Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
U.S. & Russia: A New Start; Jackson Fans Retrieve Tickets for Memorial; Canadian Health Care: Pros and Cons
Aired July 06, 2009 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Presidents Obama and Medvedev are about to answer questions from reporters. Live pictures now from one of the five reception halls the grand Kremlin palace while we are waiting for the news conference to begin.
Let's bring in CNN's foreign affairs correspondent, Jill Dougherty. She's in Moscow.
And Jill, if you would, set the scene, set the stage for this news conference to begin any moment now.
JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tony, you know, this afternoon, the presidents, two, President Obama and President Medvedev, have been sitting down and meeting individually and with their other officials working out the details of what we want to hear now, what they have accomplished. And right before this news conference, which, as you said, we're waiting for, a flurry of paper came out from the White House outlining exactly what they have done. And I'll start with the top thing.
You know, that START agreement, the arms control agreement that is expiring in December, there was a real push to get something on that. And it looks as if they have committed to a legally binding agreement which they would work at by the end of the year to replace that START Treaty.
One of the questions was, what are the numbers? How many warheads would they allow? How many, as they're called, delivery vehicles, those missiles, et cetera, that deliver the warheads? And according to the White House, they are going to allow 1,500 to 1,675. That's down from 1,700 to 2,200.
We also understand that they have worked out an agreement to try to work on nuclear security cooperation. And another thing that we expected, and now we have it on paper, that's that agreement about Afghanistan. The Russians allowing military equipment across Russia into Afghanistan. That should help a lot in the fight.
HARRIS: All right. Jill Dougherty for us.
Jill, appreciate it. I know you'll be watching the news conference and you'll join us with your thoughts when it wraps up.
And all eyes are on Los Angeles today, where events surrounding the death of Michael Jackson are have overtaken the entertainment capital. Here's what we know. A hearing is scheduled today to determine who gets control of Michael Jackson's estate. The Jackson family reportedly wants to put off today's proceedings in case another will surfaces.
A Los Angeles police officer confirms the Jackson family has been talking with officials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park about tomorrow's memorial plans. So far, no official word on where Jackson will be buried.
And harsh words for Jackson from a New York congressman. You have to hear them for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PETE KING (R), NEW YORK: This guy was a pervert. He was a child molester. He was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him day in and day out, what does that say about us as a country?
I just think that we're too politically correct. No one wants to stand up and say we don't need Michael Jackson.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Hey, we will have reaction to that in a live report coming up in about 30 minutes.
Right now, all the action is at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Fans lucky enough to score tickets to tomorrow's memorial are picking up their passes and wristbands.
Our Kara Finnstrom joins us now from Encino, California.
And Kara, if you would, give us a look around you. Set that scene for us.
KARA FINNSTROM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You can see a couple of fans actually at the Encino family home of the Jackson's just behind me here, leaving more flowers, cards, notes. You know, just a tremendous outpouring of support from Jackson's fans since his death.
And overnight, of course, Tony, a lucky 8,750 of them actually got two tickets to this memorial service. Many of them saying they really do want to go, they want to pay tribute to the man they consider the "King of Pop."
Here's what's going to happen today, Tony. We saw a quick picture of Dodger Stadium with the fans starting to line up.
Overnight, fans got an e-mail which gave them a secret passcode. They go to Dodger Stadium, they turn in that pass code. They then get two wristbands. One of them is slapped on a wrist immediately, and they also get two tickets. The purpose of these wristbands, to try and prevent scalping from taking place.
Then they go with wristbands and tickets to Staples Center tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. If there is any type of taping or ripping of the wristbands, we're told they will not be allowed in. And anyone who doesn't have these tickets or properly credentialed media, everything is going to be sealed off.
And Tony, we're also told from media analysts that possibly hundreds of millions of people will be watching this online, from their TV sets. So making this really unprecedented as far as coverage of a memorial.
HARRIS: OK. Boy, a lot to report there. Kara, appreciate it.
Kara Finnstrom for us.
Kara, thank you.
And if you don't have a ticket, then I want you to be right here. CNN is going all out so you don't miss a thing. "Michael Jackson, The Memorial," all day tomorrow, starting with "AMERICAN MORNING" at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
Iran and Britain are threatening each other over the detention of a British Embassy worker. Tehran detained nine local staff members in the wake of protests over the June 12th presidential election. It released one staffer yesterday but still holds one worker. A leading Iranian cleric says the staffer could be tried for inciting unrest. Britain's foreign secretary calls the detention intimidation and harassment and warns there will be consequences if the worker is not released.
Mexico's president could be losing some punch with three years left in his term. Preliminary results from yesterday's midterm election show Felipe Calderon's ruling party losing numerous local elections and seats in the lower legislative house. And official results released today give the opposition Revolutionary Institutional Party a solid lead over President Calderon's National Action Party.
Socialized health care? We take a trip to Canada to try to separate rhetoric from reality.
A federal judge has approved General Motors' plan to emerge from bankruptcy. Under the restructuring plan, the Detroit-based automaker creates a new company and sheds crushing debt and expensive contracts.
We want to hear from you. What kind of chance do you give the new GM? Will it ever be on top again? What do you think?
Log on to CNN.com/tony. Give us your thoughts.
And for our viewers who aren't near a computer, how about this? You can talk to us. Talk to the program. Oh boy.
Just call us at 1-877-742-5760. It's a brave new world.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: Well, there you go. Live picture of the Kremlin now. A news conference to begin any moment now.
We understand the president of the United States is en route for that news conference. Again, scheduled to begin very soon here. The president of Moscow -- Russia and the president of the United States to meet for the first time in seven years.
We will of course bring you that news conference live when it begins, right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
Canada's health care system covers everyone, and it's free, but some would argue there is a cost -- rationing of services and staggering wait times for some procedures. And they warn that's where America may be headed.
CNN's senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SHONA HOLMES, DIAGNOSED WITH BRAIN TUMOR: Are you going to feed the fish?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For Shona Holmes, simple pleasures. Playing with her dog, walking in her garden are a gift.
Four years ago, she was diagnosed with a brain tumor, told if it wasn't removed she could go blind or die.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She could (ph) go blind. No doubt at all.
SHONA HOLMES, CANADIAN PATIENT: And I realized right after the surgery how bad my vision was.
BASH: Shona is Canadian, but for her surgery she went to the U.S., because it would have taken four to six months just to see specialists in Canada's government-run health system, the only option here.
HOLMES: All my life I've lived in this country with public health insurance, and I always thought that I would be OK, that everything would be fine.
So, this is basically all of the surgery.
BASH: Shona's bills at the Mayo Clinic, where she was treated, total $100,000 she borrowed from family and friends.
HOLMES: And that's the stuff that I think is tragic, having dinner with my friends, and I know how much money I owe them.
BASH: Republicans in Washington are seizing on Shona's story and other accounts from Canada to warn against government involvement in health care.
Doctor David Zelt is chief of staff on Ontario's Kingston General Hospital. GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell singled out Kingston as Exhibit A of staggering delays in Canadian care.
We played Zelt the speech.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MINORITY LEADER: Knee replacements. Well, at Kingston General, the average wait is about 340 days.
BASH: Zelt's response: McConnell is exaggerating.
DR. DAVID ZELT, CHIEF OF STAFF, KINGSTON GENERAL HOSPITAL: Average time to get a knee replacement here is 91 days.
BASH: But he does admit in Canada's system, where the government covers everyone, there are limits and shortages. Some patients do have to wait.
ZELT: I'm not going to say we don't have issues, but again, if you take the other side of the coin, these patients have access.
BASH: Despite her Shona Holmes' horror story, Canadian officials insist most patients with life-threatening problems are treated quickly.
Doug Wright (ph) can attest to that. He has cancer, a tumor on his leg. He's got the money to get care in the U.S., but says there's no reason.
DOUG WRIGHT (ph), CANADIAN PATIENT: I've not had to wait. I've seen, you know, some of the best specialists in the country.
BASH: And though taxes are high here, he and others remind us Canadian health care available to all is free.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HARRIS: OK. So let's break this down a bit more now with our senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen.
OK, Elizabeth. Let's sort through this.
The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has been great at pointing out the problems, the weaknesses in the Canadian system, but I'm wondering, is anyone here suggesting that health care reform in the United States will look like the Canadian system?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: No.
HARRIS: No?
COHEN: No.
HARRIS: All right. So we're moving...
(CROSSTALK)
COHEN: No, no, no. Because some people would take issue with what I'm saying. So, let me sort of explain here. What President Obama and some of the Democrats are suggesting is that there be a government-sponsored health care program as an option for people to choose. So you could choose -- I'm just throwing out names -- Aetna, United, Kaiser, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, or the government program. But they are not -- Obama and the Democrats are not suggesting that it be the only game in town. And in Canada it's pretty much the only game in town.
HARRIS: Is the Canadian system, that single-payer system that we hear so much about, is that what -- and I know that's not on the table here, a single payer system in the United States.
COHEN: The Canadians don't like to call it a single-payer system because it's run by each province. So, you've got 10 provinces and three territories. But it's government-run health care, and it is pretty much the only game in town.
HARRIS: So, what is -- if our reform is not going to look like the Canadians, what is being proposed here? What will health care reform likely look like?
COHEN: Well, it depends on whose plan gets adopted.
HARRIS: Which committee -- right. Right.
COHEN: Right, exactly. But at this point, what Obama and some of the Democrats are saying, again, is this option. They are saying, you know what? We're going to change a lot of things about health care works, including having an option where, if you want it, there's going to be a government-sponsored program out there, and that obviously, hopefully, it would be less expensive. And then people who can't afford private insurance, which is a lot of people -- I mean, there are 46 million uninsured Americans -- at least it would be something less expensive for them to try to get.
HARRIS: OK. Elizabeth, again, as always, thank you as we try to really focus and hone and drill down on this.
COHEN: But can I add one thing?
HARRIS: Yes, of course you can.
COHEN: If I have a second -- OK.
Here's the concern, though. And this is what Mitch McConnell and others would say. They would say, look, the minute you put that option out there, the minute you put it out there on the table, it will become de facto the only system out there, because most Americans get their insurance through their employer.
An employer might say, hey, I can have this government option really inexpensively. These private options cost a fortune. I'm going to go with the government one, and then the decision gets made for you as an employee.
It's a leap. No one is saying that's going to happen, but that's sort of the nightmare scenario out there.
HARRIS: And the truth of the matter is, as I've listened to the debate, the administration, at least at this point, hasn't answered that question effectively, or that criticism of a public option, that your employer could say, hey, look, I'm opting out of what you have now and I'm going to join this program. And the administration, at least to my hearing of the debate so far, hasn't answered that criticism effectively yet.
COHEN: The administration, the last time I was on the phone with an administration official, said, look, we're not going to go sort of down the road of all these details because we don't know exactly what's going to happen in the future. So we're not going to go down that road because there's so many different things out there on the table.
HARRIS: Yes. Good stuff.
COHEN: OK. Thanks.
HARRIS: Elizabeth, good to see you. Thank you.
COHEN: Thanks.
HARRIS: Still to come, if you like doing your banking with the click of a mouse, how do you know you're getting your best deals?
CNN's Personal Finance Editor Gerri Willis has the answers coming up for you next, right here in the NEWSROOM.
Oh, before we go to break, let's not do that...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HARRIS: OK. Let's get you to the Kremlin now. The news conference getting under way right now, President Medvedev and President Obama.
Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Chief of the Joint Staff of the Armed Services of Russia, first, Deputy Minister of Defense, Army General Makarov (ph). And on the U.S. side, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army -- that's Admiral Mullen -- are to sign the framework document on the development of cooperation between the armed forces of the Russian federation and the armed forces of the United States of America, and memorandum on adoption of the working plan to improve military cooperation between the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the United States of America for the year 2009.
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, and the undersecretary of state, William Burns, are signing an agreement between the government of the United States of America and the government of the Russian Federation on the transit of dominance (ph), military equipment, military property, and personnel through the territory of the Russian Federation, in connection with participation of the United States of America, in efforts to ensure the security, stabilization of the Islamic Republican of Afghanistan.
An exchange of notes on Russia/U.S. commission on the POWs and MIAs has taken place, and a memorandum between the Ministry of (INAUDIBLE) and social development of the Russian Federation and the Department of Health and Human Resources Services of the United States has been signed.
The president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, and the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, are signing a joint understanding on further reductions and limitations of strategic and offensive arms.
During the visit, the president of the United States America, Barack Obama, and the president of the Russian Federation, Medvedev, also have adopted a joint statement of the president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, and the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on missile of defense. Joint statement of the president of the president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, and the president of the United States, Barack Obama, on cooperation in nuclear (ph). Joint statement of the president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, and president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on Afghanistan. And the decision has been adopted on setting up the joint Russia/U.S. presidential commission to develop cooperation.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): This, no doubt, was a meeting that has been expected both in this country and the United States of America, and on which not only the future of our two countries depends, but also, to a large extent, the trends of world development.
I would like to emphasize -- and this is extremely important. We have agreed that we will continue to communicate in this mode further on. In reality, for our relations it is very important, and it is not a simple job, because the backlog of problems is quite impressive.
But we had enough of mutual wish and will and positions of principles that we have always occupied and still occupy to make the discussion of this problem in a business-like manner. And we have reached mutually beneficial results.
I would like to emphasize that each of our countries understand its role in its own way, but at the same time, we realize our role and responsibility for the situation in this world, especially in a period when the level of globalization has reached such dimensions and such parameters that the decisions we make very often determine the situation in general.
And such powerful states as the United States of America and the Russian Federation have special responsibility for everything that is happening on our planet. We have many points of conversions, many mutual interests, and global and economic ones and a variety of other interests. But our desire to discuss this subject was mutual, and this is also one of very important results of our meeting since the work we are doing requires goodwill, mutual respect, and honest understanding of each other's position.
We also came to the conclusion that Russian/American relations and the level achieved to date does not correspond to their potential, to the possibilities of our countries. And the important thing is that the level that we have today does not correspond to the need of the current age. And without active development of our relations on the foreign affairs agenda, on scientific trade, educational relations, we'll now be able to build the road to the 21st century.
We have spent several hours in very busy negotiations, very specific. And at the same time, we dwelled on the questions of philosophy of our cooperation (ph). I'm grateful to the president of the United States for the understanding that he showed on the principals that we put forward and our attention to the proposals made by the American side. So, despite of the fact that in several hours we cannot remove the burden of all the problems, we have agreed that we will go forward without stopping, that we will make the decisions that are needed for the development of relations between our two countries.
We have discussed quite specific problems, and I would like to share some of them with you.
We, of course, discussed international subjects. We spoke about such difficult problems as the process of Middle East settlement. We agreed to continue working (ph) and to count the visits that we had in the Middle East recently, and the plans that we discussed. We discussed the possibility of holding a Moscow conference on the Middle East.
We spoke about a very important subject that is extremely -- requires the (INAUDIBLE) of our activities. This is the problem of Afghanistan.
Without our joint work in that area, we would not be able to achieve success in that area. And on that score, we have agreed on a special statement.
Our relations will be also consolidated by our links in the humanitarian field, in the field of science. This has to be done by all means, and we'll be dealing with this after this meeting in a very persistent way.
Now a few specific results of our negotiations. You are aware of them.
We have agreed on a very important subject, the new agreement of strategic offensive arms. This is a basic element of our mutual security. The work was very intensive, and I must admit that our teams, our delegations worked on this subject in a very fruitful way. They have showed reasonable compromise, and I would like to thank everyone who took part in these negotiations or is going to take part in them.
A result of this is that we have reached not only a mutual understanding of how we should move forward, but also to the basic levels on which we will advance our cooperation in this field. We agreed on the levels of carriers and warheads, meaning that this is a very concrete subject in the mutual understanding that we have just signed with the president of the United States.
It is said that our two countries can have from 500 to 1,100 carriers of strategic arms, ,and from 1,500 to 1,675 warheads. These are the new parameters within reach. Our dialogue will be going on, and where we hope to achieve final agreement that will be part of the new treaty.
We have agreed, also, that the offensive and defensive systems of both countries should be considered together. We have adopted a joint statement on (INAUDIBLE). And this is also an important result of our work, even taking into account that we have divergences on a number of items. Nevertheless, we managed to sign -- to approve a joint document.
We have discussed measures of cooperation in the nuclear field, and the most important is that we will continue our cooperation in every area.
A lot depends on our countries.
We have signed an agreement on military transit to Afghanistan. We decided to create a presidential commission on cooperation which will be coordinating relations among various agencies of the United States and the Russian Federation, respectively, on -- in all priority areas, including economic and military areas.
In the military area, these questions will be dealt by the chiefs of staff that have just signed the document: General Makarov and Mullen. Soon, all these documents will be published, and you will be able to familiarize yourself with them.
On the whole, by characterizing our first day of work and the results of negotiations that we have had, I would like to say that I view them as a first, but very important, step in the process of improving full-scale cooperation between our two countries, which should go to the benefit of both states. And if both states benefit by it, that means everybody will benefit by it.
I would like to emphasize, in conclusion, that our country would like to reach such a level of cooperation with the United States which would be realistically worthy of the 21st century, which will ensure international peace and security. This is in our interest, and we are grateful to our American colleagues for the joint work we have done.
It is true that the solution of many world problems depends on the joint will of the United States and Russia.
Thank you.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good afternoon, everybody.
And I want to thank President Medvedev and the Russian people for their hospitality. Michelle and I and our children are pleased to be here in Moscow and to be here so early in my administration.
We've just concluded a very productive meeting, as President Medvedev just indicated.
The president and I agreed that the relationship between Russia and the United States has suffered from a sense of drift. We resolved to reset U.S.-Russian relations so that we can cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest.
Today, after less than six months of collaboration, we've done exactly that, by taking concrete steps forward on a range of issues, while paving the way for more progress in the future.
And I think it's particularly notable that we've addressed the top priorities. These are not second-tier issues. They are fundamental to the security and the prosperity of both countries.
First, we've taken important steps forward to increase nuclear security and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
This starts with the reduction of our own nuclear arsenals. As the world's two leading nuclear powers, the United States and Russia must lead by example. And that's what we're doing here today.
We have signed a joint understanding for a follow-on treaty to the START agreement that will reduce our nuclear warheads and delivery systems by up to a third from our current treaty limitations. This legally binding treaty will be completed this year.
We've also agreed on a joint statement on nuclear security cooperation that will help us achieve the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years; progress that we can build upon later this week at the G-8 summit. Together, these are important steps forward in implementing the agenda that I laid out in Prague.
As we keep our commitments, so we must ensure that other nations keep theirs. To that end, we had constructive discussions about North Korea and Iran.
North Korea has abandoned its own commitments and violated international law. And that's why I'm pleased that Russia joined us in passing a U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for strong steps to block North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Iran also poses a serious challenge through its failure to live up to international obligations. This is not just a problem for the United States.
It raises the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which would endanger global security, while Iran's ballistic missile program could also pose a threat to the broader region.
That's why I'm pleased that we've agreed on a joint statement on cooperation on missile defense and a joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st century, including those posed by Iran and North Korea.
Second, we have taken important steps forward to strengthen our security through greater cooperation. President Medvedev and I agreed upon the need to combat the threat of violent extremism, particularly from al Qaeda.
And today we've signed an agreement that will allow the transit of lethal military equipment through Russia to Afghanistan. This is a substantial contribution by Russia to our international effort, and it will save the United States time and resources in giving our troops the support that they need.
Thanks to Admiral Mullen and his Russian counterpart, we've also agreed to resume military-to-military cooperation between the United States and Russia. This provides a framework for improved cooperation and interoperability between our armed forces so that we can better address the threats that we face, from terrorism to privacy.
We've also agreed to restore a joint commission on prisoners of war and missing in action, which will allow our governments to cooperate in our unwavering commitment to our missing service men and women.
And third, we've taken important steps forward to broaden our cooperation on a full range of issues that affect the security and prosperity of our people. President Medvedev and I are creating a U.S.-Russian bilateral presidential commission to serve as a new foundation for this cooperation.
Too often, the United States and Russia only communicate on a narrow range of issues or let old habits within our bureaucracies stand in the way of our progress. And that's why this commission will include working groups on development and the economy, energy and the environment, nuclear energy and security, arms control and international security, defense, foreign policy and counterterrorism, preventing and handling emergencies, civil society, science and technology, space, health, education and culture.
And this work will be coordinated by Secretary Clinton and Minister Lavrov. And Secretary Clinton will travel to Russia this fall to carry this effort forward.
Just to give you one example of this cooperation, is the new memorandum of understanding on health. We've learned, most recently with the H1N1 virus, that a disease that emerges anywhere can pose a risk to people everywhere. That's why our Department of Health and Human Services will cooperate with its Russian counterparts to combat infectious, chronic and noncommunicable diseases, while promoting prevention and global health.
Finally, I'm pleased that Russia has taken the important step of lifting some restrictions on imports of U.S. livestock. The cost of these restrictions to American business is over $1.3 billion, and we've now made important progress toward restoring that commerce.
And I won't pretend that the United States and Russia agree on every issue. As President Medvedev indicated, we've had some frank discussions, and there are areas where we still disagree.
For instance, we had a frank discussion on Russia -- on Georgia, and I reiterated my firm belief that Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.
Yet, even as we worked through our disagreements on Georgia's borders, we do agree that no one has an interest in renewed military conflict. And going forward, we must speak candidly to resolve these differences peacefully and constructively.
President Medvedev and I are committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past, so that we can advance the interests that we hold in common.
Today, we've made meaningful progress in demonstrating through deeds and words what a more constructive U.S.-Russian relationship can look like in the 21st century.
Tomorrow, I look forward to broadening this effort, to include business, civil society and the dialogue among the American and Russian people.
I believe that all of us have an interest in forging a future in which the United States and Russian partner effectively on behalf of our security and prosperity.
That's the purpose of resetting our relations. That is the progress we made today.
And I once again want to take President Medvedev and his entire team for being such wonderful hosts and working so effectively with our teams.
Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Colleagues, now we begin the joint press conference of the president of the Russian Federation and the U.S. president. You will be able to ask two questions. Don't forget to present yourself.
And the first question goes to the U.S. media.
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: (INAUDIBLE) from AP. QUESTION: Thank you, and good evening to both presidents.
President Obama, I'd like to ask you about the issue of trust.
After this period of rocky relations between the countries but also with the agreements that you've just laid out today, having spent time with President Medvedev, do you feel like you have full trust in him? And have settled in your mind who is really in charge here in Russia, the president or Prime Minister Putin?
And President Medvedev, I'd like to ask you, polling shows that the American people have some hard feelings about -- I'm sorry -- that the Russian people have some hard feelings about America. I'm wondering what you think President Obama can do to try to change this.
OBAMA: Well, first of all, this is now my second lengthy bilateral meeting with President Medvedev, and we've also had a series of telephone calls and other exchanges.
And throughout our interactions I've found him to be straightforward, professional. He is clear about the interests of the Russian people, but he's also interested in finding out what the interests of the United States are. And we have found, I think, an ability to work together extremely effectively.
So, yes, I trust President Medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively, but also to follow through on the agreements that are contained here today.
And, again, I'm very appreciative not only of the manner in which he's dealt with me, but also the manner in which our teams have worked together.
If you think about the short time frame from our meeting in London to today, and the fact that we have essentially accomplished all the goals that we had set in London -- and these are not insubstantial achievements -- I think it's a good sign of progress in the future.
Tomorrow, I'll be having breakfast with Prime Minister Putin. I have not met him before. I'm looking forward to that meeting.
My understanding is, is that President Medvedev is the president; Prime Minister Putin is the prime minister.
And they allocate power in accordance with Russia's form of government, in the same way that we allocate power in the United States.
And so, my interest is in dealing directly with my counterpart, the president, but also to reach out to Prime Minister Putin and all other influential sectors in Russian society, so that I can get a full picture of the needs of the Russian people and the concerns of the Russian people.
And, you know, my strong impression is is that President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are working very effectively together. And our interest is dealing with the Russian government as a whole in order to achieve the improved bilateral relationship that I think can be accomplished.
MEDVEDEV (through translator): First of all, I would like to thank President Obama for the kind words he has just said about this period and the level of openness we enjoy in our personal relationship.
I said something about it already, previously. Personal relationships are very important, especially when you speak about the building of inter-state relationships. And when the relationship between the governments and personal relationships are on the same level, positive, that's always good for the relationship between (ph) the countries.
Speaking of the attitude towards the American people, they are friendly. I don't see any negative problems (ph) there.
But when there are problems between the states; when there are negative signals being sent by the government, then, of course, these signals reflect on the mood of the ordinary people, and thus the best relationship between the countries are the more empathy people have towards each other in different countries.
We touched upon different (INAUDIBLE) meeting, and the relationship between our countries knew ups and down. We during World War II saved the world, and there was strategic partnership between us. And now we also have a feeling that a lot depends on our relationship and success in delivering on all those expectations on different fronts.
A lot depends on our efforts, bearing in mind that our people have always had sympathy towards -- empathy towards each other.
(INAUDIBLE), please. You have the floor.
QUESTION (through translator): Thank you. I have a question to both presidents.
Russia and the U.S. are the largest nuclear powers in the world, accounting for 95 percent of warheads. You have been working on the documents -- on the NPT for quite some time; in fact, since 1970s. Do you think you will be able to have the situation in the NPT area under control when there are so many negative trends around the globe?
MEDVEDEV (through translator): Well, the nonproliferation problem is very important for our countries because we have and share the largest burden in the area of nonproliferation of strategic arms. We do have the major nuclear arsenals and we have full responsibility for those arsenals.
And I agree with you totally. There are negative trends in the world and they are due to the emergence of new nuclear players. Some of them are not officially members of the nuclear club, but they have aspirations to have nuclear weapons and declare so openly or, which is worse, are doing it clandestinely.
And of course it has a very negative bearing on the world.
And due to reasons very well known, there are regions around the world where the presence of nuclear arms would create huge problems. And these are areas where we should concentrate our efforts, together with our American partners.
Those regions -- those areas are well known. There is no sense in naming them.
But it's quite obvious that on the situation in the Middle East, on the Korean Peninsula, will depend the climate throughout the globe. It's our common, joint responsibility, and we should make our utmost to prevent any negative trends there. And we are ready to do that. Our negotiations with President Obama have demonstrated that we share the same attitude towards this problem.
OBAMA: Well, I think President Medvedev said it well. This is an urgent issue and one in which the United States and Russia have to take leadership.
It is very difficult for us to exert that leadership unless we are showing ourselves willing to deal with our own nuclear stockpiles in a more rational way. And that's why this post-START agreement is so important. And I'm hopeful that we can reduce our nuclear arsenals by as much as a third and, hopefully, can move even beyond that in subsequent agreements and treaties.
The critical issue that President Medvedev identified is the fact that we are seeing a pace of potential proliferation that we have not seen in quite some time. And he mentioned two specific areas.
In the Middle East, there is deep concern about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, not simply because of one country wanting nuclear weapons, but the fact that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, it is an almost -- it is almost certain that other countries in the region would then decide to pursue their own programs. And we would then see a nuclear arms race in perhaps the most volatile part of the world.
In the Korean Peninsula, we've already seen North Korea flout its own commitments and international obligations in pursuit of nuclear weapons.
And in all of these cases, as you see more proliferation of nuclear weapons, the possibility is not only of state actors targeting populations with nuclear weapons, but the possibility that those nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of nonstate actors, extremist organizations, poses an extraordinary threat to both Russia and the United States.
So, I'm pleased on the progress that we've made so far. I think the fact that we've got a joint threat assessment, in terms of what ballistic missile capabilities and nuclear weapons could pose to our countries, that we will be conducting a review of that and making assessments to find ways that the United States and Russia can cooperate more effectively, that's going to be more important.
I think continuing the pursuit of cooperation that already exists between Russia and the United States on loose nuclear materials and making sure those are secure, I think that's going to be very important.
Structuring a new, reinvigorated nonproliferation treaty, that applies a set of rules to all countries, allows them to pursue peaceful nuclear energy without having the capacity to weaponize that nuclear capacity, that is going to be very important.
And so, we've actually suggested a global nuclear security summit, that we intend to host next year. And I discussed with President Medvedev the strong possibility that in a subsequent summit -- it could be hosted by Russia -- where we bring all the countries together around the world to start making progress on this critical issue.
GIBBS: (INAUDIBLE) from Reuters.
QUESTION: Thank you. Deep divisions over a proposed U.S. missile shield have contributed greatly to the deterioration of U.S.- Russia relations in recent years. And it does not seem that you gentlemen have finally resolved that issue, either.
President Obama, you have said very clearly that you would not accept the linkage between the missile systems and arms control talks.
President Medvedev, you and Prime Minister Putin have said that these issues must be linked.
Is there -- are either of you gentlemen willing to budge or compromise on this issue? And if not, could this also contribute to a blockage or obstacle to reaching a final START II agreement?
And, also, President Obama, I wonder if you could give us your reaction to the Chinese government crackdown in the northwest of the country on rioting and unrest that has killed more than 140 people.
OBAMA: With respect to the China situation, unfortunately, I've been traveling all night and in meetings all day, so I have not been fully briefed, and I don't want to comment until I actually see all the information. But I assure you that our team will get a statement to you as soon as I've been able to do that.
On missile defense, we have agreed that we are going to continue to discuss this critical issue. That is part of the joint statements that we've signed.
I also believe that it is entirely legitimate for our discussions to talk not only about offensive weapon systems but also defensive weapon systems.
Part of what got us through the Cold War was a sufficient sense of parity and deterrent capability; that both sides, during those very difficult times, understood that a first strike, the attempt to use nuclear weapons in a military conflict against the other, could result in an extremely heavy price.
And so, any discussion of nuclear strategy, security, has to include defensive as well as offensive capabilities.
The difference that we've had has been on the specifics of a missile defense system that the United States views as a priority not to deal with Russia but to deal with a missile coming in from Iran or North Korea or some other state, and that it's important for the United States and its allies to have the capacity to prevent such a strike.
There's no scenario from our perspective in which this missile defense system would provide any protection against a mighty Russian arsenal. And so in that sense we have not thought that it is appropriate to link discussions of a missile defense system designed to deal with an entirely different threat unrelated to the kinds of robust capabilities that Russia possesses.
Now, having said that, President Medvedev has been very clear that this is a point of deep concern and sensitivity to the Russian government. I suspect when I speak with President -- Prime Minister Putin tomorrow, he will say the same thing.
And what we would like to do is to work with Russia to advance a system that ensures that a stray missile, whether it was one or 10 or a handful of missiles, coming from a third source -- that we had the capabilities to prevent those from doing damage.
I think we can arrive at those kinds of understandings, but it's going to take some hard work because it requires breaking down longstanding suspicions.
With respect to this particular configuration that was proposed several years ago, as you know, we're undergoing a thorough review of whether it works or not, what has been proposed.
That review should be completed by the end of the summer. And I indicated to President Medvedev that as soon as that review is complete, we will provide the Russian government our assessment of how we think we should proceed, and that will be the subject of extensive negotiations.
So, ultimately, I think the more progress we make on some of the issues that I discussed earlier -- nonproliferation, being able to track ballistic missiles coming from other sources -- to the extent that we are building deeper cooperation on those fronts, I think the more effectively we're going to be able to resolve this issue.
I believe that over time we will end up seeing that the U.S.- Russian positions on these issues can be reconciled and that, in fact, we have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of dangers that weapons proliferations is posing today.
MEDVEDEV (through translator): I'll say a couple of words on this subject. Of course, anti-ballistic missile defense, not ballistic missile defense, but the problem of the (INAUDIBLE) region -- area is a difficult subject for our discussion.
But I would like to draw your attention to what President Obama said, and I would like to point it out myself.
In our mutual understanding that has just been signed, we talk about the linkage between offensive and defensive weapons. And this already constitutes a step forward.
Some time ago, on this question, we had all only differences. Now this linkage is being stated, and this opens up the opportunity of bringing positions closer to each other.
Secondly, nobody is saying that ballistic missile defense is harmful or is posing a danger. It is aimed at resolving a number of practical tasks.
The question is of linking these configurations of missile defense with interests of other countries.
I would like to point out especially that our American partners, unlike what was happening in recent years, have taken a pause and now are studying this situation. As a result of this, they will formulate their final position. As -- at least this is also a step forward in reaching possible compromise on this fairly difficult subject.
Before, we just heard that "all decisions have been made. They do not concern you. But they have -- they present no threat to you."
Our position is somewhat different. You are well familiar with it. I am not going to say it again.
We -- our understanding is that these decisions do concern us, and we will have to come to terms on dispositions.
We realize fully well that the number of threats, including a link to the medium-range and ballistic missiles, is not diminishing but is growing in number, so we all have to think about what configuration on the whole the global antiballistic missile defense could have.
And this during our limited (ph) composition meeting, I mentioned to my colleague.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Distinguished colleagues, last question. Channel Number One.
QUESTION (through translator): Good evening.
The question is to both presidents.
You spoke about your concern about Afghanistan. Can you be more specific? What do the presidents think about the situation in that country? There is a feeling that the counterterrorist operation in Afghanistan is having difficulties. And to what extent cooperation between U.S. and Russia in transit can help or improve the situation, in greater detail please?
MEDVEDEV (through translator): The subject of U.S.-Russian cooperation in Afghanistan is extremely important. It is for this reason we paid so much attention to the discussion of this problem. And we have just signed an agreement that concerns transit. It's an important subject and we will of course continue cooperation with our American counterparts.
As concerns the current situation, it is -- really is not simple. I'm not trying to say that it is being worsened, but in many aspects the progress is not available or is insignificant. But we value the efforts that are being made by the United States, together with other countries, in order to prevent the terrorist threat that was emanating and is still coming from the Afghan soil.
We are prepared, in this sense, to full-scale cooperation with our U.S. and other partners, including in transit areas. We are prepared to help in various aspects.
I don't know to what extent -- how quickly the situation will improve. It depends, to a large extent, to the development of the political system in Afghanistan; to what extent the Afghan government will achieve successes in the economy. And it's not a simple task.
Nevertheless, we are prepared to continue with our efforts: the consultations with the Afghan side. In (INAUDIBLE) I met the president of that country. And I met the president of Pakistan because both of these problems have to be resolved together. And if we can join our efforts, both in the economic, peaceful field, and in terms of support of counterterrorist operations, the success will come sooner or later.
In the final analysis, the success -- let me emphasize once again -- will depend on the maturity of the Afghan state and the readiness of the Afghan society to change.
OBAMA: Well, as you may be aware, as soon as I came into office, we undertook a thorough review of our Afghan strategy to that point, in consultation with not only our NATO allies but all the forces internationally that have contributed to the efforts there.
And we concluded that we had not made as much progress as we should have, given the duration in which we've been in Afghanistan, and that we can improve it.
So, our approach has been to say that we need to have a strong security system in place for the Afghan elections to be completed.
We have to train Afghan nationals for the army and police so that they can effectively secure their own country. We have to combine that with more effective diplomatic efforts. And we have to focus on development, so that, for example, the people of Afghanistan don't have to grow poppy but have other crops and goods that they can make a living with. Now, we have just begun the implementation of this new strategy, and so I think it's too early to gauge its success so far.
I think by the time that we've completed the next election and the -- either President Karzai or another candidate has taken his seat, then we will be able to, I think, do an additional review and see what other efforts we can take in order to improve the situation.
I will tell you that Russia's participation and contributions to this effort could be extraordinarily important.
Obviously, Russia has its own concerns about extremism and terrorism. Russia also has deep concerns about the drug trade and its infiltration into Russia. And Russia has extraordinary capabilities when it comes to training police forces, training armies.
And so our hope is, is that, as part of the broader presidential commission structure that we put in place, that we're going to further discussion both the military efforts in Afghanistan but also the development efforts and the diplomatic efforts, so that we can make progress.
And President Medvedev is right that this is important for Afghanistan but it's also important with respect to Pakistan. And we're going to have to think regionally, in terms of how we approach these problems.
Obviously, there are countries along the border of Afghanistan and Central Asia that are of deep strategic importance. And it's very important that we also include them in these conversations about how we can move forward.
But I just want to thank again the Russian government for the agreement for military transit that will save U.S. troops both time and money. And it's, I think, a gesture that indicates the degree to which in the future Russian-U.S. cooperation can be extraordinarily important in solving a whole host of these very important international issues.
All right? Thank you very much, everybody.
MEDVEDEV (through translator): Thank you.
