the long-standing disputes intentions are doing their ugly heads and the state has expanded to include disease come out of space and cyberspace. 20 years ago dr. brzezinski warned in his book the grand chess board that asia has the potential political volcano could erupt. and less we carefully manage the situation comedy economic dynamism of this region which has led world growth for decades to be severely impaired. ..

form a complex action at the center of which lies the korean/u.s. aligns. right here in washington two years ago president obama and i laid out a vision on the way ahead for our alliance with the 60th anniversary of the korea/u.s. alliance. that was a vision of our alliance lane groundbreaking unification for the peninsula promoting cooperation across northeast asia and moving forward for the partnership, the korea/u.s. alliance says it resulting into a dynamic alliance by correctly adapting -- our two countries are growing partners as we display our dealings leadership and issue is beyond the regional scope. our alliance has grown through mutual trust and has inspired each other.

now the alliance is leading to a common enemy. for the last 2-1/2 years corey and the united states have creatively resolve all our sensitive issues. we have reached an agreement on the transfer of wartime operational control wrapped up negotiations for cost sharing of u.s. forces in korea and upgraded combined defense posture. e korea/u.s. cooperation agreement which was recently revised 43 years after 0 originally entering into effect constitutes one of the three major institutional frameworks of our alliance along with the korea mutual defense treaty. the nuclear agreement not only enables a mutually beneficial cooperation that contributes joint ventures in markets to create jobs in other countries and a key partner of the united states in its asia policy. the characteristics of continental states and maritime

states and geopolitical ngo economic strategic region, as that nation that has overcome the devastation of war and abject poverty, the economic development and democratization korea as will and capacity greater than any other. korea is building relations with fellow nations in northeast asia, only bilateral, multilateral cooperation. in two weeks we will host the korea japan china summit. the upcoming trilateral summit will be an important occasion to pursue peace and stability in northeast asia and to improve korea japan relations. i hope this summit will provide an opportunity for korea and japan to clear away for bilateral ties and discussions

on the way forward, furthermore i believe we must make newly consolidated efforts in korea, the u.s. and china in dealing with north korean issues, such divers forums of trilateral diplomacy are a new endeavor in northeast asia as these efforts will make valuable contributions to enhancing the bilateral of multilateral relations, northeast asia peace cooperation initiative which i proposed in my 2013 address to a joint session of congress james have the cooperation and trust in northeast asia, the only region of the world that lacks mechanisms for multilateral cooperation. so far there has been notable progress. we are holding discussions on concrete measures for cooperation in many fields including nuclear safety, security, climate change, and disaster relief. this initiative is compatible with u.s. efforts in advancing

regional multilateral cooperation mechanisms such aif and eas as. and then the asia paradox, economic prosperity is also vital to building peace within the region. there is the fta, cory and the united states have triggered trade liberalization throughout the region and laid foundations for a new economic progress. in this context korea welcomes the agreement reached last week. having already signed trade agreements i believe korea is a national partner. distinguished guests, korea and the united states are embarking on unprecedented partnerships in various fields of global health, development assistance, climate change and peacekeeping

operations. we have joined forces fighting ebola in africa, encountering birds in korea. the second global health security initiative high level meeting held in seoul last month we reached an agreement, developing countries with capacity building to counter infectious diseases. as part of this effort the korean government committed to a total of $100 million in 13 developing countries. korea and the united states are working hand in hand to light the flame of hope to developing countries around the globe. u.s. aid, last year, will be a stepping stone for countries like ethiopia, vietnam, cambodia, as they pursue a brighter future. a few weeks ago at a sustainable development summit in new york my government pledged $200 million over the next five

years to fund the better life for girls program which will help girls in developing countries on consequences of climate change korea will play its part to make the un climate change conference a great success. korea has led the founding of the growth in sedan will faithfully implement $100 million to the green climate fund which will help developing countries cope with climate change. korea is an active participant in efforts to counter violent extremism and alleviate the risks. our government is currently taking refugees from syria and neighboring countries. as the first asian nation to enact a refugee law we have humanitarian status for 600 syrian refugees in korea. and we are to sitting in two

counter assault operation groups and new methods to provide engineering and medical facilities for peacekeeping operations in the middle east and northern africa. the gee 20 summit, nuclear security summit and global health security agenda high-level meeting are also global initiatives launched by the united states and carried on to the next level. this pattern of collaboration between china and the united states on global issues demonstrates the korea/u.s. alliance is evolving into a global alliance. 25 years ago, october of 1990 germany was reunified, yet the division of korea continues to seven decades and the korean peninsula is the last vestige of the cold war in the modern world. vietnam, cuba, all headed in the direction of reform. iran has struck a nuclear

agreement. yet north korea clings to the of isolation continuing its military operations in developing their capabilities. i believe the korea/u.s. alliance with exert leadership in inducing north korea to abandon its nuclear program, open up to the world and undertake internal reform. in this process of dealing with north korea, the principles of north korean policy will be a certain wedge to bring about a sustainable peace agreement. at the same time we must not turn our bridges for dialogue and cooperation between us not allow political and military issues to force us to turn our backs on the humanitarian situation in north korea. around this time of year four years ago i wrote an article in foreign affairs outlining my thoughts on new kinds of korea and last year i propose three agendas as ways to establish peace and lay the foundations

for unification. for you manatee, and prosperity and integration. i sincerely hope the new korea will be a place for freedom and dignity guaranteed for all and all unrealized dreams. the ultimate pass to creating such a korean peninsula is none other than unification. unification will transform this divided peninsula into a land of opportunity, a unified korea will be a generator of peace. no longer will nuclear-weapons and long-range missiles are get our neighbors. a unified korea will be a stalwart guardian of freedom, democracy and human rights. these universal values of humanity will not only spread across the korean peninsula but radiate from the peninsula to the far corners of the earth. a unified korea will be a

promoter of prosperity. we will create new opportunities on the peninsula and beyond. so far the korea/u.s. alliance has written riderless success stories in the southern half of the peninsula. now is the time to spread history of creating miracles for the entire peninsula. the korea/u.s. alliance which will be upgraded to unification will continue to evolve into an alliance which stands for humanity. distinguished guests, the world we live in is at a crucial crossroads depending on how we respond in the adventure to the new frontier, or we can fall into stagnation and decline. for the last 70 years the korea/u.s. alliance always stood on the right side of history and has overcome countless difficulties and challenges to achieve great accomplishments.

our two countries will be trustworthy companions as humanity ventures the road towards the future of hope to open the gates of peace. i am confident that you will all join us on this journey of hope. thank you. [applause] >> we have logistics' to go through, we have to take this down so just take a little bit of a breather and we will start a little q and a period. why don't we come up and get the hardware? [speaking in native tongue]

[inaudible conversations] >> we are in the final stages ville let me say i was moved by your speech, madam president. i have our korean godson so i offer prayers every day for him and korea. i am proud to have him with me, thank you. we had, we opposed to use modern technology for questions today so we asked, we tweeted to people and said if you have questions will plead as blindness know and i have four questions i'm going to ask that have been submitted by our audience. we welcome your response, several of the people who submitted questions may be here, i know stanley is here, he wrote

this, when you entered office, you launch the nature in new initiative, in an effort to enhance security on this peninsula, but north korea, has regrettably not accepted it, and stabilizing the activities. what steps can the republic of korea and united states take to get it to announce a turn on the korean peninsula? [speaking in native tongue] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [laughter] >> i thought it was being simultaneously interpreted. as i am sure you know the korean peninsula trust process just so you know the gist of it is responding through north korea's provocations but keeping the

door open to dialogue and enhancing the degree of trust between the two koreas and we continue with this effort so seeking to uphold stability on the korean peninsula with regard to north korea's recent provocations this august, we had in fact applied in its entirety the principles in response to north korea's threats and belligerence, they would engage in unspeakable acts of belligerence and threatening words but we pushed back very decisively and made short they realized they would have to pay a price for whatever provocative acts they engaged in, we made sure not to turn off the loudspeakers despite their threatening blackmailing if we were to continue to move forward with the loudspeakers so we made sure we kept them on. as the matter of fact, are holding firmly to these principles we see how that firmness gave way to dialogue paradoxically and how that dialogue in turn led to meetings that in turn led to an apology being issued on the part of

north korea and agreements on other steps as well so this in fact is evidence of how we put to action in north korea the korean peninsula pull -- ps building process, that is how we responded to the recent provocations. we also made sure there was international unity including not just korea, japan and the united states the chinese and russians. [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> and the russians themselves have also expressed their opposition to north korea's provocations. this demonstrated the importance of international coordination in deterring this behavior and also impressed on the north koreans that development, the development of nuclear weapons capability is an exercise in futility. it does not serve their future either. we have got to make a realize that point and i stress the importance of international coordination and maintaining the

principle response and to make sure we seek to put an end to the vicious cycle of rewarded provocation and this is what we plan to remain committed to as we go forward. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> we also make it clear to them

that should they abandon their nuclear aspirations before economic assistance and also whether development assistance not just by south korea, the republic of korea but the international community as well, we see currently how they seem to have no intention whatsoever of abandoning or forswearing their nuclear aspirations and our approach doesn't seem to be working as we hoped. what needs to be done is to make sure they realize by entering deeper isolation and seeing no brighter future for them we need to engage in international toward nations so they realize that so they're left with no choice but to abandon their nuclear aspirations and only then can they expect to see greater international support forthcoming. >> thank you, madame president. david maxwell at georgetown university, wrote about unification. we talked about unification but his question is what are the

critical obstacles that must be overcome to achieve unification? this is one of those things we know will happen but we don't know what we have to do to overcome it. what would be your response? [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> i have to say my response to this question partially overlaps

my answer to the first question. if we are to engage in discussions about unification with north korea it it is imperative to have a degree of principles for that the discussions be defined by principles. i say this because if there's a situation where the provocations are met with rewards and we have this ongoing vicious cycle, then the very idea of discussing the notion of unification would be lost. [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] >> even as we make sure we maintain a principled approach to north korea on the basis of robust deterrence i feel it is important for the people of south and north korea to be able to restore a sense of commonality, this is important because after seven years of division especially in light of seven years of division we have been suffering it is important to pursue greater interaction, not political front, cultural and sports exchanges and exchanges on the environmental front as well and by doing so, by promoting interactions among the north korean people we can hope to overcome the divide that has divided the peninsula and restore a sense of homogeneity. [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] >> from the humanitarian perspective we are seeking to provide assistance to north korea that will assist them in terms of rule development and more holistic development in rural regions and improving quality of life among the north korean people. we see the north koreans refusing to accept the overtures, and we are not able to carry out the desire. [speaking korean]

>> and lastly, all of this is predicated on north korea, as i mentioned before, and pursuing nuclear weapons is an exercise in futility and merely deepened their own self isolation and turned their backs on the rest of the world, very important that the international community stands united in sending the message so they have no joy elise but to afford their nuclear weapons capabilities. >> madam president, the president and ceo of korean economic institute placed this question. korea and the united states are plagued with high unemployment

and underemployment, especially with young people. korea has the added problem that it has low birth rate. can you tell us what ideas you have to address this critical problem for your country, what role if any the government can play in finding a solution? [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] >> i think i can point out three factors that can explain why we see such phenomena in korea, the first being the continuation of low growth in the korean economy which in turn lowers the ability of the economy to create jobs. seconded the mismatch between young people that are seeking jobs and businesses that are seeking to find and place jobs or fill those jobs and there is the rigidities that we see in the labour market. [speaking korean]

.. >> translator: in order to fur

threat new jobs we have also undertaken what call the three-year plan for economic ennow vacation and through the initiative we're seeking to transform or economic paradigm. we seek to marry ict with existing injuries, mary culture and promote convergence and also thereby create and come up with new style jobs and so we're working to bring that about. in particular i would make mention of the service sectors which obviously has very high potential for creating jobs. we're seeking to boldly cut red tape so we can unleash more jobs in the services sector and calling upon the national assembly boldly remove leg la -- regulatory barriers and allow deregulation in the service sector. [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> in order to deal with the issue of mismatch that bee devils the current economy we are seeking to cult avoid the kinds of human talent that meets the expectations and demands of society and distribution and we're working to cultivate such

talent. for instance we're seeking to pursue a system of allowing learning and working at the same time, and also seeking to institute a national competency standard system. so we are undertaking multiple arrays of policies to alleviate the issue of mismatch and come up with human talent that can better cater to the broader social needs. for instance, people studied the humanity us, obviously the humanities is a remarkable, admirable academic pursuit but one cannot readily land a job by studying humanities and hence we can provide them with coding education or coding training or furnish them with various educationol opportunities that better cater to the needs of society. [speaking korean]

>> translator: and as for a mitigating rigidity in ore labor meat the government commission has been struggling for the past few months to work out a compromise, and they have succeeded in coming up with a compromise. so once pursuant to that compromise, once the government institutes various guidelines and the national assembly passes the relevant legislation, i think we can be confident in looking forward to greater flexibility as well as security in our labor market. >> i have one last question. it was submitted by glen fukushima at the center for american progress. he submitted it before your speech, and you spoke about tension in history issues. in northeast asia, and he wrote about that. so let me just ask at a couple

of very specific things. do you envision there's a chance for a formal bilateral submit between you and prime minister abe, and what role, if any, can the united states play to encourage closer ties between korea and japan. [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] >> translator: the tri-rat'll summit meeting in korea, japan, and china is slated to be held in early november and it's being held for the first time in three years under the initiative of the korean government. the reason the government endeavored to bring that about was to serve the cause of peace in northeast asia and because we had expectations a gathering would improve bilateral relations within the region. for the question of hole ago

bilateral been middling will prime minister abe i do feel i can have such a meeting with him. [speaking korean] >> but in order for a meeting to be significant it's important that the two countries be able to move towards a more future-oriented change in our relationship if that meeting is to have real significance. [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

>> translator: the korean people are following this upcoming meeting, and for instance, i would note the issue of the comfort women victim which is a very important issue at the moment, outstanding issue. mose of these comfort women victims are now in their 90s, and just this year alone we have seen nine comfort women victims pass away and we only have 47 remaining survivors. so literally we don't have much time in terms of dealing with this issue. and making sure that we can bring closure to their pent-up

agony. and so the korean people again are following this issue with great interest and keen interest and once we are able to make progress on this issue, i think it's fair to say that a meeting that does lead to progress on this issue can be characterized as a meaningful meeting. >> before i let you say thank you with your applause, let me just say, i'm going to -- for security reasons i have to ask you to stay in the room after the president leaves. we will get her out to her car so she is safely on her way. she has more meetings. we're going home. she has more meetings, so i need you to stay here, and when we are done we'll open up the doors and we have refreshments and we invite you to stay for a few minutes to reflect on these wonderful observation us. madam president, you're a leader. you are real leader, and i think we all want to say, thank you for what you're doing, and we want to thank you for being with us today. would you please thank the president. [applause]

>> that was the president of south korea yesterday. live pictures from the east room of the white house where we are awaiting president obama and the president of south korea for a joint meeting for reporters. the south korean president in washington for meeting with the president, looking at trade issues and concerns over the recent unrest and missile threats from the regime in north korea. this is live coverage here on c-span2.

break background noise [background noise] >> again, waiting for the joint news briefing with the president of south korea and president obama, of course. it will be out in just a moment. live coverage here on c-span2. while we wait, we'll show you a discussion on the presidential campaign and national security issues from this morning's washington journal. >> joining us now is molly o'toole, a politics reporter for "defense one" and we got a big story dropped and our lap yesterday with the president in afghanistan. here are some of the headlines as he is dropping the afghan exit plan, changing things a bit. what have the presidential candidates said so far, if anything, about what the president had to say. >> most of what he heard is from the republican candidates which

is unsurprising and a lot of them suggested this was the right move. there's a little bit of an, told you so, sort of attitude. people have been calling for him to extend this timeline for withdrawal, or consider it for some time, but they're suggesting that 5500 that would remain from 2017 on -- that's indefinite. no sort of deadline -- they suggested that's insufficient, not enough. if the setbacks we have seen over the past eight months, if this is what occurred with 9800 troops, the current troop level, what's going to happen when we get do 5500 troops. so they're suggesting good move, not quite enough. >> much has been made of the notion that this now effectively hands off the afghanistan situation to the next administration. do you expect this to become a big source of dialogue? >> i do. i don't believe afghanistan was mentioned once in the democratic

debate we saw a few nights ago. afghanistan has been this forgotten war. america's longest war, obama even made note yesterday in extending this timeline that he had ended the war, at least ended the combat mission, but very clear the war in afghanistan continues so we haven't heard a lot about it on the campaign trail so far. with this explicit knowledgement that the war will be handed off, which was still kind of up in the air. i believe it will be much more of a presence on the campaign trail. be interesting to see if they start to make specific policy pronouncements about what they will do differently in afghanistan. now, we have seen president bush, and president obama, both with very different strategies for the war in afghanistan. be interesting to see how the candidates suggest how to do things differently. >> molly o'toole will be us for the next 35 minutes. we're talking about the 2016 candidates and national security

issues. so we have lines for democrats, republicans, independents. we look forward to hearing from you. going to take a line off a piece you wrote in september after the second g.o.p. debate, the one at the reagan library. you talked about 11 candidates using much of their second debate to re-litigate the iraq war with each other, and its symptomaticow wrote of a national security identity crisis. what do you mean? >> it was interesting, after the iraq war, obviously -- i think this is particularly timely given the announcement yesterday but there was sort of a discrediting of the republican party. the republican party is supposed to be the party that is strong on defense, tend to emphasize that issue and have it be a central focus, but with the bush administration, with the war weariness of the american public, perceived foreign policy failures of the force first diplomacy second, george w. bush style of national security, we

really saw the 2008 election with obamaed a a repudiation of that style of foreign policy. and that prompted this identity crisis within the republican party. for a few years laid low but with the rise of the islamic state, with the foreign policy crises under the obama administration, there's been a resurgence of the hawkish tenor of the republican party. never went away but hat has gotten louder. so there's an identity crisis for the republican party as the pendulum on the use of force among the american public swings back a little towards a little bit more of an appetite for intervention due to things happening around the rise of the islamic state. >> on to the other side of the aisle, a sampling here of what democrats had to say at this debate they had the other night. each of the five candidates was asked, what's the greatest national security threat to the united states? here what they says.

>> governor chaffee, what is the greatest national security threat to the united states. >> it is certainly the chaos in the mideast no doubt. up art start etched the iraq invasion. >> governor? >> i believe nuclear iran is the biggest threat, and spread of icele and glime change. >> secretary clinton? ,. >> i think it has to be continuing threats from the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear material that can fall into the wrong hands. i know to the terrorists are constantly seeking it and that's why we have to stay vigilant and also united around the world to review the that. >> senator sanders. >> the scientific community egg is telling us if we do not address the climb change, and transfollower ore energy system from fridayle fuel to sustainable injury the planet we will he leaving our kids and grab may not be habitable. that's major crisis. >> senator webb. >> the greatest long-term strategic challenge the relations with thousand. the greater day to day threat is

cyberwarfare. the greatest military threat i reese solving the situations in the middle east. >> molly o'toole, verdict response. >> they were all so divided in terms of what they saw the greatest national security threat gut paul very unified when it came to going after hillary clinton for some of her national security stances. i thought that was an interesting strategically. obviously some of them hat this, this, this, but you see the greatest contrast between bernie sanders and hillary clinton. she is talking about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, about nonstate actors, terrorist groups perhaps getting their hands on that material, and he is talking about climate change. that there sort of represents the divide between those two potentially their electability but also how they're perceived on national security, which is such an important issue. >> first call for our guest. brenda from manchester, washington, democratic caller. welcome, brenda.

>> caller: hi. >> host: hi. >> caller: i am very nervous so i just need to take a deep breath. >> host: take your time. >> caller: a very important issue to me. i first want to say i don't -- my uncle is a congressional medal of honor recipient from world war ii and was very against the war in iraq. i live in a very quiet military environment. there's military in my family mitchell husband and i were pretty much considered traitors by many close to us because we were against the iraq war. but? -- but in saying that we have strong support for military. my husband is a department of defense employee, but we love our military, but our military was sent on a fool's errand. you cannot blame the soldiers. if they had won the war in iraq it went have fallen apart, therefore we have to condition, can we really win these wars? and will we stay forever to accomplish this?

i just am afraid that whenever we pull out, this is going to happen. i don't understand. i understand why we need to find our enemies where they're at so they don't get to us but it's becoming more to where maybe we just really need to focus on our own homeland and make sure they can't get to us. i just -- i'm so impassioned by this. how long do we stay? how many lives do we need to lose? it's just seems like such a mess. i think -- i think our president is trying to do what is right. he's tried both avenues as examples of libya and syria on acting, not acting. at least he is thoughtful. >> host: bren darks thank you for calling. want to get a response from our guest. >> guest: the question you raised is still sort of the fundamental question we have been asking ourselves since the iraq war and what lessons to

draw from that and the rise of the islamic state and american troops going back to iraq, and the questioning, what this role of the u.s. force in the world? where are we obligated to intervene, where should we intervene and for how long? what's the end game. particularly with president obama's announcement yesterday about afghanistan, the 5500 troops indefinite live in afghanistan, people are asking the question, how long will we be there? people are raising echos of vietnam. and i think that these are the same questions that are being asked, particularly as we look ahead to 2016. what kind of leader, what kind of commander-in-chief do we want? and how will they answer this question of how long u.s. forces should be deployed in the world? i think the clip that we looked at with the different ways they answered what the national security threats are. the way that president obama has taken this question on himself

is, what is in the national security interests of the united states? what is the most immediate threat to the united states, and that is where you went to use u.s. force, rather than becoming embroiled in conflicts that may not so directly impact us and that's why he discussed afghanistan yesterday, in saying he wanted to put troops there longer. he emphasized he doesn't believe in the idea of unending war, forever war, as we look at extending america's longest war. and he also doesn't believe in getting the u.s. involved in long-term conflicts but wanted to preserve the gains made, prevent additional setbacks, to prevent afghanistan from becoming the haven for terrorists that could allow them to launch another attack on the united states. so he was articulating that argument this is in the national security interests of the united states. i. >> host: michael in illinois, independent caller.

>> caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i think this whole issue is -- no one gets the real point of it. the nuclear proliferation. no one is going to give nuclear material to terrorists. it can be tracked back to whatever mine it came out of some that would be destroyed. why were protecting other countries for 50 years? we're in germany, south korea, we're in japan. they're just as rich and their economies are bombing better. why are we still protecting these people? i'm a businessman, a veteran, and i have a militia group and he have had enough of all these waste of american lives and money protect ago countries in civil wars. we're going to syria now. why enthere? it's a civil war. and history has shown us, no country can take over another country and put down a terrorist uprising. afghanistan in 1980, to iraq, anywhere. you cannot push your democratic views on people who don't want them. it's all about religion, get our troops home. we are hoping to see some action

because sooner or later you don't understand the amount of animosity in the streets against this' government for most regular people. >> host: molly. >> guest: made two really interesting points. people suggest that we should leave as russia makes more -- conducts more military action in syria, becomes more involved there, as iran becomes involved in syria, hezbollah as well, people suggest we should just leave it to president putin, let him become mired in this quagmire in syria, let him have his own afghanistan, referring to the russian involvement in afghanistan -- the soviet union rather. we should leave it to him and that's the point you raised that there is a cost here, not just in american lives but in american dollars. even yesterday with president obama's revived withdrawal plan from afghanistan, that's expected to be $4 billion more

expensive than the original withdrawal plan, which was 10 billion. so this is about 14 billion. obviously those numbers seem very, very high to us, and they are. it's a drop in the bucket when you talk about military spending. so there's certainly a cost arguement to be made, looking at really just the basic cost benefit analysis for where the u.s. should become involved. we don't often hear about the cost and that's the discussion that perhaps should be had. >> more of a sampling from the presidential candidates on the president's decision, lindsey graham says, as president, i will follow the advice of my commanders and require a conditioned based withdrawal, not an artificial timeline. the "associated press," jeb bush says that if he is truly committed to fighting terrorism and securing a stable afghanistan, he shouldn't short change what our military commanders said they need to complete the mission. more feedback here, carly fiorina, called obama's decision a recognition of reality in

afghanistan and the jersey governor chris christie said the pratt was, quote, waking up to the fact that def engaging america from the world and allowing safe havens for trier yeases is no the way to protect homeland security and national security. but kole chester vermont. >> hello. i'm an immigrant from afghanistan. i moved here in 1981. i used to work with usaid in afghanistan. i got my bachelor degree from -- the education was free. i do appreciate united states and president obama that support afghanistan and afghan troops. i never forget that united states soldier lost their life in the past but afghan people are -- they want to fight such. they don't let any other soldiers fight for them. the only thing we need, support.

and that is what president obama is doing. and i send e-mail to democrat -- i mentioned that i'm afghanistan, war 33 years. children grow, grow and fight and anything. it is not afghanistan that i was 30 years ago. it was beautiful country. beautiful country. beautiful city. beautiful people. they are not taliban. taliban is from pakistan. and we have bad neighbors like iran, pakistan, and russia, that take part and bring all tourists, taliban, to afghanistan to make -- safe have vein for afghanistan. america, get rid of isil. we have to find the root of it

and -- have to spend some, have to -- fighting. we need to do that it iggy for afghanistan, for every country in the world for peace of the world. >> host: thank you. i was going to ask -- are you still there? >> yes. >> you till have family? >> caller: pardon me? no, my family -- my brother live in germany, my sister and father are all educated. my sisters is a doctor, and in germany. education free. government has -- before i move here, i taught united states -- [inaudible] it's true. those education should make business out of students. >> host: thank you for calling. there's a lot there. passion in the voice. what do you respond to? >> guest: a lot of what --

obviously it's amazing -- thank you for sharing your experience with us, both in afghanistan and your perspective from here in the united states, looking back on your country and the continued conflict there. and how much the afghan people have suffered and president obama, when he was making his announcement yesterday, said he wanted to speak directly to the people most affected. and he spoke first to the afghan people. and his articulation of the revision to the withdrawal was a demonstration of the u.s. commitment to afghanistan. it will be interesting to see, ash carter talked about this yesterday -- what kind of commitments will continue to be made, whether in troops, whether in sons, as the drawdown continues, perhaps not the united states but for our nato partners. so that will be interesting what kind of support is given moving

forward. >> host: we hall here from ben carson, first a call from karen in littleton, new hampshire. republican caller. welcome, karen. >> caller: hi. thank you very much. thank you for taking my call. my first -- well, i'm going to just give me questions and then i'll let you answer. i was wondering, is what are we getting out of back from afghanistan, from them for all we give them, and actually for everybody else that we give out -- that we don't seem to get anything back, and i don't understand why that we just keep doing this and putting ourselves in debt, and then i want to know if anybody has ever thought that maybe the -- they really are cavable of taking care of themselves but they know that we can do it for them so they can just lay back and actually dish shouldn't say dish will say this -- act like they don't know what they're doing.

it's a a very common thing. and then to add to that, now they know that we're always going to be there, all these other countries can now they know we're sending a thousand more troops so that's less incentive because -- know what i mean? >> host: thank you, karen. >> guest: you ask some really important questions, and in terms of what do we get from the involvement and the risk to american lives, the incredibly high cost. the articulation by the obama administration that the defense depth as -- department as well that there are key missions that need to continue in afghanistan and they described as twofold. one -- i think this is one of particular importance -- counterterrorism. not only against the taliban, against al qaeda, which was the main focus of the war, at least in 2001, due to their involvement in the 9/11 attack.

now we have seen other militant groups sump as the islamic state start to gain a foothold in afghanistan, and they're very concerned about this, given the islamic state, especially their stated intent to not only launch but inspire lone-wolf attacks against the united states. so in terms of what do we get? it's hard to prove a negative but president obama said we have to continue to be there. it's continuing to be important because we need to prevent it from becoming this haven for terrorists we saw in the time before 2001. in terms of can they do it themselves? you raise a really interesting point here. we had an intelligence analyst who worked with the military in afghanistan, told my colleagues just yesterday, after this decision, that he is concern that by sending more troops, by continuing the u.s. presence there there's a dangerous overdependence by the afghan security forces on nato and the

u.s. coalition that perhaps they are reliant, dependent, they know they will be there, and that preventing them from sort of closing these gaps that remain in terms of them taking over. it's important to note that this is really the first fighting season. their fighting seasons in afghanistan due to the weather and terrain. this is the first fighting season where afghan security forces have had more of a leadership role. and so the administration admittedly suggests they have a long way to go. some of these setbacks we have seen, for example, the taliban taking the city of kunduz, which is in northern afghanistan, they have withdrawn but some examples show they're not quite there yet. so that is a really good question about can they do it themselves, and what sort of perverse innocent different might it create by keeping troops there. >> here is ben carson talking about syria. >> i believe that putin is very

very desperate right now because oil price ises is very home that precluded his expansionism, it's the economic situation. now he can get a foothold in syria and then then spread influence throughout the region and if he can gabe control of significant energy reserves he might then be able to have a much more control -- much more control on energy prices throughout the world, and that will then embolden him because he will be strengthened to do what he needs to do. but we need to fight him everywhere. we need to be re-establishing the missile defense system, i think, in eastern europe. we need to be supplying arms to the ukraine. we said we were going to protect

them if they gave up their nuclear weapons. they gave them up. did we protect hem? of course not. we turned our back on israel. i don't think the rest of the world is noticing that we renege on our responsibilities so we need to oppose him at every step. we also need to take advantage of his economic weakness by using our economic strength and very wisely. >> molly o'toole. >> guest: there's a lot there. i thought the line, we need fight him everywhere, was interesting. how realistic is that? what would the cost be? what does he mean by that, does mean use military force? mean fight him in other avenues? it seems -- he is calling for a new cold war essentially. but he did have some interesting points about this is the obama administration's argument actually, somewhat counterintuitive that president putin is making these moves in

syria and they're not acts of strength but acts of desperation, not only has his economy been suffering in large part because of the drop in oil prices, because of the sanctions put on russia, but that he is doing this to shore up this assets in syria. so they also suggest this could be a sign that assad is losing his grip on power because russia had to step in before the government collapsed. that's difficult to -- i think a difficult argument to sustain when you start to see the syrian government going on the offensive backed by the russian air force. also an interesting sort of counter this is clip top's approach when she -- clintons approach when she -- the question was raised in the democratic debate, how would you counter russia? she is unique in the democratic field for suggesting that there should be no-flow -- no-fly zones which is something

republican candidates suggested. that's would have to be backed by military force, mainly by the u.s., because we're 90% of the airstrikeness syria. it would likely be carried mostly by us. she suggested it was because not only to protect syrians, we have 4 million syrians displaced outside the country, 8 million inside the country. so not only to protect syrians. she said it was because we needed leverage to get putin to the table. the negotiating table to come up with a mitt calories luigs for syria and that was the real solution, using the military to force a diplomatic solution. so that's an interesting counter to carson. >> host: wrong of molly o'tooles story: hillary clinton defense hawkish record in the first democratic debate. do you expect the democratic candidates continue to press her on her record in these areas moving forward? >> guest: absolutely. not only she -- pretty clearly

has some of the strongest national security credentials in the race. no one in the democratic field in particular can touch her, although interestingly jim webb, former senator from virginia, was also navy secretary under reagan and vary deck rated veteran. her didn't establish his leadership but because her credentials are strong in national security, an area of vulnerability she can strike a discordant tone with the base of the dem peak party when it comes to foreign policy because she has relatively sneak within the democratic party more of a hawkish inclination. when she was secretary of state she was often the one pushing obama more towards the use of force. so, i do expect they'll continue to hit her on this. especially because they might see it also the potential area of vulnerability for her when her credentials are pretty strong. >> here's loretta in ohio.

thank you for waiting. >> caller: why are we bringing in the muslims from syria and all over when they have threatened that they're going to cut our heads off? that's what their bible teaches and the bible -- my bible says anybody that comes against israel will be cursed. why don't we bring in the christians that they are beheading over there and make this a christian country again? >> host: speaking of the refugees coming in. >> guest: thank you for raising this because there's a lot of misinformation that is spread about the refugee cries about the syrians. there's a few points i would make. it's not the syrians themselves that have threatened the united states. the islamic state has suggested that potential recruits should take advantage of the refugee process in order to somehow gain a foothold in the united states. that's really impossible. we know that from our intelligence community.

i recently did a story on this where people have been suggesting we shouldn't let in more refugees because of the national security concern. now when i went to a dozen agencies and these are the agencies charged with homeland security, charged with intelligence, and asked them, what does this national security concern based summon and as far as they know, or as far as they can say, there's little quantifiable data or intelligent that indicates this community is a threat. these are some of the most vulnerable people in the world. u.s. policy is such that we have some of the strictest security standards in order to -- please be seated. >> good afternoon. last year in seoul, president park welcomed me to the blue house. today it's my pleasure to human

being her back to -- welcome her back to the white house. madam president, during your last visit here you addressed a joint session of congress, which is an honor that is reserved nor america's closest friends. you noted that the founding documents of both of our countries. our declaration of independence, and your constitution, enshrine our commitments to our people with the same words. to their pursuit of happiness. for more than second decades americans and koreans have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in that pursuit, and madam president, your time here includes a visit to our korean war veterans memorial. we're very grateful for that. it's a reminder that our people have fought and bled and died for one another's freedom. and i know your gestures mean a great deal to the american people and especially to our proud korean war veterans. now, recent years president park

and i have worked together to strengthen our alliance for the future and i want to re-affirm that the commitment of the united states to the defense and security of the republic of korea will never waiver. our alliance remains a linchpin of peace and security, not just on the korean peninsula but across the region so south korea plays a central role in america's rebaseball to the asia-pacific and we continued that work today. as we agreed in seoul last year, our militaries are investing in shared capables, including the technologies and missile defenses that allow our forces to operate together effectively. want to make -- the eventual transfer of operational control of the alliance, and we're determined to maintain our readiness against any threat. madam president, want to commend you and the people of south

korea for the resolve you displayed this summer following north korea's reckless actions in the dmz that wounded two of your soldiers. north korea was lee mind it that any provocation or aggression will be met by a strong united response by south korea and the united states. likewise, pyongyang's nuclear and missile policemans have achieved nothing except to deepen north korea's isolation. today president park and i are re-affirming our nations will never accept north korea as a nuclear weapons state. we will continue to insist that pyongyang must abide by its obligations on the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula in a peaceful manner, and given the horrific treatment of the north korean people by their government, our two nations will continue to expose abuses and call for accountability for human rights violations. at the same time, we do support

president park's efforts to improve relations between south and north korea. as my administration has shown, with iran, with cuba, we are also prepared to engage nations with which we have had troubled histories, but pyongyang needs to understand that it will not achieve the economic development it seeks so long as it clings to nuclear weapons. in contrast, president park has articulated a better vision, unified korea, free from the fear of war and nuclear weapons and that vision we very much support. beyond the peninsula, president park shared her proposal of the peace cooperative issue in to build cooperation mook the countries in the region. president park and i met with prime minister abe of japan last year address shared challenges and the trilateral something can

be another step forward in building positive relations between south korea, japan and china. with respect to trade, we reviewed the first three years of our course trade agreement, bilateral trade is up, including exports of american autos. we do still have work to do, and i can say that when the issues of implementing a course have arisen, they have been resolved but we need to resolve them quickly, and president park discussed the regulatory reforms she is pursuing. those are reforms we welcome. and finally, i'm mazed our alliance is increasingly a global one. south korea is not just an important player in region. it's increasingly an important player on the world stage. south korea is a partner in development in afghanistan, a member of the coalition against isil, a generous donor of humanitarian aid to syrian

referees and now we are expanding cooperation to knew front tier, given the increasing cyber threats both nations, including from the dprk. we're strengthening our cyber defenses and coordinating at the highest levels. the white house and the blue house, make sure that we're in sync in dealing with that challenge. in the fight against climate change, we're accelerating our investments in clean energy. our new civil nuclear agreement reflects our shared commitment to the safe use of nuclear power, which is a low carbon energy source and i want to commend south korea for announcing its post 2020 target to limit carbon emissions to its national cap and trade system. as we head into the paris constance friend the south korean leadership can be an example for other nations around the world. and finally, we're expanding our cooperation to promote health and global development.

having already worked together against ebola, south korea's stepped up as a true leader in advancing global health security. our development agencies will partner to reduce poverty and encourage sustainable development in southeast asia. and both our countries are standing together to promote education and health for girls around the world. hour "let girls learn" campaign and south korea's "better life for girls" initiative. so madam president, thank you once again for your partnership, leadership and friendship. i belief we have shown again today that our unbreakable alliance is not just the foundation for security in the korean peninsula and in the asia-pacific region. more and more our alliance is helping people around the world in their own pursuit of hypeness. the security and pros apart and dignity they seek for their families and for their nations. madam president.

[speaking korean] >> thank you very much for your comments. i also thank you and the american people for the very warm welcome you extended to me throughout my visit. in today's summit, you and i discussed not only the korean-u.s. alliance putles issues surrounding -- a shared global agenda. during the past two and a half years, we have been able to creatively resolve some issues as the condition of traps saying of rational control and after 42 years of the nuclear cooperation agreement which evidences that the korea-u.s.a. alliance is stronger than ever. our lan is now moving beyond the security alliance and the economic alliance and evolving into a comprehensive global alliance. the biggest threat to piece and security on the korean peninsula and northeast asia is a north

korean provocation and north korea's nuclear capabilities, and president obama and i shared many suspects of the issue -- aspects of the issue. first, provocation by the north, korea and the u.s. will continue to strengthen coordinated efforts between china, russia and japan, and to this end we'll try to fully utilize the multilateral gatherings taking place. second, with the sense of urgency and firm commitment, we have agreed to strengthen the efforts to -- the problem on the basis of u.s., korea, and japan organization, and coordination among the five parties, while korea and the united states are deep in -- with other countries, including china. third, should north korea demonstrate a genuine

willingness -- we re-affirm that korea ask the u.s. and the international community stand for the cooperative measures. in our discussions we looked beyond today, the current -- we looked beyond the current peninsula and engaged in discussions about the future of the korean peninsula. with regard to the changing situation in the peninsula, in the -- continue to pursue policies on orange county and to create conditions conducive to peaceful unification with a deep and high level negotiations. i'd like to thank probe probable -- president obama for his support ton the idea of consolidation. we adopted a joint -- on north korea that contains our shared recognition on these related issues. the korean-u.s. alliance is the link linchpin of strength in the

asia-pacific, and there exists a -- between president obama's rebalancing policy of the asia-pacific. and i would like to thank president obama for his warm words of welcome and his strong support. in late october the second time of the forum will be held in seoul and i hope that core korea and the united states will continue to engage in accommodation that forum and beyond. president obama also recognized korea's initiative in reviving korea-japan, china tri-tripe lateral talks that have the been on hold for the past several years and also expressed his high hopes for the korea-japan-china summit held in two weeks' time. we also showed recognition that such meetings may meaningful improve bilateral relations in our region.

president obama affirmed that korea-u.s. relations and korea-china relations conclude cap patible -- compatible and support. the meeting between korea and the u.s., the u.s. and china, and now korea and the u.s., have built consensus regarding north korea and its nuclear program, and we believe that this will play a positive role in bring peace and stability in the korean peninsula and throughout northeast asia in dealing with the north korean nuclear problem we's seek to strengthen cooperation between corearch korea, u.s. and japan. i believe strengthening the tie log between korea, u.s., ', and china, will enable to us open new channels for stronger regional cooperation. recent peace and stability becomes stronger when companies

build closer ties. in this regard, i'd like to congratulate president obama with the successful completion of the tpp negotiations. korea and the u.s. have -- very high standards, and in this respect believe we make natural partner thursday terms of the tpp. tpp negotiations have now been concluded. we will be engaging in closer cooperation with regard to korea's possible participation in the tpp. this meeting was particularly meaningful in that it finds impetus to open new front keirs in the alliance and strengthen global partnership. korea and the united states will focus first on health treaties, cyber security, space and other cooperation which are aimed to spotlight in the 21st century.

we'll work to conclude talks on the corey-u.s. space cooperation, to establish an institutional foundation for such cooperation, and to -- enn order to enhance -- we established a hotline between the white house and the blue house for cyber cooperation. on global issues, president obama and i on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the united nations agreed to strength cooperation on climate change, u.n. peacekeeping operations, human tearian aid for refugees, violent extremist and other urgent global issues. >> todays summit is a way to -- clear strategy between the u.s. and the korea, and new northeast

asia and a new world, i'm confident that the korea-u.s. alliance will continue to evolve into a comprehensive strategic alliance. >> we'll take a couple questions. start with michelle, cnn. >> thank you, mr. president. on 2016, now that we have seen the democratic candidates in their first debate and how the did dish maybe you can share your thoughts how much you watched of that. do you feel like the window now has closed on the vice president entering the race? and if you don't feel it's closed, do you feel that he in a sense owes to its fellow democrats to get in very soon? and also on israel, we heard secretary kerry say that one of the roots of what is going on there now is infrastructure -- frustration over settlement activity. itself that a root cause of the violence and do you feel like president abbas has a responsibility to condemn attacks and try to stop them, and president park, welcome.

the u.s. has reached this deal now with iran over is its nuclear program. i'm not sure if if should start over. were you able to hear that? as you know the u.s. has reached a deal now with iran over the nuclear program. how would you feel if that were north korea? would you welcome attempts for such a deal, and do you feel like you would ever trust north korea to abide by such an agreement? thank you. >> the democratic debate was taking place at the same time as some ball games, so there was a little bit of clicking back and forth. i'm not going to comment on what joe's doing or not doing. i think you can direct those questions to my very able vice president. the one observation i'll make about the democratic debate was

that those are all some very fine people. they share a belief in an economy that is working for everybody and not just the few. they share a belief that america has to project strength around the world by maintaining the finest military but also by making sure we have strong economy back home, that we're employing diplomacy and working with other nations wherever possible to solve big problems. like climate change. so, what was interesting to me was the degree to which, although snares vary real differences among the candidates and i'm sure those will emerge and there may be for each candidate some differences with my administration, overall, they very much -- we very much share a vision of an economy that

works for everybody and effective pursuit of america's national security through all the tools that are available to us. and i was very impressed with all of system know them personally and they're good people. beyond that it's up to the american people to decide. and so i will have a vote like everybody else, as a citizen, and that ballot is private, and i don't have to share my views about that right now because i think it's important for the american people to make up their own decision. [inaudible question] >> i think that the vice president, like every other candidate, makes their own decisions and they'll have to figure out whether it makes sense for them. with respect to israel, obviously we are sore concern about the outbreak of violence, that initially centered on

jerusalem but we always are concerned about the spread of violence elsewhere. we condemn in the strongest possible terms violence directed against innocent people, and believe that if israel has a right to maintain basic law and order and protect its citizens from knife attacks, and violence on the streets. we also believe that it's important for both prime minister netanyahu and israeli elected officials and president awas other people in positions of power, to try to tamp down rhetoric that may feed violence, or anger, or misunderstanding,

and try to get all people in israel and in the west bank to recognize that this kind of random violence isn't going to result in anything other than more hardship, and more insecurity. and i don't think that it's -- i don't think we can wait for all the issues that exist between israeli ands palestinians to be settled in order for us to try to tamp down the violence right now. i think my views are well known that over time, the only way that israel is going to be truly secure and the only way that the palestinians are going to be

able to meet the aspirations of their people is if there are two states living side-by-side in peace and security. those talks, which secretary kerry put enormous effort in, and before that, a number of our envoys and secretary clinton put enormous effort in has stalled. and i think it's going to be up to the parties, and we stand ready to assist to see if they can restart a more constructive relationship. but in the meantime right now, everybody needs to focus on making sure that innocent people aren't being killed. ...

and i suspect president barchi agrees with me here that at the point where john young says -- president park -- we are interested in seeing relief from sanctions and improved relations and we're prepared to have a serious conversation about denuclearization, i think it's fair to say we will be right there at the table. now, even if they made a gesture they would then be willing to subject themselves to the kind of rigorous verification regimes which we have set up with iran,

particularly given their past violations agreements. that's a separate question. but we haven't even gotten to the point yet because there's been no indication on part of the north koreans as it was with the iranians that they could foresee a future which they did not possess or were not pursuing nuclear weapons. >> do you agree with secretary kerry -- [inaudible] >> i don't think that's what he secretary kerry said. i think what secretary kerry said was that we have today and 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, that the atmosphere which there's 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 of their, obviously it's going to help. but there's not a direct causation here, and what we do need to make sure of is that we are focusing on right now on

ensuring that innocent people are not being killed. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: with regard to the iranian agreement, and whether could be applied to the north korean situation, i think that was what the question was about. now, you look at the iran negotiations and how it was concluded, how you reach an agreement and we saw united states and the u.s. leadership lead the whole process, and the other countries that also made concerted efforts. with international efforts that came together that made this possible. editing that's a very important lesson that we can 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 are also all vehemently against

north korean nuclear capability so we do have some international cooperation of their but the difference between iran and north korea may be something that president obama which just said, i totally agree, what's important here is that you need have this genuine willingness of the part of north korea that they will give up nuclear armed capabilities. this might not be, you can take a horse to the trough but you cannot make them drink, is a sing. north korea has to calm to his own conclusion that he is genuinely willing to give up nuclear capabilities and become a full-fledged member of the international community. they need to have that. if they don't have that and even if we are international concerted efforts then we will as he conclusion to these negotiations or talks like we saw with iran, so that's a big

difference that i see here. >> who do you want to call on next, madam president part they are all very capable. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: despite these efforts in north korea hasn't changed its attitude towards developing a nuclear missile capability. in the second half of your term in office county plan on -- 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 this'll be possible during your term in office? and i do 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. this is your fourth time meeting and you also see each other a lot at multilateral talks are such as want to ask you, have you grown closer? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: now, let me ask, answer the last question first. and yes, that answer is yes for me. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: let me continue with your answers. the trust building process basically a this principle. we will be dealing with any provocation over also leaving the door open for a dialogue and will continue to make efforts to build trust. so this is a basic principle. and this is a basic underlying foundation of all our north korean policies. in august there was a

provocation in the demilitarized zone and we stuck to this principle and applied it to the situation. and we were very firmly respond to the situation and as a result we are able to reach the august with an agreement between the two koreas. we had this cycle where north korea kept provoking essay we just reported it and it went on and on, and we want to stop this. and we are very clear that our north korean policy will not change if north korea continues to provoke and threaten us. the korean government will try to smooth the government of the august 25 agreement and we seek to put in place concrete measures for reconciliation and cooperation in an effort to maintain this moment for improved interkorean at times. now, in the past some people we might of thought, if you just

let something slide, won't you get along better? but you look at the result of that attitude they really were not very good. we need a principled approach and his principled approach may 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. now come in a summit earlier we talked about germany and how chancellor kohl said that german reunification would happen in 10 years time, within three days later the berlin wall can fall into. so which was something that is fairly 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 the only effort in this regard, we do have a reunification preparation committee about are looking into the practical aspects of reunification, how we prepare for. it's not just between ourselves and north korea. but also fix the greater international community so we need to also look at our neighboring countries and we need to create an apartment throughout the world where there is consensus that people agree that 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 that reunification is a good thing for the region and the world and will continue to make efforts in this regard as well. well. >> i was impressed the first time i met with president park images become more and more impressed with your leadership,

the clarity of her vision, and she is not elegant a great partner to us but i think has helped to continue koreas broader role in global affairs. and so i'm very proud to be working with her. i think our strong relationship is also a reflection of the extraordinary friendship and close relationship between the american people and the korean people. carol lee. there you are. >> thank you, mr. president. now that your administration has said that iran very clear violated a u.n. council resolution with its recent past, what other consequences for the going to be? would you be able to accept additional u.s. sanctions against iran? and given the missile test and iran's actions in syria how

concerned are you that they're being this aggressive before they've even kind of the billions of dollars that they're supposed to get under the nuclear deal? if i could quickly ask you, if you could comment on the deal that the u.s. from the russian military's have reached. does this mean that they're not, russia and the us are going to be a cross purposes in the syria going forward? and if you could, are you disappointed that secretary clinton opposes your trade deal, particularly given that your administration has not released the final draft is and president park, the result appeared in beijing with the leaders of russia and china. what message were you trying to send to the u.s. without a parent? >> all right. i got to write these down -- with that appearance. spent iran. what was the second one? russian military and hillary. [laughter]

>> all right, let's see if i can, let's 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 thing that i made very clear during the debate round, on 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 to the international community and where we have bilateral channels to indicate to them that there are costs to bad behavior in the region and around the world. but we are not going to do that more effectively if they are also on a separate track pursuing a nuclear weapon. with respect to the actions in syria, as i've 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 about how to solve syria has not worked and will not work. i mean, their preference for regional it was we will simply

send arms and money to aside and you'll be able to clamp down on dissent. and when that didn't work they directed hezbollah to come and prop them up and send in some of their own military advisors. and that did not work. and now the russians have come in, and iran is going to send more people than. 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 come even as we doubled 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 the syria and that we continue to have a

process of getting iranians, the syrians, or the iranians, the russians, the turks, the gulf countries and all the other interested parties to sit down to recognize we've got 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've arrived at is how do we deconflict 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 for channels of 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 that if he continues to do what he's been doing over the last five years, and that is prop up the assad regime, that the problem will be the problem will be solved. i believe is that we have to go after isil and violent extremist groups. but the magnet that the civil war there is serving in bring in foreign fighters and recruiting people to this extremist cause will only go away if we are able to get a political track and a legitimate inclusive government inside of syria you're 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 start realizing that they're not going to do 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 abused trade, i would have you direct questions to her. i mean, here's the general proposition, guys. during the course of what will be a long campaign, i probably will not be commenting on every single utterance or decision that the very candidates make. because, because i think that it is natural and proper for candidates to run on their own vision and their own platform. and what's encouraging is the fact that i think everybody on the stage at the debate affirmed what i said in the past, which is we agree on 95% of stuff.

add-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 police immigration strengthens us rather than weakens us, that believes that people should be treated fairly and equally. the vision of the democratic party that i have fought for is one that is broadly shared by all the candidates. there are going to be some areas where they differ at any given point. i'm happy to make the case once again for the trade agreement itself, i do hope, carol, you take the time to read because what you'll see is that it meets the promise that i make, the

most progressive, highest standard trade agreement that we've 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 and 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, then make sure our businesses are treated fairly when they invest in other countries, that opens up markets. keep in mind with some of the lowest tariffs in the world already. so we are already seeing goods and services think so but for the countries here, and the countries that are of tpp have significantly higher terrace. for us to be able to get those lower, just example of japan where a slap on 10, 20, 30, 40%

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 we will 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 will be aborted persuade a whole lot of people once they see the deal, but it's right thing to do that as president part 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 it's going to make our businesses more competitive is going to put our workers in a better position so that they are not undercut by low wages or forced labor, that their plans

don't suddenly shut down because we've got environmental laws that other countries are not following. it's the right thing to do. [inaudible] spent i think what we'll be doing this we will review as we have in the past any violations of u.n. resolutions, and we will 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 snap back if we see violations there, that sanctions are related to ballistic missiles, human rights violations, terrorism, those we will continue to enforce. and that's not choose unilateral

sanctions on our part to our expectation is that there will be continued international consequences where u.n. resolutions are violated. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: that was a very long answer and i kind of forgot the question that was asked to me. spent see what happens when i get three or four questions? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i think the question about mine to beijing and what kind of message i deliver. now, i met with president xi in china and also met with the leader, the leaders of russia. and north korean nuclear issue in the 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 we also talked about the security threat and also the north korea nuclear issue from the standpoint that from the korean peninsula and eurasia, throughout eurasia we all want to grow together and are so many possibilities there here to right in the middle blocking our way is north korea. because of that the growth potential of the whole of asia and europe is being damaged a lot because of north korea's ambitions in terms of nuclear. that was my message about ahead for the leaders i met in beijing. and they agreed with me and terms of my remarks about north korea's nuclear problems, and we all agree that we need to make efforts to resolve this issue. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: first, either

question for president obama. within the united states with regards to the alliance, there are some people who are concerned that there is some cracks. what do you see? and president park has visited the united states. what is the significance of her visit? ivy question for president park. now, through this visit -- i have a question -- you said you like to open new frontiers of cooperation and i would like to some details on that, please. >> actually i don't see any crack in the relationship at all. i would argue that the u.s.-rok relationship is stronger than it's ever been, that the alliance is on firmer footing than it has ever been.

across the spectrum of issues, military, economic, people to people, scientific, development, global issues, we have excellent relations with the government. our communications is strong. our vision of a continued robust alliance that can do with any contingency is not just giving lip service to but we invest in on an ongoing basis. our vision of what we need to do this improve 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 this might connect to the earlier question that carol had, sometimes there's a perception that if president park meets with president xi, that that must cause a problem for us. president xi was in this room eating my food. [laughter] and we were toasting and having a lengthy conversation. we want south korea to have a strong relationship with china, just as we want to have a strong relationship with china. we want to see china's people right. we want them to be cooperative 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 is no contradiction between the republic of korea having good relations with us, being a central part of our allies and having good relationships, good relations

with china. as i communicated to president park, the only thing that we are 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, those rules of the road weakening. or some countries taking advantage because they are larger. that's a good for anybody, including south korea. obviously, given the size of china right there on your doorstep, if, if they're 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 my hope is that as a consequence of the average president park has done from the outreach that we do, the interactions that we have -- the outreach -- with japan and resulting sum of the historical challenges that exist there 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. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: with the united

states we are looking to open new frontiers and cooperation, and new horizons for cooperation as well. we are looking at climate change, infectious diseases, space exploration. those are just some of the topics we talk about. they are our global issues, too. and in order to effectively based upon the needs with regard to these issues i believe we need a very close cooperation between korea and the united states. now, these issues need our attention in terms of cutting edge technologies and industries that we need to develop. ..