tv The Stream Al Jazeera February 11, 2014 12:30pm-1:01pm EST
12:30 pm
we have convergent views and stand united, not that we ever debate or partly disagree. we always respect each other's sovereignty. that is a fundamental principle in our relation. we also on the economic front. america experiences a recovery in its growth due to the policy and the political choices made, due to steps made by the united states, the united states of america trusts innovation, energy, it also benefits from low-costs of energy, and bold decisions. this economic recovery is an opportunity for europe, but it also is an example to be followed, of reference, that should encourage us to promote competitivety through the necessary means, but also to
12:31 pm
promote innovation and new energy, and that is precisely the meaning of my visit to the silicon valley tomorrow. finally, we agreed with our american friends to sign a partnership agreement between europe and the united states, with the best intentions, to open markets, to remove, monitor ris -- non-terrorist barriers, and make proposals and tender for markets. of course each country has its own position. we all know what mandate was given to the european commission. we all know how concerned we were when it came to farming, agriculture, or cultural product, but we really want to reach this agreement, because this agreement will contribute to growth, developing world
12:32 pm
trade in an balanced manner is a precious contributing factor to growth for companies, and now climate change, how not to mention climate change when france next year will convene and host the conference. it's not just about hosting t conference and having hotels, no, it's about defending a global -- reaching a global goal, because there is a danger. we want a serious and comprehensive agreement, one that will enable all countries to work together towards a number of common goals. food security, developments, the struggle against aids are three other issues on which we worked together, but there are so many subjects i could menning, and
12:33 pm
every single time i mentioned one of those issues, i would have to bear witness of the quality of our relations and trust. i was referring to history earlier on [ inaudible ] certainly a reference, always reference that is current in france. how far can you go when it comes to equality andow far can you go when it comes to freedom and the revolutionaries who wanted the independence of america, those who wanted a republic in france had this thing in common. they wanted to be as bold as possible when it comes to freedom and liberty, and be as respectful as possible when it comes to equality. this is precisely what the american dream is made of, and the french dream is made of, even though many have their own little dream, but the ambition
12:34 pm
remains exactly the same. we want to be together again. thank you. >> all right. i think we have a couple of questions each. let's start with -- where is mark? there he is. "new york times." >> reporter: good afternoon. both of you talked about syria a good deal in your opening remarks, and i wanted to ask a bit about that. the latest round of the geneva two talks have proven to be as unproductivive as the first round was. the chemical weapons agreement has removed some weapons, but by all accounts it's a small fraction of the overall stockpile, and the syrians have missed a couple of deadlines, and as i don't need to tell you the syrian regime is essentially starving thousands of syrians in homes and elsewhere.
12:35 pm
everybody agrees more pressure needs to be brought to bare on this assad regime to change this deadly equation. so beyond the general statements you made, what additional tangible steps did you discuss in your meetings today to help the moderate opposition to try to change that equation on the ground? and secondly for mr. president [ speaking french ] i'm going to ask it in english. how it is okay for a trade delegation with 100 french ceos to travel to tehran to explore business opportunities when the e-3 have committed to maintaining the strength of the situation. >> let me take a stab first at the syria question.
12:36 pm
we still have a horrendous situation on the ground in syria. i don't think anybody disputes that, and what is absolutely clear is that with each passing day, more people inside of syria are suffering. the state of syria itself is crumbling. that is bad for syria. it is bad for the region. it is bad for global national security, because what we know is, is that there are extremists who have moved into the vacuum in certain portions of syria in a way that could threaten us over the long term. so this is one of our highest national security priorities and i know francois feels the same way, and many of our partners feel the same way. the geneva process recognizes that if we're going to solve this problem, then we have to
12:37 pm
find a political solution, and the first geneva conference committed to a transition process that would preserve and protect the state of syria, would accommodate the various sectarian interests inside of syria, so that no one party was dominant; and would allow us to return to some semblance of normalcy, and allow all of the people who have been displaced to start moving back in. we are far from achieving that yet. i would not completely discount the fact that in this latest round of negotiations, what you saw was a coherent, cohesive, reasonable opposition in the same room for the first time negotiating directly with the
12:38 pm
regime. assad's regime wasn't particularly responsive, and i think even some of their patrons were disturbed by their belligerence, but we are going to continue to commit to not just pressure the assad regime, but also to get countries like russia and iran to recognize that it is in nobody's interests to see the continuing bloodshed and collapse that is taking place inside that country. now you asked tangible steps that we can take. both france and the united states continue to support a moderate opposition. we are continuing to provide enormous amounts of humanitarian aid. one of the problems we have right now is humanitarian access to deliver that aid, and as we speak, today un security council we will be debating a resolution
12:39 pm
that would permit much greater access for humanitarian aid workers to get food, water, shelter, clothing, fuel, to people who need it. now there is great unanimity among most of the security council. russia is a holdout. and secretary kerry and others have delivered a strong message that they cannot say they are concerned when they have starving syrians. so that is an example of the kinds of diplomatic work that we're engaging in right now. but mark nobody is going to deny that there is enormous frustration here, and i -- i think the -- the
12:40 pm
under -- underlying premise to the question may be is there additional direct action or military action that can be taken that would resolve the problem in syria? i have said out there my presidency, that i always reserve the right to exercise military action on behalf of america's national security interests, but that has to be deployed wisely, and i think that what we saw with respect to the chemical weapons situation was an example of the judicious, wise use of possible military action in partnership with france, we said we would be prepared to act if syria did not. syria and russia came to the conclusion that they needed to, for the first time acknowledge the presence of chemical weapons and then agree to a very
12:41 pm
extensive deal to get those chemical weapons out. you are right that so far they have missed some deadlines. on the ore hand we have completely chronicled all of the chemical weapons inside of syria. a portion of those chemical weapons have been removed. there has been a reaffirmation by the syrians and russia that all of it has to be removed and concrete steps are being taken to remove it. we now have a un mandate with consequences if there's a failure, something we did not have before. whether we can duplicating that kind of process when it comes to the larger resolution of the problem, right now we don't think that there's a military solution per se to the problem.
12:42 pm
but the situation is fluid, and we are continuing to explore every possible avenue to solve this problem, because it's not just heard breaking to see what is happening to the syrian people, it is very dangerous to he the region as a whole, including friends and allies that are being adversely impacted by the it. but one last comment with respect to the iran sanctions. we have been extraordinarily firm that even during this interim agreement, we will fully enforce all applicable sancti sanctions. in fact we have taken various steps in the last six, seven weeks to accidentfy companies we felt were violating those sanctions. and have been very clear to the iranians that there's not going to be any letup. in discussions with president
12:43 pm
hollande he feels the same way as do all of the p5-plus-1 members. so businesses may be exploring, are there possibilities to get in sooner, rather than later, if and when there is an actual agreement to be had, but i can tell you that they do so at their own peril right now, because we will come down on them like a on the of bricks, you know, with respect to the sanctions that we control, and we expect full compliance with respect to the p5-plus-1 during this interim. we don't want new sanctions, because the ones we already have in place are squeezing the iranians and brought them to the table. but we also won't to send a message that if they don't resolve this broader issue of
12:44 pm
their nuclear program, there will be consequences. in that the sanctions will stay in place and will likely be tight tightened. >> translator: iraq give you a very comprehensive [ inaudible ] sketch the french approach on the issues that were mentioned. first of all geneva two. the only purpose of this conference is to make political transition possible. it's not about discussing [ technical difficulties ] >> -- we encouraged the democratic position to go to geneva and to demonstrate that
12:45 pm
they are prepared to commit themselves to this process, and to this approach, and if some of them are blocking, there's no prize for guessing who it is, it is the syrian regime. one other observation, conclusion, as a matter of fact, we should help along the humanitarian situation, and that's why resolution will be devoted at the nusc, and we will see again who speaks clearly on the issue of the syrian question and who is partisan. how can you object to humanitarian corridors? why would you present the vote of a resolution if in good faith it is all about saving human
12:46 pm
lives? so we decided to go all the way, and to get this verifications. third question, the chemical weapons stockpile. barack obama and myself, when we were presented with the proof of the use that had been made by the assad regime of chemical weapons, we decided that resorting to force was an option, and it is precisely because we made this decision that's the option of a negotiation was always kept on the agenda. it is precisely for that reason that president putin made this offer in circumstances that you are all familiar with. this lead to the destruction of some of their chemical weapons, but i agree with you, it is a very long-winded process, and it certainly doesn't go nearly far
12:47 pm
enough. so rules were adopted particularly within the framework of the security council resolution in case of non-observance, and he shall resource to these measures and enforce them. chemical weapons have to be destroyed, fully, and pressure will be exerted, fully. and then there are choices. we chose to support the democratic position. we chose to make sure that the democratic opposition is an alternative even though negotiations will have to take place at the geneva conference. you asked me a question about french businessmen in iran, that trip to iran. for those of you who are unfamiliar with the situation, the president of the republic is not the president of the employers union in france, and he certainly doesn't wish to be.
12:48 pm
and i don't think anyone wishes for him to be. so companies just make those decisions when it comes to traveling, but i certainly let them know that sanctions were in force and would remain in force, and if contacts were to be made, with a view to new situation in iran, a situation where iran would have renounced the nuclear weapon, fully and comprehensively, unless such a situation would prevail, no commercial agreement would be signed. that's what i told french businessmen, and they are very much aware of the situation. and sanctions will only be lifted if and when there is a deaf -- a definite agreement.
12:49 pm
french question, perhaps now? >> thank you mr. president for this warm welcome for the french nation and taking our questions. you have actually praised france very warmly today and granted our president the first state visit of your second term. does that mean that france has become the best european ally of the u.s., and has replaced great britain? [ laughter ] >> oh, goodness. >> and in that role? and if so why not extent to france the no-spying agreement that you have be england after the big scandal of the nsa program? [ speaking french ] >> translator: and mr. president you praised the excellency of the franko-american cooperation but on iran with there
12:50 pm
differences in terms of analysis between france and america on the [ technical difficulties ] >> -- and wonderful, and i would never choose between them. and that's how i feel about my outstanding european partners. all of them are wonderful in their own ways. now, to this -- to the serious part of the question. what i do believe is that the us-french alliance has never been stronger, and the levels of cooperation that we're seeing across a whole range of issues
12:51 pm
is much deeper than it was, i think, five years ago, ten years ago, 20 years ago, and that's good for france. it's good for the united states. it's good for the world, because he share certain values and commitments. with respect to the nsa, obviously, i expressed my -- my strong commitment to making sure that our rules and how we approach intelligence and surveillance not just here in -- you know, not just with respect to any particular country, but worldwide, that we do it in a way that takes into account the incredible changes in technology and the new capacities that have evolved over the last several years, and
12:52 pm
the first place that we look to in terms of how do we make sure that our rules are compatible with our partnerships and our friendships and our alliances, was where countries like france that had been long-time allies of ours, and some of our closest partners, it's not actually correct to say that we have a, quote unquote, no spy agreement with great britain. that's not actually what happens -- well, there's no country where we have a no spy agreement. you know, we have, like every other country, you know, an intelligence capability, and then we have a range of partnerships with all kinds of countries, and we have been in consultations with the french government to deepen those commitments. at the same time, what i have also said both publiclynd privately, and i want to
12:53 pm
reiterate today to the french press is that we are committed to making sure we are protecting and concerned about the privacy rights of not just americans, our citizens, but of people around the world. that's a commitment that is fairly unprecedented in terms of any country's intelligence operations. and we are putting rules in place so that we're not engaging in what some of the speculation has been when it comes to ored neir citizens in france. we are respectful of their privacy rights and we are going to make sure that our rules are abiding by their concerns. we do remain concerned, as france is, and as most of the eu is, with very specific potential terrorist networks that could attack us, and kill innocent
12:54 pm
people, and we're going to have to continue to be robust in pursuit of those specific leads and concerns, but we have to do it in a way that is compatible with the privatesy rights for the people in france just like here in the united states. and the last point just because i know you asked it of president holla hollande, but i want to comment on this. the reason iran is at the table, because we have a very high threshold over what we expect out of iran to prove they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. and we were able to stitch together an international coalition to impose sanctions. i don't think the concern is that we're going to be making too many concessions, i think the concern will be whether or not iran can recognize the opportunity to prove in a
12:55 pm
verifiable fashion to the world in ways that scientists and technical experts can confirm that any nuclear program they have is for peaceful purposes, and the facts are what will guide these negotiations. if they meet what technically gives us those assurances, then there's a deal to be potentially made. if they don't, there isn't. and it's not subject to a whole lot of interpretation. there are some judgment issues involved, but part of the reason we're where we are right now is because iran hasn't been able to prove to anybody in the international community that they weren't pursuing a nuclear weapon. that's why there was such unanimity in keeping the
12:56 pm
sanctions in place. >> translator: in response to your first question, i have four children, so that makes it even more difficult for me to make any choice at all. but we're not trying to be anyone's favorite. there are stoic links, we share common values, and i can see that views converge on many issues, but it's not about hierarchy, it's just about being useful to the world, because the friendship between the united states and france is not just about strengthening our economy, cultural or business ties, it's not just about bringing our two societies closer to one another, or sharing technology, no. what makes this friendship between the united states of america, and france is the fact that we can hold values in
12:57 pm
a -- at a specific point in time with this american presidency, and with this french presidency, if i may say so. with regards to iran, the next question, just as the united states, we wanted to work on the basis of the p-5 scenario. this was the basis of our action. nothing prevented us from having bilateral contacts. i have bilateral contacts in new york i received the president. so it is perfectly legitimate for discussions to take place. however, we had to meet together to make sure our toughness brings about this interim agreement, which it did. but there is still work to be
12:58 pm
done. just because we signed an interim agreement for a few months doesn't mean that there is no longer an iranian problem. there is an iranian problem, for we need to make sure that iran renounce the nuclear weapon in a definite and comprehensive manner. the nsa now. i was going to say the question wasn't asked to me, but president obama answered the question, so i'll answer the question too. even though if you choose to ask me a more specific question, i can be more precise, but following the revelations that appeared due to mr. snowden, we clarified things. president obama and myself clarified things. then this was in the past, and then we endeavored towards
12:59 pm
cooperation. we wanted to fight against terrorism, but we also wanted to meet a number of principals, and we are making headway in this cooperation. mutual trust has been restored, and that mutual trust must be based on respect for each other's country, but also based on the protection -- protection of private life of personal data the fact that any individual can be sure he is not being spied on. these are principles that unite us. >> mr. president yesterday your administration again delayed the aca employer mandate for mid-sized companies. last week your econoc advisor
1:00 pm
talked about the new choices that people have to find health care outside of the new workplace. i wonder if you could explain the delay and talk about the long term where you see health insurance less tied to the workplace. >> well -- >> and if i may for president hollande. >> of course. >> i'm wondering if you have followed the fast track here, and whether that raises concerns in your mind. >> the overwhelming majority of firms in this country already provide health insurance to their employees and are doing the right thing. the small percentage that do not, many of them are very small and are already exempted by law.
108 Views
Uploaded by TV Archive on