Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Joint Press Conference with President Obama and South Korean President Park. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired October 16, 2015 - 14:30   ET

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

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But in the meantime, right now, you know, everybody needs to focus on making sure that innocent people aren't being killed. And even though you didn't ask me the question, I'm just gonna horn in on the question that you asked President Park, because we actually discussed Iran and what it could teach us about the situation in North Korea.

These are both countries that have a long history of antagonize -- antagonism towards the United States, but we were prepared to have a serious conversation with the Iranians once they showed that they were serious about the possibility of giving up the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

And I suspect President Park agrees with me here, that at the point where Pyongyang says, "we're interested in seeing relief from sanctions and improved relations, and we are prepared to have a serious conversation about denuclearization," it's -- I think it's fair to say we'll be right there at the table.

Now, whether, even if they made that gesture, they would then be willing to subject themselves to the kind of rigorous verification regimes that we have set up with Iran, particularly given their past violations of agreements, that's a separate question.

But we haven't even gotten to that point yet, because there's been no indication on the part of the North Koreans, as there was with the Iranians, that they could foresee a future in which they did not possess or were not pursuing nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: (inaudible) do you agree with (inaudible) on the role of settlements (inaudible)?

OBAMA: I don't -- I don't think that's what Secretary Kerry said.

I think what Secretary Kerry said was, was that we have to end the violence, that Israel has a right to prevent its citizens from being subjected to random violence, that all parties have to lower the rhetoric, that the religious sites that are so important to three of the world's major religions inside of Jerusalem need to be respected and that the status quo that allowed shared worship in and around these spaces needed to be maintained.

And then, I think, as an addition to those statements, what Secretary Kerry said was, is that the atmosphere in which there is so much tension and suspicion between Palestinians and Israelis obviously creates the potential for more misunderstanding and triggers, and that's something that has been true now for decades.

And if we can make progress there, obviously it's going to help, but, you know, there's not a direct causation here, and -- and what we need to make sure of is that we're focusing now on -- on ensuring that innocent people aren't being killed.

PARK GEUN-HYE, SOUTH KOREA PRESIDENT (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): With regard to the Iranian agreement and whether it could be applied to the North Korean situation -- I think that was what the question was about -- now, if you look at the Iran negotiations and how it was concluded, how you reach an agreement, we saw the United States and the U.S. leadership lead the whole process, and we had other countries that also made concerted efforts.

We had international efforts that came together that made this possible, and I think that's a very important lesson that we need to take away from this.

Now, if you look at the North Korean nuclear problem, we do have international cooperation in that area. We have China and Russia that are also all vehemently against North Korean nuclear capabilities. So we have some international cooperation there.

But the difference between Iran and North Korea might be something that President Obama just said. I totally agree with him, and what is important here is that you need to have this genuine willingness -- on the part of North Korea -- that they will give up nuclear capabilities.

This might not be a perfect example, but you can take a horse to the trough but can't make it drink water, there is a saying. So it's the same thing here, North Korea has to come to its own conclusion that it is genuinely willing to give up nuclear capabilities and become a full-pledged member of the international society. They need to have that. If they don't have that, then even if we have international concerted efforts, we won't see a conclusion to these negotiations or talks like we saw with Iran, so that's a big difference that I see here.

OBAMA: Who do you want to call on, Madam President? They're all -- seem very capable.

QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I am (inaudible). The Korean Peninsula trust building process has been the bases of the Korean government efforts to improve inter-Korean relations, but despite these efforts, North Korea has really not changed its attitude towards developing nuclear missile capabilities. Now in the second half of your term in office, how do you plan on steering into (ph) Korean ties?

And one more, now from your visit to China in September, we have been seeing you say that you want to see unification of the two Koreas. Do you really think that this will be possible during your term in office? And I have a question for both of you, actually, finally. In Korea, they say that you see each other often and you start to grow fond of each other. Now this is your fourth time meeting at a summit meeting and you also see each other a lot at multilateral talks. So I just want to ask, have you grown closer?

PARK (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Now let me ask the last -- answer the last question first. Yes, that answer is yes for me. So let me continue with my answers to your question. Now, the Korean Peninsula Trust- Building Process, basically we have this principle. Now, we will be very certainly and decisively dealing with any provocations, but we are also leaving the door open for a dialogue and will continue to make efforts to build trust.

So this is the basic principle and this is the basic underlying foundation of all our North Korean policies. In August, there was a North Korean provocation in the demilitarized zone and we stuck to this principle and applied it to the situation, and we were very firmly responding to the situation. And as a result, we were able to reach the August 25th agreement between the two Koreas.

So we had this vicious cycle where North Korea kept on provoking us and then we just rewarded it and it went on and on, and we want to stop this. We are very clear that our North Korean policy will not change just because North Korea continues to provoke and threaten us. Now, the Korean government will try to smoothly implement the August 25th agreement, and we seek to put into place concrete measures for reconciliation and cooperation in an effort to maintain this momentum for improved inter-Korean ties.

Now, in the past, some people -- you might have thought that, well if you just let things some -- some things slide, won't you get along better? But if you look at the results of that attitude, they really weren't very good. We need a principled approach and this principled approach might make it difficult for the time being, the immediate time being, but that is where improved relationships will actually start. That is my belief.

Now, reunification is something that no one can really predict. In the summit earlier, too, we talked about Germany and how the Chancellor Kohl said that Germany reunification would happen in ten years time, but then three days later, the Berlin Wall came falling down. So it's really something that is very unpredictable.

But no matter when it happens for us, we need to be prepared. I think that is the most important point for us. So for any circumstances, we need to be prepared and we are making efforts in this regard. Now we do have a reunification preparation committee that are looking into the practical aspects of reunification, how we prepare for it.

But reunification is actually not just between ourself (ph) and North Korea, it also affects the greater international community so we need to also look at our neighboring countries and we need to create an environment throughout the world where there is a consensus that people agree, yes, reunification is needed and this will be good for the region, for peace and prosperity, and we need to be able to tell our neighbors and the greater world and that reunification is a good thing for the region and the world and will continue to make efforts in this regard as well.

OBAMA: I was impressed the first time I met with President Park and just to become more and more impressed with her leadership, the clarity of her vision, and she has not only been a great partner to us, but I think has helped to continue Korea's broader role in global affairs, and so, I'm very proud to be working with her and I think our strong relationship is a reflection of the extraordinary friendship and close relationship between the American people and the Korean people.

Cara-Leigh (ph)? There you are.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Now that your administration has said that Iran very clearly violated a U.N. Security Council resolution with it's recent missile test, what are the consequences for that going to be? Would you accept U.S. sanctions against Iran, and given the missile test and Iran's actions and Syria, how concerned are you that they are being this aggressive before they even have gotten the billions that they are supposed to get under the nuclear deal?

And if I could quickly ask you if you could comment on the deal that the U.S. and Russian militaries have reached. Does this mean that -- you think that you -- they're not -- is Russia and the U.S. are going to be at cross-purposes in Syria going forward? And if you could, are you disappointed that Secretary Clinton opposed your trade deal, particularly given that your administration has not released the final draft?

And President Park, you recently appeared in Beijing with the leaders of Russia and China. What message were you trying to send to the U.S. with that appearance?

OBAMA: I have to write these down. Iran.

QUESTION: Iran.

OBAMA: What was the second one?

QUESTION: Russia and military. Hillary.

OBAMA: And Hillary. Yes, got it. Whew! All right. I'll see if I -- we'll see if I can take these in turn.

With respect to Iran, Iran has often violated some of the prohibitions surrounding missile testing and our position with respect to U.N. resolutions, prohibitions and potential sanctions are unchanged with respect to their missile programs.

And this is something I made very clear during the debate around the Iran nuclear deal. The Iran nuclear deal solves a specific problem, which is making sure that they don't possess a nuclear weapon. And it's our best way to do that. It does not fully resolve the wide range of issues where we've got a big difference, and so we are going to have to continue to put pressure on them through the international community and where we have bilateral channels through bilateral channels to indicate to them that there are costs to bad behavior in the region and around the world. But we're not going to do that more effectively if they are also on a separate track pursuing a nuclear weapon. With respect to their actions in Syria, as I have said before, they are just doing more of what they have been doing for the last five years as is Russia. And it's an indication that their basic premise, their basic theory on how to solve Syria has not worked and will not work.

I mean, their preference originally was we will simply send arms and money to Assad and he will be able to clamp down on dissent. And when that didn't work, they directed Hezbollah to come in and prop them up and sent in some of their own military advisers, and that did not work.

And now the Russians have come in and Iran is going to send more people in, but it's also not going to work, because they are trying to support a regime that, in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people, is not legitimate.

And our goal is, even as we double down on going after ISIL, is to continue to cultivate relations with a moderate opposition that can serve as a transition to a new government inside of Syria, and that we continue to have a process of getting the Iranians, the Syrians and all -- or the Iranians, the Russians, the Turks, the Gulf countries and all the interested parties to sit down and recognize we have to have a political transition, if we want to end the humanitarian crisis and save the structure of a unified Syrian state.

With respect to Russia, the only understanding that we have arrived at is, how do we de-conflict in the event that our planes and their planes might be occupying similar space over Syrian skies? So in that sense, we have arrived at an understanding and some channels for communications. Where we will continue to differ is in the basic set of principles and strategies we are pursuing inside of Syria.

President Putin believes if he continues to do what he has been doing over the last five years, and that is to prop up the Assad regime, that the problem will be solved.

Our belief is we have to go after ISIL and violent extremist groups, but the magnet that the civil war there is serving in bringing in foreign fighters and recruiting people to this extremist cause, will only go away if we're able to get a political track and a legitimate inclusive government inside of Syria.

So there's no meeting of the minds in terms of strategy, but my hope is that, as we continue to have these conversations -- and as I suspect Russia starts realizing that they are not going to be able to bomb their way to a peaceful situation inside of Syria, that we will be able to make progress on that front.

And with respect to the trade and how Hillary views trade, I would have you direct questions to her. I mean, here is a general proposition, guys. During the course of what will be a long campaign, I probably won't be commenting on every single utterance or decision that the various candidates make, because I think that it is natural and proper for candidates to run on their own vision and their own platform.

And you know, what is encouraging is the fact that I think everybody on that stage at the debate affirmed what I have said in the past, which is we agree on 95 percent of stuff, and on the basic vision of a country that is building out our middle class; is making sure that everybody who works hard gets a shot; that believes immigration strengthens us rather than weakens us; that believes that, you know, people should be treated fairly and equally.

You know, the vision of the Democratic Party that I fought for is one that is broadly shared by all the candidates. There are going to be areas where they differ at any given point.

Now, I am happy to make the case, once again, for the trade agreement itself, and I hope, Carol (ph), you take the time to read it, because what you will see is that it meets the promise that I made, the most progressive, highest standard trade agreement that we have ever put forward, that deals with chronic problems like child labor, or forced labor, and is enforceable; that makes sure we are upping our game in the Asia-Pacific region on the environment, and is enforceable; that protects intellectual property that is the wellspring of innovation here in the United States; that makes sure our businesses are treated fairly when they invest in other countries; that opens up markets.

Keep in mind, we have some of the lowest tariffs in the world already, so we're already seeing goods and services being sold by other countries here, and the countries that are part of TPP have significantly higher tariffs.

For us to be able to get those lowered -- just the example of Japan, where they're -- they slap on, you know, 10, 20, 30, 40 percent taxes on some of our goods and services -- for those to come down and, in the case of U.S. manufacturing goods, those tariffs being eliminated completely, that's a big deal.

So I'm sure that we'll continue this debate as we post the actual terms of the agreement and Congress has a chance to review it. I'm pretty confident I -- I'll be able to persuade a lot of people, once they see the outlines of the deal, that it's the right thing to do.

And, as President Park indicated, there's a geopolitical reason for us doing it as well. We want those of us who already have high standards to make sure everybody else does, too, because that's going to make our businesses more competitive.

It's going to put our workers in a better position, so that they're not undercut by low wages or forced labor, that their plants don't suddenly shut down because we've got environmental laws that other countries aren't following. It's the right thing to do.

QUESTION: Can I ask you, are -- are you (inaudible)?

OBAMA: I think what we'll -- we'll be doing is we'll review, as we have in the past, any violations of U.N. resolutions, and we'll deal with them much as we have in the past. So what I've been very clear about from the outset is that, although we are eliminating -- or suspending, effectively -- sanctions related to the nuclear program, subject to snapback if we see violations there, that sanctions that are related to ballistic missiles, human rights violations, terrorism -- those, we will continue to enforce.

And that's not just unilateral sanctions on our part. Our expectation is, is that there will be continued international consequences where U.N. resolutions are violated.

PARK (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): That was a very long answer, and I kind of forgot the question that was asked to me.

OBAMA: This is what happens when I get (inaudible) question.

PARK (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Yes. I think the question about my visit to Beijing and what kind of message that I delivered -- now, I met with President Xi in China, and I also met with the leader of -- the leaders of Russia.

And North Korean nuclear issue in our region -- in Northeast Asia and even the world -- it's a very large threat. And this is something that we need to make concerted efforts to resolve, and I had dialogue on that topic with them.

And we also talk about the security threat, and also the North Korean nuclear issue from the standpoint that from the South Korean -- from the Korean peninsula and through (ph) Asia -- throughout Eurasia, we all want to grow together, and there's so many possibilities there.

But right in the middle, blocking our way, is North Korea, and because of that, the growth potential of whole of Asia and Europe is being damaged a lot because of North Korea's ambitions in terms of nuclear.

So that was my message that I had for the leaders that I met in Beijing, and they agreed with me in terms of my remarks about North Korea's nuclear problems, and we all agreed we needed to make efforts to resolve this issue.

QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I'm from Yonhap News TV. I'm Yoon Seok-Hee (ph).

First, I have a question for President Obama. Within the United States, with regard to the Korea-U.S. alliance, there are some people who are concerned that there are some cracks. What do you see?

And in this situation, President Park has visited the United States. What is the significance of her visit?

I also have a question for President Park. Now, through this visit, you have said that you would like to open new frontiers of cooperation and I'd like to hear details on that, please.

OBAMA: Actually, I don't see any cracks in the relationship at all. I would argue that the U.S.-ROK relationship is stronger than it's ever has been, that the alliance is on firmer footing that it's ever been.

Across the spectrum of issues, military, economic, people to people, scientific development, global issues, that we have excellent relations with the government, our communications is strong, our vision of a continued robust alliance that can deal with any contingency is not just given lip service to, but we invest in on an ongoing basis.

Our vision of what we need to do to see improved relations with the DPRK. We have similar outlooks. And -- so -- so I actually feel very good about where the relationship between the United States and Korea are. I think what's interesting, and -- and this might connect to the earlier question that Carol (ph) had, is sometimes there's a perception that if President Park meets with President Xi that -- that must cause a problem for us.

Well I -- President Xi was in this room eating my food, and we were toasting and having a -- a lengthy conversation.

We want South Korea could have a strong relationship with China, just as we want to have a strong relationship with China. We want to see China's peaceful rise. We want them to be cooperating with us in putting pressure on the DPRK. We want to be working with them to uphold international norms and rules of the road.

So there's no contradiction between the Republican of Korea having good relations with us, being a central part of our alliance and having good relations with China.

I think -- as I communicated to -- to President Park, the only thing we're going to continue to insist on is that we want China to abide by international norms and rules, and where they fail to do so we expect the Republic of Korea to speak out on that just as we do. Because we think that both of our countries have benefited from the international norms and rules that have been in place since the end of World War II, and we don't want to see those rules of the road weakening, or some countries taking advantage because they're larger. That's not good for anybody, including South Korea.

Obviously, given the size of China right there on your doorstep, if they are able to act with impunity and ignore rules whenever they please, that's not going to be good for you, whether that's on economic issues or security issues. So again, I think there we have a shared interest, and -- and my hope is that -- as a consequence to the outreach that President Park has done, the outreach we do, the interactions that we have with Japan and resolving some of the historical challenges that exists there, that we can create in northeast Asia the kind of cooperative, forward-looking relationship among all countries that will be good for our children and our grandchildren.

PARK (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): With the United States, we are looking to open new frontiers and cooperation, new horizons for cooperation as well. We're looking at climate change, infectious diseases and space exploration. Those are just some of the topics that we talked about.