe from the perspective of Israel's interest, although I can't speak for, obviously, the Israeli government -- it is far better if we can get a diplomatic solution.

So there are real differences substantively, but that's separate and apart from the whole issue of Mr. Netanyahu coming to Washington.

All right?

QUESTION (through translator): Mr. (inaudible) please.

Ms. Merkel, you just said the question is what will be effective in the Ukrainian crisis, and diplomacy, as you said yourself, has not really made all the -- has not really brought about that much of a progress. Can you understand the impatience of the Americans when they say "we ought to now deliver weapons?"

And what makes you feel confident that diplomacy will carry the day in the next few days and weeks?

And on Greece, obviously, I also have to ask you what is your comment on the most recent comments of the Greek prime minister, who says "Let's end those programs, and I'm going to stand by the promises I made you in the election campaign?"

How do you envisage the further cooperation with the Greek government?

And to you, Mr. President, I address the question, there's quite a lot of pressure by members of your government who say weapons should be delivered to the Ukrainians.

Now, you yourself have said you want to ratchet up the cost that Putin has to bear and then make him relent and give in, maybe, and you said all options have to be on the table. So apparently also weapons. So, what makes you so sure that these weapons will not only go into the hands of the regular Ukrainian army, but will then also perhaps get into the hands of separatists, of militias on the Ukrainian side who are accused by Amnesty International and other NGOs of having violated human rights? Thank you.

MERKEL (through translator): Whenever you have political conflicts, such as the one that we have now between Russia and Ukraine, but also in many other conflicts around the world, it has always proved to be right to try again and again to sort such a conflict.

We've spoken at some length about the Iranian conflict. Here, too, we are expected to try, time and again, there's always a point where you say well every -- all of the options are on the table. We've gone back and forth. But then one has to think again, looking just at the Middle East conflict, for example, how many people have tried to bring about a solution to this conflict, and have (inaudible) every time, and I'm going to participate and support it every time because I think every time it has been well worth the effort.

Now, when you have a situation now where every night you see people dying, you see civilian casualties, you see the -- the dire conditions under which people live, it is our -- it is incumbent upon us as politicians, we owe it to the people to explore every avenue until somebody gives in.

But we've grown up under conditions, I have to point this again, where we have said nobody would have dreamt of German unity. The people who have said in West Germany, "remember," they've said, "well, should we keep up a citizenship of Germany for the GDR?" They've been criticized by people who've -- as some who harbor revanchist ideas.

And then think of President Reagan, when he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," standing in front of the (inaudible), many people said at the time, "how can you possibly say that?" But it was right. We have no guarantee. I cannot give you a guarantee for the outcome of the Wednesday talks or further talks, and maybe nothing will come out of it, but then we're called upon again to think about a new possibility.

And since we thought about, every step of the way, "will this be effective or not," we will continue to do so. A lot of things have to be thought about. And I'm very glad that with the American president, I've always been able to put all of the cards on the table and discuss the pros and cons.

In my speech in Munich, I gave you a clear view of where I stand.

But we'll continue to try it. I think that's why we are politicians, that's why we chose this profession. Others have to do other things. Researchers have to, all of the time, find new things to explore, and to -- people have to and we have to see that the well- being, the prosperity of our people is ensured, but we never have a guarantee that the policies we adopt will work.

Sorry, Greece, I almost forgot.

Yes. On Wednesday, there's going to be a Eurogroup meeting, and I think what counts is what Greece will put on the table at the Eurogroup meeting or perhaps a few days later.

The German policy, ever since 2010, has been aimed at Greece staying a member of the Eurozone. I've said this time and again. The basic rules have always been the same. You put in your own efforts, and on the other side you're being shown solidarity as a quid pro quo. The three institutions of the troika, the ECB, the European Union Commission, and the IMF have agreed on programs. These programs are the basis of any discussion we have.

I've always said I will wait for Greece to come with a sustainable proposal and then we'll talk about this.

OBAMA: The point Angela made I think is right, which is we never have guarantees that any particular course of action works.

As I've said before, by the time a decision reaches my desk, by definition, it's a hard problem with no easy answers, otherwise somebody else would have solved it and I would never even hear about it.

The issue that you raised about can we be certain that any lethal aid that we provide Ukraine is used properly, doesn't fall into the wrong hands, does not lead to over-aggressive actions that can't be sustained by the Ukrainians, what kinds of reactions does it prompt, not simply from the separatists, but from the Russians, those are all issues that have to be considered.

The measure by which I make these decisions is is it more likely to be effective than not? And, you know that is what our -- you know, what our deliberations will be about.

But what I do know is this, the United States and Europe have not stood idly by. We have made enormous efforts, enormous investments of dollars, of political capital, of diplomacy in trying to resolve this situation. I think the Ukrainian people can feel confident that we have stood by them.

People like Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Kerry have spent countless hours on this issue, as has Angela and her team on the German side.

And, you know, just because we have not yet gotten the outcome we want doesn't mean that this pressure is not over time making a difference. I think it's fair to say that there are those inside of Russia who recognize this has been a disastrous course for the Russian economy. I think Mr. Putin is factoring that in. But, understandably, until the situation is entirely resolved, we're gonna have to keep on trying different things to see if we can get a better outcome.

What I do know is is that we will not be able to succeed unless we maintain the strong trans-Atlantic solidarity that's been the hallmark of our national security throughout the last 70 years. And I'm confident that I've got a great partner in Angela in maintaining that.

Thank you very much, everybody.

BLITZER: All right. So there they are the Chancellor of Germany, the President of the United States. They're walking out of the east room of the White House. They've spent about 50 minutes before reporters in the east room answering important questions, first and foremost, on the situation in Ukraine.

Once again, we want welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer reporting from Washington on the very sensitive issue, whether or not the United States should start providing military equipment, lethal aid as it's called to the Ukrainian army. Here is what the President and the Chancellor had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: I have not made a decision about that yet. I've consulted with not just Angela, but we'll be consulting with other allies about this issue. It's not based on the idea that Ukraine could defeat a Russian army that was determined. It is rather to see whether or not there are additional things we can do to help Ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of separatist aggression. But I want to emphasize that a decision has not yet been made.

MERKEL: It was a very good thing to put some halt onto the Russians, and to these sanctions that we agreed on because we see also that Russia seems to be influenced about this. And this is why I am 100 percent behind these decisions as to the export of an arms I have given you my opinion. But you may rest assured that no matter what we decide, the alliance between the United States and Europe will continue to stand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in Jake Tapper, our Chief Washington Correspondent, the anchor of the Lead. Jake nuanced differences the President is clearly leaving open the option of potentially providing lethal military equipment, anti-tank or missiles, for example, to the Ukrainian army.

But the German Chancellor pretty opposed that idea. Although, she insisted that the U.S. -- European, U.S., German relations will still remain strong if the President down the road decides to go ahead with the dispatch of that kind of military aid.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: No question that the Ukrainian President Poroshenko must be very disappointed with what he heard today, not just from Angela Merkel but also from President Obama.

When the President says that we've decided to move forward with our strategy, sanctions remain fully enforced, further isolation of Russia and he has not yet made a decision at this point with all those robust public debate and people on his own administration saying publicly, they want to provide lethal aid for Ukrainian military, that is a decision whether or not he wants to classify this one. It is his decision not to arm them.

And in fact, when he was asked by a German reporter if he had a red line a moment where he would say, "Yes, absolutely if the Russians or the pro-Russian separatistic do this, then I absolutely will provide lethal weapon or lethal aid." He said that he couldn't cite a specific point.

And in fact, he even praised Russia when he talked about the work that was being done when it came to Iran negotiations. He said at the end, the measure by which I make did a decision about which -- whether or not to arm the Ukrainians, isn't more likely to be effective than not. And everything he said in that press conference suggested that he thinks it is not likely to be effective at least at this point.

BLITZER: Yeah, that presumably will seriously disappoint President Poroshenko of Ukraine and others in Ukraine.

In fact, I want to go in Ukraine right now where our Senior International Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh in joining from Darnytsia in Ukraine, that's a really hard hit area and you've been to other areas that have been bombard and basically destroyed.

How so is this likely to play in Ukraine what we just heard from the President and the Chancellor, Nick?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We'll have to confess. I think many has certainly on the services side may have been waiting from this conference to feel what the sort of the stick was on the other side of the carat of the diplomacy.

Now, frankly, they said it like two world leaders very keen not to upset anybody before the means negotiations rather than explain how bad things could go for Russia if a ceasefire or a broader political settlement wasn't agreed.

Now, lingering in my mind was the very last thing that Barack Obama said there. They spent a lot of time, both of them, talking about how united they were, and then they talked about how the transatlantic partnership needed to be sustained like it had done in the past.

They said it almost like the times have begun to doubt the possibility for them to be reading off the same script and remarkably too. Very little from Barack Obama which made it sound like there were further kind of quivers on his bow not clear on arming and again I hope the Fraziers (ph) have heard over the past year, frankly, if diplomacy fails, what do they need to do to change the calculus of Russian President Vladimir Putin? A real -- I think a lack of clarity there.

And if I was in the Kremlin right now, I would be not that concerned, frankly, going into midst (ph). There was not a sense of the potential for things to get significantly worse for the Russian economy that didn't lay out any new sanctions they were thinking about and they certainly didn't make a sound serious as they were thinking about arming Ukraine.

BLITZER: Yeah. The President is saying if diplomacy would have fail, then that option would certain be on the table. Nick, everyone standby the Breaking News will continue. Let's set to take a quick break, much more in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)