Return to Transcripts main page
Rick's List
Prince George's County Police Spokesman Addresses Police Beating Caught on Tape; Russian Adoption Gone Wrong; Nuclear Weapons Summit
Aired April 13, 2010 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: This is the story that everyone has been talking about. We have been showing it to you repeatedly.
And the comments have just continued to come in, thousands of them by now, just on Twitter, just during our show, from people saying that they can't believe what they saw in this videotape.
Let me just show you a little bit of the videotape real quick, OK? This is in Prince George's County. See that -- that guy in the circle right there? He is coming to the horse. He sees the horse. He backs off. He is kind of excited. 9 His team just won. And, suddenly, he is just waylaid by these police officers. And they don't stop. They beat and beat and beat and beat him repeatedly. And then they file a police report saying that he accosted them, that he somehow tried to attack the -- the police officer or the horse or them.
And then they say as well that the only reason he was hurt is because he was accidentally kicked by the horse. Now, you're looking at these pictures, right? Does it look like this guy was accidentally kicked by a horse?
I want to bring somebody in now who is in a very difficult situation, to his credit, and he's good enough to call in to talk to us about this. His name is Major Andrew Ellis. He is the Prince George's County police spokesman. He's on the phone with us now from Landover, Maryland.
I'm not quite sure how to ask you the first question, other than the fact that whether or not you are embarrassed after looking at the video of how these officers have behaved and apparently lied as well through their teeth on this police report.
MAJOR ANDREW ELLIS, SPOKESPERSON, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, POLICE DEPARTMENT (via telephone): Well, we are embarrassed and we are outraged to look at what's happening on the video.
The statement of charges clearly is not supported by what the video shows, and it is not the type of behavior we expect from our officers. We have a full investigation under way from internal affairs. As soon as we found out about this thing yesterday, actually from a news media source, we started our own investigation, hadn't even received a complaint yet. And so that is fully underway now. SANCHEZ: Oh, that's interesting.
And, by the way, this is nice of you to come on and talk to us. And the -- the reason I'm saying that, and I should let our viewers know, you're -- you are about to have a press briefing. You are going to talk to all the media. But, since we have been in contact with you since this morning, you're -- you are good enough to get on the phone, and get on the horn and talk to us first.
And I just want you to know that, look, I know you're a busy guy, you got lot got a lot of stuff going on there, you got a lot of police work. And a lot of your guys in your office do good, diligent work, so we appreciate your time.
Now, let me ask you this. A lot of folks would look at this and wonder why these guys all haven't been named yet. And some would even wonder why they haven't been charged or whether they should.
ELLIS: Well --
SANCHEZ: What is your answer to that?
ELLIS: Well, we're -- we are still trying to identify them ourselves. I mean, when you look at the videotape, they are hard to identify, because they are completely in gear.
So, what we're doing is, we are going through our rosters of people that had that night. We have had supervisors in, internal affairs speaking with them. We are attempting to identify the three officers you see on videotape. Certainly, we have already identified the officer who filed the statement of charges, and that officer is going to be suspended.
SANCHEZ: When we hear the word suspended, a lot of us out there in real America wonder whether a suspension with pay is really a suspension or it's considered by some of these guys as a vacation. Can you clear that up for us?
ELLIS: Well, let's be very clear. No officer wants to be suspended. The officer's vehicle is taken from him. His arrest powers are taken. Firearm is taken. So, it's -- no, it is not a vacation.
SANCHEZ: Is there a possibility we can go beyond a suspension with pay to something much more harsh? And, if so, what is the process -- the ongoing process for that determination?
ELLIS: Well, what -- once criminal charges are filed, if criminal charges are filed, then we still have to look at suspensions without pay and other remedies.
SANCHEZ: You know what bothers a lot of folks when they watch this? And I guess -- look, my brother is a cop, so, to -- for full disclosure and transparence. And I have worked with police officers my whole life. I have come up as a cop beat reporter in Miami in South Florida. It is not just what happened. It's the apparent cover-up and the fact that so many other officers were there and didn't stop and say, hey, guys, are you nuts? What are you doing? This kid hasn't done anything wrong.
Where is that sense that you need to step in, even if it is somebody who is one of your peers or one of your colleague and stop them from themselves?
ELLIS: Well, that -- that is certainly a question we are all asking in our own minds. What -- what were the officers doing? You know, how quickly did this thing happen? Where is the supervision?
Absolutely, those are all questions that -- that we are all asking and they will be part of the investigation.
SANCHEZ: Are you madder -- what makes you, as the guys who investigate this, you know, and the officers who are going to be looking into this -- what's worse, what they did or what they then tried to do to cover it up?
Because, obviously, as we look at that videotape -- and we will look at it one more time -- they don't know that they are on camera there when they are doing this. So, to file a report later saying, oh, he accidentally got kicked by the horse, I mean, that's deceitful. Which is worse?
ELLIS: Well, I think, certainly, if there is like or perjury, that's probably worse.
But, listen, it's -- it's -- these officers in these situations are assigned to very specific roles. We have officers on the front lines. We have officers who were on arrest teams. We have officers who are processing.
Once we go through this investigation, I think we may find the officer that did the statement of charges was not involved in arrest; he was involved in the processing. There may have been miscommunications. There may have been -- he may have actually switched a statement of probable cause from somebody else that they arrested.
So, that is all going to be part of the investigation.
SANCHEZ: When do you think we are going to have a better -- oh, by the way, I know you are going to be holding a news conference in a little bit. You are going to be talking to the media. And I imagine you are going to be going through a lot of the things, answering a lot of the questions that I just asked you. Is there anything that I missed that you're going to be mentioning that maybe you want to share with our viewers?
ELLIS: I think you have covered it very well.
SANCHEZ: Well, my thanks to you, sir, Major Andrew Ellis. Look, I know it is a tough situation for you guys. And I know that, generally speaking this does not bode well for the department at this time, but it doesn't mean that all police officers behave the way these knuckle -- these officers -- pardon me -- have -- have behaved.
I want to bring in Lou Palumbo now. He's standing by as well. He has been watching this.
What did you think of the interview? What did you think of what he had to say, Lou?
LOU PALUMBO, FORMER NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER: Well, I'm impressed by Major Ellis. He is an intelligent and articulate individual who is clearly plugged into the sensitivity of this incident.
And I think that he is prudently trying to mitigate what happened here and bring the situation back into balance. You know, he is to be credited for that. And there's --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: Well, let -- let me ask --
PALUMBO: There's obvious reason that he is a spokesperson.
SANCHEZ: Let -- let me ask you this. Are they capable of investigating themselves? Is internal affairs going to be able to conduct this investigation?
Or is this the kind of thing that should be handed off to somebody else and say, you know what, this thing is getting so much heat, and it is so obvious on tape, that we really need to hand it off somewhere else?
What's -- what's your take on this?
PALUMBO: I personally believe that they are capable of investigating this incident internally. I think the reason it is going to be somewhat simple for them is because the incident is irrefutable. It has been recorded, or immortalized, by a video camera, number one.
Number two, Rick, depending on how this police department handles this investigation, and based on the interview with Major Ellis, I do think that it is going to be properly investigated. And I will tell with you certitude, if they attempt any more shenanigans of deception, the FBI, who is probably monitoring this right now, is going to step in and institute their own investigation, which will deal with excessive force under color of authority, violation of civil rights.
SANCHEZ: We're not --
(CROSSTALK)
PALUMBO: So, I think we have to --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: I'm sorry.
PALUMBO: I'm sorry?
SANCHEZ: Go ahead, Lou. Finish. I -- I was just -- I just had a thought --
PALUMBO: No.
SANCHEZ: -- I was thinking when you said that, and I was going to -- but -- but you finish first.
PALUMBO: Well, you know, I think we have to afford them an opportunity to demonstrate a responsible approach to this.
The real tragic part of this incident is how it translates to the rest of law enforcement, and, in particular, local police officers. There are hundreds of thousands, I would assume, of law enforcement agents in this country that do not participate, nor condone this.
This was an isolated instance. We shouldn't judge Prince George's County's entire department by it.
SANCHEZ: But -- but --
PALUMBO: But the litmus test will be how they handle will investigation --
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: But here's -- here's where you are so right. Look at this tweet that I just got in, right at the very top there, Robert, if you would.
Here is where this undermines all police officers, guys like you, guys like my brother, all my friends in South Florida who I have grown up with. "Is it not funny that law enforcement wants us to step up and fess up to our crimes, but they won't step up for their own?"
See, that's the kind of thing that Americans will see in this and say, well, you know what? They -- they are losing credibility with us.
That's a problem, isn't it?
PALUMBO: Yes, clearly. And as I -- as I spoke to a little earlier, you know, their litmus test will be how they conduct this investigation. And they will re -- either re-instill some confidence in the public, or they will further alienate the public and create higher levels of distrust.
You know, in law enforcement, there is an expression regarding us doing our own laundry. Well, now we are going to find out if they are capable of doing their own laundry, Rick. And -- and, quite honestly, Rick, you know, this incident is -- is of such a level that I think you can expect arrests.
Probably -- forget the loss of -- of employment. I think that is a no-brainer here. And I think that these police officers backed themselves into the corner. You know, their agency has to step up to the plate and do the right thing. I think Major Ellis has alluded to a willingness to do that.
And the rest of this is going to continue to unfold day by day.
SANCHEZ: So, you're saying --
(CROSSTALK)
PALUMBO: -- Rick --
SANCHEZ: Go ahead. Go ahead. You were going to say something, I think, that sounded important.
PALUMBO: You know, just imagine one further thing. That could be your son or my son.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
PALUMBO: And I don't want to tell you what my reaction would be to this, because I understand the system intimately. I have been around this community for 38 years. I have encountered some unbelievable law enforcement agents, federal, state and local level.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
PALUMBO: I have had exposure and experience in Maryland, in Prince George's County. It is a very good police department. I think people need to just keep this in perspective and continue to be mindful that this is an anomaly. This is not a policy I believe this agency condones, but the proof is going to be in the pudding or the fruition of this investigation.
SANCHEZ: Wow. You're saying that these officers should not only be suspended. You're saying these officers, the ones who are culpable of both what appeared to be an assault and covering it up, should lose their jobs and lose their badges. And you're saying that you believe that they should be prosecuted?
That's lot to be said from a guy with your law enforcement experiences and -- and your love of this -- of -- of this career.
So, listen, we will get you back. I want to continue this conversation. Obviously, we have hit on something here that's very important. And, hopefully, tomorrow, we will be able to talk to not only the officers again, find out what else is going on, but also get information from -- from the victim in this case as well.
Lou Palumbo, my thanks to you.
All right.
PALUMBO: My thanks to you as well.
SANCHEZ: I want to -- I want to let you know that we are also standing by right now -- wow, what a story.
What is this, Rog? Thanks, buddy.
These are live pictures of the podium where the president of the United States is going to have a news conference. It's coming up in just a couple of minutes. We understand the president's going to be addressing what kind of deal he was able to reach with the Chinese to control nukes and put some kind of, well, sanctions, I guess, is the best way of word -- of using the word, put some kind of sanctions on Iran.
Is it possible? We will let you know. We will be looking forward to listening to the president in just a little bit.
Also, this story that we have been following that I know many of you have been following -- did the parent who sent this adopted boy back to Russia break the law, maybe laws of abuse, maybe laws of abandonment? Well, that's what police are looking into. That's next.
By the way, as we go to break, let me let you see what's going on, on Wall Street. Look, stayed over the 1100 mark. That's important. This is big news yesterday. And the Dow is still -- that's -- that's the number right there, right, Ang (ph), over 1100.
Did I say 11000 -- 1100? I'm sorry -- 11,000. I misspoke.
I will be right back. Pardon me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Welcome back. I'm Rick Sanchez.
Eleven hundred. I apologize.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Eleven thousand. I wasn't thinking.
Now on THE LIST -- the president will travel to Poland to attend the state funeral of President Kaczynski and the first lady. Now, remember, they were on a plane that crashed over Russia over the weekend, killing everybody on board. President Obama is going to fly in on Saturday night, we are told now. This came over just about 45 minutes ago. And he will attend the funeral set for Sunday.
Now, from the follow-up list, do you remember Proposition 8, the voter-approved amendment to California's constitution that banned same-sex marriage? It led to huge protests like this one across the state. Gay rights activists started a petition drive to repeal Prop 8. They had until yesterday to get almost 700,000 people to sign on. It turns out, they couldn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot. The fight isn't over, though. There are several lawsuits against Prop 8 working their way through the courts. And some activists are hoping to try again in 2012.
All right, I want to show you something else now. You, in many ways, like to help us produce our show. So, like this one -- take a look at that tweet, the very top right there. "Rick, how come you're not showing first lady in Haiti Michelle Obama? Why aren't you showing the first lady in Haiti? That is really important to a lot of people. She is a huge figure to respect."
OK. Ask and you shall receive. See, we had it produced for you guys.
Topping the list of dignitaries who dropped in on Haiti today, first lady Michelle Obama. Her unannounced visit included a tour of Port-au-Prince, hit hard, as you know, by the magnitude-7 earthquake in January. Mrs. Obama and vice presidential spouse Jill Biden topped off in Haiti their official visit. It's a visit that will, by the way, continue on, lasting three days, and ending up in Mexico.
All right, another follow-up, this time on the woman who put a 7- year-old adopted boy on a plane by himself and sent him back to Russia.
Martin Savidge is in Shelbyville, Tennessee.
First of all, have you talked to anyone connected with the adoptive family today to find out where they are or what they are saying or what police have found out?
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we talked today with Trisha Henegar, she is the attorney that represents the family, that would be Nancy and Torry Hansen. And, basically, she says she has told her clients not to talk to anybody, which goes in with what the sheriff announced yesterday, that he had received word that the family is not going to willingly cooperate with his investigation. They're not going to talk with them. They are not going to explain why they put that child on an airplane and sent him back to Russia.
They -- the attorney did say that if their client is -- of course, a warrant is put out for their arrest, then they would dutifully cooperate. They will come right in on their own voluntariness, and they will talk to authorities.
SANCHEZ: Yes.
SAVIDGE: But, right now, the attorney is basically saying no way, no how are they going to talk to authorities, unless there is a charge.
SANCHEZ: Well, let me -- let me bring the -- the viewers in on this, in case they are getting caught up now.
We have been covering this story now for the better part of 24 hours, you know, 48, or 72, if you include the weekend coverage. But it seems like this family decided, after adopting a child, that they were going to send him back to the place from whence he came, back to Russia, maybe without checking with authorities.
Now, they say the child was troublesome, that he had made threats, and that they even stopped him or found him trying to set a fire somewhere in the house. Now, obviously, that is reason for any parent to be upset.
But here's the question. And I was thinking about this as we watch the pictures here of the boy once again. Obviously, we have covered him up as best we can. I mean, he is just a little kid. You know, I am -- I'm just thinking here out loud, because I have got kids, and I have made a commitment, Marty, to my kids. And, now, obviously, my kids are biological. My wife and I had our children.
But, even if you adopt children, aren't you making a promise to them that you are going to stick by them through thick and thin, no matter what happens? I mean, that's what a relationship with a child is supposed to be like, right?
SAVIDGE: Well, this -- this gets to the crux of the argument here.
SANCHEZ: Go ahead.
SAVIDGE: This is what people -- this is why this talk is so emotional for many people. This is why this story lives on, because of the fact that everyone is: Look, you made a commitment here. All right, maybe that child was not physically born to you, but, the moment you adopted, that is essentially the same thing.
That is your flesh and blood, so to speak, that you have made a commitment to. So, can you just disconnect? Can you put this child on a men and say, "I'm sorry," due to whatever problems this child has, you return to sender?
Many people say they can't do that, including the sheriff. He has a hard time emotionally with this, but he will do what the law tells him to do.
SANCHEZ: But you have mentioned on a couple of your reports today -- and we are down to 20 seconds -- that he -- they -- they are being investigated for just that, abandonment, right?
SAVIDGE: Correct, abandonment, and also the possibility of abuse. Those are the initial issues they are looking into -- no charges yet.
SANCHEZ: Marty Savidge on top of the story us for, doing a great job on it, thanks so much. It is one many people all over the country are following.
Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN ROETHLISBERGER, PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER: I intend to make my family, friends and the Steeler nation proud on all fronts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Ben Roethlisberger has apologized, but now what? A fine? Suspension? Well, over the last hour-and-a-half, we understand he has either met or has been meeting with the commissioner of the NFL. What will the NFL decide to do with him as a punishment, if anything? We will let you know.
Also, a political candidate apparently isn't worried about winning the Hispanic vote.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: What he said was so offensive, so divisive, it puts him right at the top of the list that you don't want to be on. Whatever you do, don't touch that dial. That's next.
And, in many ways, it's kind of personal.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We just have been told the president of the United States is going to be coming up in a couple minutes during a news conference.
But I want to share something else with you at this point, as we wait for that, which I think is significant. You know, I was in Roatan, Honduras, recently on vacation last week, as you know, when I was stopped on the beach in Roatan, Honduras, of all places, and told by a guy who was pointing at me, "You are the guy on the news, the guy on CNN who does the list that nobody wants to be on."
I can't believe that that's what he picked up from the show, but he did. He then asked me why I did this. The answer: because of people like this guy.
Here's the bad list.
You see this guy right here? His name is Sonny Thomas. He is the leader of the Springboro Tea Party. That's in Ohio. These are some of his photos from his MySpace page. A few weeks back, when immigration reform activists marched on Washington, he wrote this: "Illegals everywhere today. So many 'S's'" -- he, used the word referring to Hispanics that rhymes with my name, Rick. Then he goes on to say that those Hispanics make him feel like a speck.
And he asks, "Where's my gun?"
So, he is referring to Hispanics with the most offensive word that you can use, and then he implies he wishes that he could shoot them? Nice.
So, we did our due diligence and we called Sonny Thomas today, who was planning to host a Tea Party event in Ohio this weekend. I asked for an explanation. Here it is -- quote -- "As I am a lifetime music lover of all genres, I always have some sort of song that can fit almost any occasion or situation with. Coincidentally, the song "Spicks and Specks" by the Bee Gees had been on my player. I made the reference to the song, not stopping to think of the era that it was produced from and, taken out of context, could be so offensive to some people."
So, he is blaming it on the Bee Gees. And he didn't think -- he didn't think it would be offensive.
Really? Really? Roger, go back to that man's photo from his MySpace ad -- MySpace page there. See that? Sonny Thomas is wearing a shirt that says "White Pride." He has another shirt that describes liberals as neutered.
And as for the picture with the mullet haircut, I will let that speak for itself.
Yes, he is just a Bee Gees fan, like I'm Elvis. By the way, you want to hear the Bee Gees song? We looked it up, just for giggles and grins. Hit it, Rog.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): The sun in my life, it is dead, it is dead. Where is the light that would stay --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: You got to love the Bee Gees. But, by the way, we looked it up, and that is a song about love lost. It has nothing to do with that Australian band singing about Mexicans. With or without the music, Sonny Thomas appears to be two things, a bigot and a liar.
And that's why he's on the list that you don't want to be on.
Listen to this. I want to read something to you that's very important, as we continue to follow the Ben Roethlisberger story. This is from the NFL's own personal conduct policy. It applies to everyone in the league, from players to coaches to league employees.
This is interesting, OK, because we were all wondering, OK, charges are dropped, so nothing can happen to him, right? Wrong -- quote -- "Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL will be subject to discipline, even if not criminal in nature" -- stop quote.
Now, that sentence could come back to haunt this player, Roethlisberger, right now. He is meeting with the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell. Apparently, it started at 2:00. It is a closed-door meeting, so it is not like we are there, covering it for you, right this minute, in fact.
And it's been a day since a district attorney in Georgia announced that he doesn't have enough evidence to charge Roethlisberger with sexually assaulting a college student in a nightclub bathroom. Roethlisberger's reaction? A statement that lasted a little bit more than a minute, which was, for the most part, read off a script.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROETHLISBERGER: I'd like to begin by expressing gratitude for the thorough investigation process in Georgia and the prosecutor's decision not to bring charges. I know, without a doubt, it was the right conclusion.
I don't intend to discuss any details related to the events in Georgia. And I am happy to put this behind me and move forward.
I am truly sorry for the disappointment and negative attention I have brought to my family, my teammates, coaches, the Rooneys, and the NFL. I understand that the opportunities I have been blessed with are a privilege, and that much is expected of me as the quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
I absolutely want to be the leader this team deserves, valued in the community and a role model to kids. I have much work to do to earn this trust, and I am committed to improving and showing everyone my true values.
I am excited to get back to work with my teammates, and I am more determined than ever to have a great season. I intend to make my family, friends and the Steeler nation proud on all fronts.
Thank you, and God Bless.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Even if the NFL doesn't punish Roethlisberger, the team could.
By the way, does -- do you ever wonder, when someone does something like this, and they decide that they are going to put out a statement, that they should at least try and memorize it, even if it was written by their or their public relations agents, rather than sitting there literally reading something?
Just a thought.
Steelers president Art Rooney plans to talk with the NFL commissioner, and then the team will decide what happens next. Rooney makes it clear Big Ben has to clean up his act.
Listen to what Rooney has said: "Ben will now have to work hard to earn back the respect and the trust of Steelers fans and to live up to the leadership responsibilities that we all expect of him."
And we're hearing from Roethlisberger's most famous predecessor, one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to Q.B. the Steelers in history, four-time Super Bowl champ Terry Bradshaw, who is a character in his own right. But he is ripping into Roethlisberger in many ways. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TERRY BRADSHAW, FORMER PITTSBURGH STEELERS QUARTERBACK: He wants to break all my records, and I say go and break them. I really don't care. Look, I have done my job. My job is over. Now you have your shot.
But he has got to -- in my -- in my opinion, he has got to realize who he is. He is an elite athlete in the National Football League. He is under a magnificent spotlight. And he has got to be careful about what he does in the off-season.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Then there's this blunt piece of advice. This is from the DA in Georgia who decided not to charge him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRED BRIGHT, OCMULGEE, GEORGIA, JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Ben, grow up. Come on, you're supposed to stand for something. I mean, you're the leader. You should be a role model. You don't need to put yourself in this position anymore.
SANCHEZ: "Ben, grow up." How fitting is this, by the way?
Roethlisberger has just lost one of his sponsorship deals. It turns out that his actions are falling short of "company standards." The company makes Big Ben's Beef Jerky.
All right. I want you to watch what's going on now in Washington, because the president of the United States is going to be talking in just a little bit. He is going to have a summit -- actually, he has had a summit, and he's going to be coming out and talking now about what agreements they have been able to come up with, with all these countries that have been represented at this nuclear summit.
Let me bring in David Albright now. He's a former U.N. nuclear weapons inspector, and he is good enough to join us.
Mr. Albright, thanks for being with us, sir.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good to be here.
SANCHEZ: I'm thinking now of the number one item, I guess, on the agenda is putting pressure on Iran somehow. And it looks like the president of the United States -- I don't know -- we're going to be hearing from him directly in just a moment, but it looks like he has been able to convince the Chinese to back him on this.
How significant is that?
ALBRIGHT: Well, it's important. I mean, the summit is about protecting nuclear explosive material, plutonium, separated plutonium and highly-enriched uranium. But there has been these side discussions between the leaders. And I think Iran has been a frequent topic.
And certainly, Obama has probably made a very strong pitch to China to join in, that Iran is not abiding by the U.N. Security Council resolutions, it's rejected negotiations with the United States, pretty dramatic ways, unpleasant ways in some cases. And Obama probably made the case that it's time for pressure.
SANCHEZ: How big -- I mean --
ALBRIGHT: That has --
SANCHEZ: But here's the deal -- China is -- this president has been getting a lot of heat because apparently, he hasn't been able to get enough from the Chinese. If he comes out with the Chinese president, and together they come out and say, look, this is what we're going to do and this is how we're going to go about it, is that a big deal politically?
ALBRIGHT: I don't think they are going to do that today. I think President Obama is going to talk about the results of this summit. I mean, we'll see what happens when this issue is debated at the U.N. Security Council.
Now, another issue which is somewhat relevant to the summit is China is a major place for Iran to go to try to buy things for its nuclear program, because the Chinese do not implement their export control laws. And so Iranian agents can go there, contact Chinese trading companies which buy, in a sense, anywhere in the world, because there's so many European/U.S. subsidiaries in China. And then the Iranian agents end up with it and smuggle it back to Iran. And so, if China were to force its export control laws, it could hurt the Iranian nuclear program and inhibit its ability to reach the capability to build nuclear weapons.
SANCHEZ: Then there's this report that I read this morning, published by us, here at CNN. Our own CNN reporters put this story together. I read it this morning on our "Political Ticker," and it seemed to indicate that Turkey is saying, look, you guys need to back off Iran. You're not going to get them to do anything by pushing them into a corner. What you need to do is get us to go in there and mediate on your behalf to try and get them to come to the table.
What do you think of that?
ALBRIGHT: Well, I have no problem with it, but Iran does respond to pressure. I mean, they were put under intense pressure in 2002 and 2003, and they caved. They made major concessions on their nuclear program.
And so I do think Iran does respond to pressure, and I think President Obama has correctly decided that now's the time to put on the pressure, while at the same time encouraging negotiations. I mean, so if Turkey wants to do it, fine, but that doesn't stop the effort to get sanctions on Iran. SANCHEZ: Because, apparently, the Turks aren't all that real crazy about the idea of sanctions on Iran, they don't think it will work.
ALBRIGHT: No.
SANCHEZ: You say they're wrong.
ALBRIGHT: Well, they can work. I mean, they worked in the case of apartheid South Africa. That contributed to South Africa giving up its nuclear weapons in about 1990. They worked in the case of Libya, and Libya gave up its nuclear weapons ambitions.
They don't always work, but they can work. But it's very important that these sanctions and the people behind the sanctions are persistent and they don't lose sight of the goal, which is an Iran without nuclear weapons capabilities.
SANCHEZ: I just can't help but mention that they haven't worked very well in the country where I was born, Cuba.
ALBRIGHT: Well, they don't always work. And so you have to -- you know, you have to try and see what happens.
But on the nuclear side, they have worked quite a few times. And the key thing is if the country is vulnerable, in a sense the sanctions act as a tax on the economy. And it also serves to make it harder for them to put together these nuclear facilities.
Iran doesn't build these things on its own. They really go out and they have to shop the world to get the components, the materials, the know-how to make these things work. And the sanctions play a role in slowing them down, and then that provides a mechanism and an opportunity for Iran to start changing its mind.
SANCHEZ: You're watching what will be the culminating moment of this nuclear summit that the president of the United States has hosted. On the screen right there you see the president is about to come out, and he will address the folks at the summit. We're told we're about a minute away.
We also have one of our reporters, Dan Lothian, who's following this from on there on the ground.
Dan, I think we've got about 30 seconds here. Set the scene for us.
DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Well, we're waiting for the president to come out. We were given a two- minute warning.
There he is. He's coming out. He'll make some opening remarks, probably 15 to 20 minutes, and then take some questions.
Here's the president.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good afternoon, everybody.
We have just concluded an enormously productive day. I said this morning that today would be an opportunity for our nations, both individually and collectively, to make concrete commitments and take tangible steps to secure nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists, who would surely use them.
This evening, I can report that we have with seized this opportunity. And because of the steps we have taken as individual nations and as an international community, the American people will be safer and the world will be more secure.
I want to thank all who participated in this historic summit, 49 leaders from every region of the world. Today's progress was possible because these leaders came not simply to talk, but to take action; not simply to make pledges of future action, but to commit to meaningful steps that they are prepared to implement right now.
I also want to thank my colleagues for the candor and cooperative spirit that they brought to the discussions. This was not a day of long speeches or lectures on what other nations must do. We listened to each other with mutual respect.
We recognized that while different countries face different challenges, we have a mutual interest in securing these dangerous materials. So today' is a testament to what is possible when nations come together in the spirit of partnership, to embrace our shared responsibility and confront a shared challenge. This is how we will solve problems and advance the security of our people in the 21st century, and this is reflected in the communique that we have unanimously agreed to today.
First, we agreed on the urgency and seriousness of the threat. Coming into this summit, there were a range of views on this danger, but at our dinner last night, and throughout the day, we developed a shared understanding of the risk.
Today, we are declaring that nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security. We also agreed that the most effective way to prevent terrorists and criminals from acquiring nuclear materials is through strong nuclear security, protecting nuclear materials, and preventing nuclear smuggling.
Second, I am very pleased that all the nations represented here have endorsed the goal that I outlined in Prague one year ago, to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years' time. This is an ambitious goal, and we are under no illusions that it will be easy. But the urgency of the threat and the catastrophic consequences of even a single act of nuclear terrorism demand an effort that is at once bold and pragmatic. And this is a goal that can be achieved.
Third, we reaffirm that it is the fundamental responsibility of nations, consistent with their international obligations, to maintain effective security of the nuclear materials and facilities under our control. This includes strengthening national laws and policies and fully implementing the commitments we have agreed to.
And fourth, we recognized that even as we fulfill our national responsibilities, this threat cannot be addressed by countries working in isolation. So we have committed ourselves to a sustained, effective program of international cooperation on national security, and we call on other nations to join us.
It became clear in our discussions that we do not need lots of new institutions and layers of bureaucracy. We need to strengthen the institutions and partnerships that we already have and make them even more effective. This includes the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the multilateral partnership that strengthens nuclear security, prevent nuclear trafficking, and assist nations in building their capacity to secure their nuclear materials.
But as I said, today was about taking tangible steps to protect our people. So we have also agreed to a detailed work plan to guide our efforts going forward, the specific actions we will take.
I want to commend my partners for the very important commitments that they made in conjunction with this summit. Let me give some examples.
Canada agreed to give up a significant quantity of highly- enriched uranium. Chile has given up its entire stockpile. Ukraine and Mexico announced that they will do the same.
Other nations, such as Argentina and Pakistan, announced new steps to strengthen port security and prevent nuclear smuggling. More nations, including Argentina, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, agreed to join and thus strengthen the treaties and international partnerships that are at the core of our global efforts.
A number of countries, including Italy, Japan, India and China, will create new centers to promote nuclear security, technologies and training. Nations pledged new resources to help the IAEA meet its responsibilities.
In a major and welcomed development, Russia announced that it will close its last weapons-grade plutonium production reactor. After many years of effort, I'm pleased that the United States and Russia agreed today to eliminate 68 tons of plutonium for our weapons programs, plutonium that would have been enough for about 17,000 nuclear weapons. Instead, we will use this material to help generate electricity for our people.
These are exactly the kinds of commitments called for in the work plan that we adopted today, so we have made real progress in building a safer world. I would also note that the United States has made its own commitments.
We are strengthening security at our own nuclear facilities and will invite the IAEA to review the security at our Neutron Research Center. This reflects our commitment to sharing the best practices that are needed in our global efforts. We're seeking significant funding increases for programs to prevent nuclear proliferation and trafficking. And today, the United States is joining with our Canadian partners and calling on nations to commit $10 billion to extending our highly successful global partnership to strengthen nuclear security around the world.
So, this has been a day of great progress, but as I said this morning, this can be a fleeting moment. Securing nuclear materials must be a serious and sustained global effort. We agreed to have our experts meet on a regular basis to measure progress, to ensure that we are meeting our commitments, and to plan our next steps.
And I again want to thank President Lee and the Republic of Korea for agreeing to host the next security summit in two years.
Finally, let me say while this summit focused on securing nuclear materials, this is part of a larger effort, the comprehensive agenda that I outlined in Prague last year to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Indeed, in recent days we have made progress on every element of this agenda.
To reduce nuclear arsenals, President Medvedev and I signed the historic new START Treaty, not only committing our two nations to significant reductions in deployed nuclear weapons, but also setting the stage for further cuts and cooperation between our two countries. To move beyond outdated Cold War thinking and to focus on the nuclear dangers of the 21st century, our new Nuclear Posture Review reduces the role and number of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.
And for the first time, preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is at the top of America's nuclear agenda, which reaffirms the central importance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. And next month, in New York, we will join with nations from around the world to strengthen the NPT as the cornerstone of our global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, even as we pursue greater civil nuclear cooperation. Because for nations that uphold their responsibilities, peaceful nuclear energy can unlock new advances in medicine, in agriculture and in economic development.
All of these efforts are connected. Leadership and progress in one area reinforces progress in another.
When the United States improves our own nuclear security and transparency, it encourages others to do the same, as we have seen today. When the United States full fills our responsibilities as a nuclear power committed to the NPT, we strengthen our global efforts to ensure that other nations fulfill their responsibilities.
So, again, I want to thank my colleagues for making this unprecedented gathering a day of unprecedented progress in confronting one of the greatest threats to our global security. Our work today not only advances the security of the United States, it advance the security of all mankind. And preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism will remain one of my highest priorities as president of the United States. So with that, I'm going to take a few questions and I'm going to start with Bill Plante from CBS.
BILL PLANTE, REPORTER, CBS: Mr. President, the communique states in no uncertain terms that all of the unprecedented cooperation for which you are calling will be done on a voluntary basis, not a binding commitment. What's the likelihood that countries which have been at odds over these issues for a number of years are now going to cooperate? How can this be enforced?
OBAMA: Well, let's just take a specific example, Bill.
For about 10 years, we have been encouraging Ukraine to either ship out its highly-enriched uranium or transform it to a lower grade -- a lower-enriched uranium. And, in part because of this conference, Ukraine took that step, announced that it would complete this step over the next couple of years.
So all the commitments that we talked about are ones that we have already booked, even before the communique and the work plan gets put into place. And that indicates the degree to which I think there is actually strong unanimity about the importance of this issue as a threat to the global and international community.
Now, keep in mind that we also have a number of international conventions that have been put in place. Not all of them have been ratified. In fact, the United States needs to work on a couple of these conventions dealing with the issues of nuclear terrorism and trafficking. But what this does is it sets out a bold plan, and what I'm encouraged about is the fact that we have already seen efforts that had been delayed for years -- in some case, since the end of the Cold War -- actually finally coming to fruition here at this summit.
PLANTE: (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: Bill, the point is that we've got world leaders who have just announced that, in fact, this is a commitment that they're making. I believe they take their commitments very seriously.
If what you're asking is, is do we have an international, one- world law enforcement mechanism, we don't. We never have. Right?
So, in all of our efforts internationally, in every treaty that we sign, we're relying on goodwill on the part of those who are signatories to those efforts. That's the nature of international relations.
Jake Tapper, ABC.
JAKE TAPPER, REPORTER, ABC: Thank you, Mr. President.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said today that pressure and sanctions -- speaking of Iran's nuclear program, pressure and sanctions cannot fundamentally solve the problem. I was wondering if you could clarify what exactly you believe President Hu Jintao has agreed to, whether you think there actually will be economic sanctions with teeth that the Chinese will sign off on, and what you have told the Chinese in terms of their concern about how much fuel they get from Iran, what the U.S. can help them with in that regard.
Thank you, sir.
OBAMA: Here's what I know. The Chinese have sent official representatives to negotiations in New York to begin the process of drafting a sanctions resolution. That is part of the P5 plus 1 effort. And the United States is not moving this process along.
We've got participation of the Russians, as well as other members of the P5 plus 1, all of whom believe that it is important for us to send a strong signal to Iran that they are in consistent violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as their obligations under the NPT have consequences. And that they have got a better path to take.
Now, you're exactly right, Jake, that the Chinese are obviously concerned about what ramifications this might have on the economy generally. Iran is an oil-producing state. I think that, you know, a lot of countries around the world have trade relationships with Iran. And we are mindful of that.
But what I said to President Hu and what I've said to every world leader that I talk to is that words have to mean something. There have to be some consequences.
And if we are saying that the NPT is important, if we're saying that nonproliferation is important, then when those obligations are repeatedly flouted, that it's important for the international community come together. And what I would say is that if you consider where we were, say, a year ago, with respect to the prospect of sanctions, the fact that we have got Russia and China, as well as the other P5 plus 1 members, having a serious discussion around a sanctions regime, following up on a serious sanctions regime that was passed when North Korea flouted its obligations towards the NPT, it's a sign of the degree to which international diplomacy is making it more possible for us to isolate those countries that are breaking their international obligations.
And as I said I think several weeks ago, my interest is not having a long, drawn-out process for months. I want to see us move forward boldly and quickly to send the kind of message that will allow Iran to make a different calculation.
And keep in mind, I have said repeatedly that that under the NPT, Iran has the right to develop peaceful, civilian nuclear energy, as do all signatories to the NPT. But given the repeated violations that we have seen on the part of Iran, I think, understandably, the world community questions their commitment towards a peaceful civilian energy program.
They have a way of restoring that trust. For example, we put before them -- I'm saying the P5 plus 1 now, as well as the IAEA -- put before them a very reasonable approach that would have allowed them to continue their civilian peaceful nuclear energy needs, but would have allayed many of the concerns around their nuclear weapons program. They have rejected that so far, and that's why it's important and I said from the start that we're going to move on a dual track. And part of that dual track is making sure that a sanctions regime is in place.
The last point I will make about sanctions, sometimes I hear the argument that, well, sanctions aren't really going to necessarily work. You know, sanctions aren't a magic wand.
What sanctions do accomplish is hopefully to change the calculus of a country like Iran so that they see that there are more costs and fewer benefits to pursuing a nuclear weapons program. And in that process, what we hope is that if those costs get high enough and the benefits are low enough, that at time they make the right decision, not just for the security and prosperity of the world, but also for their own people.
Scott Wilson, "Washington Post."
Where's Scott?
There we go.
SCOTT WILSON, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Thank you, Mr. President.
You have spoken often about the need to bring U.S. policy in line with its treaty obligations internationally to eliminate the perception of hypocrisy that some of the world sees toward the United States and its allies. In that spirit and in that venue, will you call on Israel to declare its nuclear program and sign the nonproliferation treaty? And if not, why wouldn't other countries see that as an incentive not to sign onto the treaty that you say it is important to strengthen?
OBAMA: Well, Scott, initially we're talking about U.S. behavior, and then suddenly we're talking about Israel. Let me talk about the United States. I do think that as part of the NPT, our obligation as the largest nuclear power in the world is to take steps to reducing our nuclear stockpile, and that is what the START Treaty was about, sending a message that we are going to meet our obligations.
And as far as Israel goes, I'm not going to comment on their program. What I'm going to point to is the fact that, consistently, we have urged all countries to become members of the NPT.
So there is no contradiction there. We think it is important that we have an international approach that is universal and that rests on three pillars -- that those of us who have nuclear weapons are making serious efforts to reduce those stockpiles, that we all are working against the proliferation of nuclear weapons -- and those countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons make the decision not to pursue nuclear weapons -- and that all countries have access to peaceful nuclear energy.
And so whether we're talking about Israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the NPT is important. And that, by the way, is not a new position. That's been a consistent position of the United States government even prior to my administration.
Let me call on Stephen Collinson of AFP.
STEPHEN COLLINSON, AFP: Thank you, Mr. President.
In your meeting with President Hu, did he give you any indication he would heed your call for a more market-oriented exchange rate for the yuan? If there's going to be a change, when would you envisage that taking place? And what happened in the last few weeks to help you move on from a period of -- quite a stormy period of public disagreements with China?
OBAMA: You know, the fact is, actually, that the relationship between my administration and the Chinese government has been very productive during the course of the last year and a half. We started off working together at various multilateral forums, the first one in London with the G-20. I then, out of the bilateral meetings that we had, worked with President Hu to set up a strategic and economic dialogue that looks at a whole range of areas in which the United States and China can cooperate. I made a visit to China that both of us considered very successful.
Now, there are some areas where we've got disagreement, and those disagreements are not new. And I have to say that the amount of turbulence, as you put it, that occurred was actually relatively modest when you look at the overall trajectory of U.S./China relations. I mean, at no point was there ever a suggestion that it's not in the interest of both our countries to cooperate, and that we have not only important bilateral business to do, but also we are two very important countries in multilateral settings that have to deal with issues like climate change and the world economy in concert.
With respect to the currency issue, President Hu and I have had a number of frank conversations. As part of the G-20 process, we all signed on to the notion that a rebalancing of the world economy would be important for sustained economic growth and the prevention of future crises. And China, like the United States, agreed to that framework.
We believe that part of that rebalancing involves making sure that currencies are tracking roughly the market and not giving any one country an advantage over the other. And I've been very clear of the fact that it's my estimation that the RMB is undervalued and that China's own decision in previous years to begin to move towards a more market-oriented approach is the right one, and I communicated that once again to President Hu.
I think that China, rightly, sees the issue of currency as a sovereign issue. I think they are resistant to international pressure when it comes to them making decisions about their currency policy and monetary policy. But it is my belief that it is actually in China's interest to achieve this rebalancing, because, over time, China is going to have to shift away from an economy that is solely oriented on exports and is going to have to start shifting toward an economy that is emphasizing domestic consumption and production and is preventing bubbles from building up within the economy. And all of that will be facilitated with a more market oriented currency approach.
