字幕表 動画を再生する
>> President Obama: Good afternoon.
Bon après-midi.
Again, it's a great honor to welcome my friend
and partner, President Hollande,
back to the White House for this state visit.
It's always a pleasure to host François.
At Camp David two years ago, I was trying to make
the summit casual, and François -- in true French
style -- showed up in a necktie.
We tried to get him to take it off.
When I hosted him in Chicago for the NATO
summit, I thought he'd try some of our local
cuisine -- a Chicago-style hot dog.
I'm not sure he had one, but we do know that he has
sampled American fast food in the past, because this
happens to be the 40th anniversary of François's
first trip to America as a student.
And I understand he traveled across
our county studying the fast food industry.
So if back in 1974 you noticed a French guy
poking around your local McDonald's, that was him.
(Laughter)
Now he's back as the
24th President of France.
And Michelle and I look forward to hosting him
tonight at a state dinner -- with a different kind
of American cuisine.
Alexis de Tocqueville -- that great son of France
who chronicled our American democracy --
wrote that even as we marvel at our freedom,
there's nothing harder than learning
how to use our freedom.
It's a lesson that our two countries have
learned over more than 200 years.
Standing together -- and using our freedom
to improve the lives of not only our citizens but
people around the world -- is what makes France
not only America's oldest ally,
but also one of our closest allies.
Our military and intelligence personnel
cooperate every day -- keeping our nations secure
and dealing with crises and challenges
from Africa to the Persian Gulf.
Our diplomats work side by side to help resolve
conflicts and promote peace, from Syria to Iran.
Our development experts help impoverished villages
boost their agriculture and lift themselves
out of poverty.
And this level of partnership across so many
areas would have been unimaginable even
a decade ago.
But it's a testament to how our two nations
have worked to transform our alliance.
And I want to salute President Hollande
for carrying this work forward.
François, you haven't just spoken eloquently about
France's determination to meet its responsibilities
as a global leader, you've also acted.
From Mali and the Central African Republic
to Syria and Iran, you have shown courage and resolve.
And I want to thank you for your leadership
and for being such a strong partner
to the United States.
And in that spirit, I'm grateful for the progress
that we've made today in four key areas.
First, we're standing shoulder to shoulder
on the key challenges to global security.
Our unity with our P5-plus-1 partners,
backed with strong sanctions, has succeeded
in halting and rolling back key parts
of the Iranian nuclear program.
We agree that next week's talks in Vienna will
be an opportunity for Iran to show that it is serious
about a comprehensive solution that assures the
world that its nuclear
program is for peaceful purposes only.
President Hollande and I agree on the need
to continue enforcing existing sanctions, even
as we believe that new sanctions during these
negotiations would endanger the possibility
of a diplomatic solution.
And we remain absolutely united on our ultimate
goal, which is preventing Iran from obtaining
a nuclear weapon.
Just as our unity on Syria -- and the credible threat
of force -- led to a plan for destroying Syria's
chemical weapons, we're united on what needs
to happen next there.
Syria must meet its commitments, and Russia
has a responsibility to ensure
that Syria complies.
And as talks continue in Geneva, we'll continue
to strengthen the moderate opposition,
and we call on the international community
to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Syria.
This week, we're working with our Security Council
partners to call for an end to indiscriminate
attacks on civilians and to ensure humanitarian
aid workers have unimpeded access to Syrians in need.
And we'll continue to work with France
and others to bolster our partners
in the region, including Lebanon.
More broadly, as Israelis and Palestinians move
forward with talks, we agree that France
and the European Union will have an important role
in supporting a final agreement.
And we also agreed to continue our cooperation
on Mali and the Central African Republic, where
leaders and communities need to show the courage
to resist further violence
and to pursue reconciliation.
Second key area -- as major trading partners,
we're working to boost exports and create jobs.
I'm pleased to announce that we're launching
a new economic dialogue to expand trade,
increase the competitiveness of our businesses,
spur innovation, and encourage new entrepreneurs.
And President Hollande's visit to Silicon Valley
this week underscores our commitment
to new collaborations in science and technology.
Related to this, we've agreed to continue
pursuing an ambitious and comprehensive
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
I want to thank President Hollande for his
commitment to these negotiations.
We need to get this done because an agreement could
increase exports by tens of billions of dollars,
support hundreds of thousands of additional
jobs -- both in the United States
and the European Union -- and promote growth
on both sides of the Atlantic.
Number three, we've agreed to keep expanding the
cooperation and clean-energy partnerships
that make our countries leaders
in the fight against climate change.
And even as we take steps at home to reduce carbon
emissions, we'll work to help developing countries
move to low-carbon growth.
And next year's carbon climate conference
in France will be an opportunity
to forge a strong global agreement that reduces
greenhouse gas emissions through concrete actions.
And finally, we're moving forward together
on key global development initiatives: food security
and nutrition that can lift 50 million Africans
out of poverty; our determination
to replenish the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria --
and I'm pleased that we're joining with partners
around the world on a new global health security
effort to combat infectious diseases
and save lives.
So this is just some of the progress we're making
together, using our freedoms,
to borrow de Tocqueville's words, to advance security,
prosperity, and human dignity around the world.
And François, in this work,
I could not be more grateful for your partnership
and your friendship.
I especially want to thank you for honoring
our D-Day veterans today.
And I'm very pleased to announce that I have
accepted François's invitation and will travel
to France in June to mark
the 70th anniversary of D-Day.
I was there for the 65th anniversary and it was an
extraordinary experience.
I'm looking forward to returning to honor
our remarkable veterans and
to reaffirm this extraordinary alliance.
President Hollande.
>> President Hollande: (As interpreted)
Mr. President, dear Barack, you receive
me today as you had done the day after my election with
the same sincerity, with the same respect,
and with the same friendship for France.
You didn't know me back then -- I knew you.
There was a major difference there between
us because your election had been welcomed
in France, beyond any political views,
for it was a proof that America
was moving forward once more.
America was able to make something possible,
to make progress possible.
When you received me here, it was in Camp David.
Let's forget about the tie.
As you can see, I'm wearing a tie today.
But you welcomed me at a time that was challenging
for Europe because what was at stake was the very
existence of the Eurozone -- was the Eurozone going
to be able to come out of this doubt that prevailed
on the Eurozone and on financial markets.
And your call for solidarity
and for growth was heard, and was heard
and was extremely useful back then.
Since then, since this meeting in Camp David,
Europe has come out of its financial crisis.
It now has the relevant instruments
for stability and it has introduced banking union.
I also remember our meeting in Chicago.
I remember that in Chicago I had announced that
France would withdraw its combatting troops from
Afghanistan, but it wasn't an easy decision
to make and it wasn't an easy decision to understand.
And yet, you accepted.
And we remained in Afghanistan, in spite
of this, at a lower level to the level
we had anticipated in earlier times.
But you accepted this movement, all the more so
because this was part and parcel of a commitment I
had made before the French people,
similar to the one you made before the American people
when it came to Iraq.
You recalled our historic relations.
And I shall not mention again the warm reception
of yesterday at Monticello,
but I'd like today, here, to pay tribute to the American
Unknown Soldier fallen during World War II,
to the veterans -- American veterans of the Second
World War who enabled France to be liberated,
and, indeed, Europe.
We will commemorate the 70th anniversary
of D-Day landing.
I had invited you to come and join me
on the 6th of June, and you have just accepted this invitation,
which I welcome.
This will be a strong message because
we will commemorate the sacrifice made
by those soldiers, but we will also celebrate
reconciliation and peace.
This brings us back to our responsibilities
in terms of security.
France and the United States are two countries
which, due to their history, their place
in history, but also due to their seat
as permanent members
of the U.N. Security Council, can act on security throughout
the world for freedom, democracy,
the rule of law.
And this is precisely what France did, with the help
of our American friends, in Mali in order to make
it possible for Mali
to recover its territorial integrity.
This operation was successful, and it was
only successful because a decision was made
by the international community; it was successful because
Americans took part and because Europeans helped
as well as Americans, who also gave their support.
And a President has now been elected in Mali
and the Malian state has now found its authority again.
We also intervened in the Central African Republic
in a completely different context, admittedly,
but the idea was to prevent what could have been
a humanitarian disaster.
There had been already brutal actions that
affected a population that was already suffering
a great deal.
There are violence every day,
there are clashes every day.
But France does what it can with the help
of other European nations and with the help of Americans.
And this bears witness to an exceptional situation
in our history because our countries have always been
allies, have always been friends, but now we trust
each other in an unprecedented manner.
And this is characteristic of our personal
relationship but also of our goals -- common goals.
Barack Obama reminded us of our position on Syria.
We were prepared to resort to force.
But we found another option: negotiation.
We made it possible for part of the chemical
weapons stockpile to be destructed.
But we haven't found a political solution.
Geneva is a possible step in the right direction,
but we will have to make headway.
We will have to cooperate more, make sure
our services cooperate more.
We need to support the opposition.
We need to make sure that the choice is not between
dictatorship on the one hand and chaos
on the other -- chaos with
its lot of fundamentalists and extremists.
And we found this potential solution.
Identically, on the Iranian dossier,
we found common ground.
It's a challenging issue and finding a final
agreement will be challenging.
But the Iranian nuclear program has been
suspended, and this is precisely the outcome
of our collaboration -- collaboration between
France and the United States of America.
We also act in the Middle East, and I welcome the
American initiative to resume negotiations.
A framework of agreement needs to be signed now,
and France and Europe will certainly give their
support to that two-state solution.
We are also extremely attentive
to what happens in Lebanon.
Lebanon is a country with which France
has historic ties.
There again France and the United States stand side
by side in order to help this country resist this
massive inflow of refugees with this risk of clashes
that are ubiquitous and this risk
of return to civil war.
That is a reality.
So we need to support Lebanon and to make sure
that it is supported in its unity
and in its integrity.
We also help Jordan receive refugees.
So on all international issues we have convergent
views and we stand united.
Not that we never debate or that we never partly
disagree -- we might be allies and friends,
but we always respect each other's sovereignty.
That is a fundamental principle in our relation.
We also act on the economic front.
America experiences 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
trust in innovation, energy.
It also benefits from a low cost
of energy and bold decisions.
This economic recovery in the United States is an
opportunity for Europe, but it also is an example
to be followed, a reference that should
encourage us to promote competitivity through the
necessary means, but also to 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 up markets, to remove NTBs
-- non-tariff barriers -- to make sure that the same
opportunities be offered to all companies so that
they can 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 to cultural products.
But we really want to reach this agreement
because this agreement will contribute to growth.
Developing world trade in a 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 a conference?
It's not just about hosting a conference and
having our hotels full.
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
-- developing countries, developed countries --
to work together towards a number of common goals.
Food security, development, the struggle
against AIDS are three other issues on which
we work together.
But there are so many subjects I could mention.
And every single time I would mention one of those
issues I would have to bear witness of the
quality of our relations and of our trust,
including on the most delicate issues
and the most challenging ones.
I was referring to history earlier on.
It unites us.
Tocqueville is suddenly a reference.
Always a reference that is current in France:
How far can you go when it comes to equality and how 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 they wanted to be as
respectful as possible when it comes to equality.
This is precisely what the American Dream is made
of -- and it is also what the French Dream is made of.
Even though many have their own little dream,
but the ambition remains exactly the same.
We want to be together again.
Thank you.
>> President Obama: We've got a couple
of questions each.
Let's start with -- where's Mark Landler?
There he is.
New York Times.
>> The Press: 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 II talks have
proven to be as unproductive
as the first round was.
The conventional -- the chemical weapons agreement
that you both alluded to has removed some weapons,
but by all accounts it's a small fraction
of the overall stockpile the Assad regime has,
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 Homs and elsewhere.
Everybody agrees that more pressure needs to be
brought to bear on the Assad regime to change
this deadly equation.
And so I wonder, 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 Monsieur le Presidente, (speaks in French),
I forget my French,
I'm going to ask in English.
How is it okay for a trade delegation with 100 French
CEOs to travel to Tehran to explore business
opportunities when the P5 and the E3-plus-3 have
committed to maintaining the strength
and integrity of the sanctions regime?
Thank you.
>> President Obama: Why don't I take a stab first
at the Syria question?
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 that François feels the
same way, and many of our European partners
as well as our partners in the region feel the same way.
The Geneva process recognizes that
if we're going to solve this problem, then we have
to 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 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 regime.
Now, the regime -- Assad's regime
wasn't particularly responsible.
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 interest to see the continuing
bloodshed and collapse that's
taking place inside that country.
Now you ask 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 in the U.N.
Security Council, we will be debating a resolution
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 on this resolution.
Russia is a holdout.
And Secretary Kerry and others have delivered
a very direct message to the Russians that they cannot
say that they are concerned about the
well-being of the Syrian people when there are
starving civilians, and that it is not just
the Syrians that are responsible; the Russians,
as well, if they are blocking
this kind of resolution.
So that is an example of the kinds of diplomatic
work that we are engaging in right now.
But, Mark, nobody is going to deny that there's
enormous frustration here.
And I think the 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've said throughout 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 extensive deal
to get those chemical weapons out.
You're right that so far they have
missed some deadlines.
On the other hand, we've completely chronicled
all the chemical weapons inside of Syria.
A portion of those chemical weapons
have been removed.
There's 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.
And we will continue to keep the pressure on.
But we now have a U.N.
mandate with consequences if there's a failure --
something that we did not have before.
Whether we can duplicate that kind of process when
it comes to the larger resolution of the problem,
right now we don't think that there is a military
solution, per se, to the problem.
But the situation is fluid, and we are
continuing to explore every possible avenue
to solve this problem, because it's not just
heartbreaking to see what's happening to the
Syrian people, it's very dangerous
for the region as a whole, including friends and allies and
partners like Lebanon or Jordan that are being
adversely impacted by it.
Let me just make 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 sanctions.
In fact, we have taken various steps just over
the last six, seven weeks to identify companies that
we felt were violating those sanctions and have
been very clear to the Iranians that there's
not going to be any let-up.
In discussions with President Hollande,
he feels the same way, as do all the P5-plus-1 members.
And so businesses may be exploring are there
some 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 ton of bricks 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 have in place are already squeezing Iran and
brought them to the table, but we also want to send
a message to the Iranians that if they don't resolve
this broader issue of their nuclear program that
there will be consequences and that the sanctions
regime not only will stay in place but will likely
be tightened in the event that these talks fail.
>> President Hollande: Barack gave you a very
comprehensive answer, so I shall now sketch the
French approach on the issues that were
mentioned only in a few words.
First of all, Geneva II -- the only purpose of this
conference is to make
political transition possible.
It's not about discussing
humanitarian measures only.
It's all about making sure that a political change
be possible, which eventually will have
to take place in Syria.
We encouraged the democratic opposition
to go to Geneva and to demonstrate that
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, a conclusion,
as a matter of fact -- we should help along the humanitarian
situation, and that is why
a resolution will be voted at the NUSC.
And we will see again who speaks clearly
on the issue of the Syrian question
and who is partisan.
How you can object to humanitarian corridors?
Why would you prevent the vote of a resolution if,
in good faith, it is all about saving human lives?
So we decided to go all the way and
to get these clarifications.
Third question -- the
chemical weapons stockpile.
Barack Obama and myself, when we were presented
with a 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 the option of a negotiation
was also kept on the agenda.
It is precisely for that reason that President
Putin made this offer in circumstances
you are all familiar with.
This led to the destruction of some
of the chemical weapons.
But I agree with you, it is a very long-winded
process, it's only partial destruction, and it
certainly doesn't go nearly far enough.
So rules were adopted, particularly within
the framework of the Security Council resolution,
in case of non-observants.
And we shall resort 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 French situation, the President of the Republic
is not the President of the Employers Union in France --
and he certainly doesn't wish to be.
And I don't think anyone wishes for him to be so.
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 a new situation in Iran, a situation where Iran would
have renounced the nuclear weapon fully
and comprehensively -- well,
unless such a new situation would prevail, no commercial
agreement could be signed.
That's what I told French businessmen and they are
very much aware of the situation.
And as far as sanctions are concerned, they will
only be lifted if and when there
is a definite agreement.
And during this period of an interim agreement, they
remain in force.
A French question, perhaps now?
Le Figaro.
>> The Press: You hav 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 in that role?
>> President Obama: Oh, goodness.
(Laughter)
>> The Press: And if so, why not extend
to France the no-spying agreement that you have
with England after the big scandal
of the NSA's surveillance program?
(As interpreted) And, Mr. President,
you praised the Excellency
of the Franco-American cooperation.
But on Iran, are there differences in terms
of analysis between France and America
on the necessity to have an ambitious agreement?
Do you fear that Americans will be prepared
to make too many concessions?
Thank you.
>> President Obama: First of all,
I have two daughters.
(Laughter)
And they are both gorgeous 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 the serious part of the question,
what I do believe is, is that the U.S.-French alliance
has never been stronger.
And the levels of cooperation that we're
seeing across a whole range of issues
is much deeper than it was I think 5 years ago,
10 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 we share certain values and certain commitments
and are willing to act on behalf of those
commitments and values.
With respect to the NSA, obviously I expressed my
strong commitment to making sure that our rules
and how we approach intelligence and
surveillance, not just here in the --
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 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 were countries like France that have been
long-time allies of ours and some
of our closest partners.
It's not actually correct to say that we have
a "no-spy agreement" with Great Britain.
That's not actually what happens.
We don't have -- there's no country where
we have a no-spy agreement.
We have, like every other country, an intelligence
capability, and then we have a range
of partnerships with all kinds of countries.
And we've been in consultations with
the French government to deepen those commitments.
At the same time, what I've also said,
both publicly and privately -- and I want to reiterate
today to the French press -- is that we are
committed to making sure that we are protecting
and concerned about the privacy rights
not just of Americans, not just of our own citizens,
but of people around the world as well.
That's a commitment, by the way, that's fairly
unprecedented in terms of any
country's intelligence operations.
And what we've said is, is that we are putting rules
in place so that we're not engaging in what some
of the speculation has been.
When it comes to ordinary citizens in France, we are
respectful of their privacy rights, and we are
going to make sure that our rules are abiding by
concerns about those privacy rights.
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 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 privacy rights that people in France rightly
expect just like they do here in the United States.
And the last point -- just because I know you asked
it of President Hollande, but I want to go ahead
and comment on this -- the reason Iran
is at the table is because we have a very high threshold
in terms of what we expect out of Iran to prove
to us that they're not pursuing nuclear weapons.
And we were able to stitch together an international
coalition to apply sanctions to make sure
that would be the case.
I don't think the concern during the course of these
negotiations is whether or not we are going
to be making too many concessions.
I think the concern is going to be whether
or not Iran can recognize the opportunity to prove
in a 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 give those
assurances to anybody in the international
community that they weren't pursuing
a nuclear weapon.
That's why there was such unanimity
in applying the sanctions and keeping them in place.
>> President Hollande: In response to
your first question -- well, 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 historic 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 ties -- economic ties, cultural or personal ties
-- and that already would be a great deal.
It's not just about bringing our two societies
closer to one another.
It's not just about sharing technology -- no.
What makes this friendship between the United States
and France is the fact that we can hold values at
a specific point in time with this American
presidency and with this French presidency,
if I may say so.
With regards to Iran, your second question,
just as the United States, we wanted to work on the
basis of the P5 scenario.
This was the basis of our action.
Nothing prevented us from having bilateral contacts,
and I had some bilateral contacts; in New York,
during the UNGA, I received President Rouhani
during the General Assembly.
So it is perfectly legitimate
for discussions to take place.
However, we had to meet together in order
to be strong together and in order to make sure that
our toughness brings about this interim agreement --
which it did.
But there is still work to be 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 renounces 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.
This was in the past.
And then we endeavored towards cooperation.
We wanted to fight against terrorism.
But we also wanted to meet a number of principles.
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
of private life, of personal data; the fact that any
individual, in spite of technological progress,
can be sure that he is not being spied on.
These are principles that unite us.
>> President Obama: National Public Radio.
>> The Press: Thank you very much.
Mr. President, yesterday your administration
again delayed the ACA employer mandate
for mid-sized companies.
Last week, your economic advisor, Jason Furman,
talked about the new choices that people have
to find health care outside the workplace.
I wonder if you could first explain the delay
and then also talk about whether
over the long term you see a future where health insurance
is less tied to the workplace.
>> President Obama: Well --
>> The Press: And if I may --
>> President Obama: Oh, I'm sorry.
>> The Press: -- for President Hollande,
you both talked about the pursuit
of the Transatlantic Trade Agreement.
I wonder if you have followed the domestic
battle here over fast track authority,
and if that raises questions in your mind about whether
such a deal could be ratified.
>> President Obama: The announcement yesterday
was fairly straightforward.
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.
So you have just this small category
of folks who don't provide health insurance,
weren't exempted by law.
They are supposed to make sure that they meet their
responsibilities so that their employees aren't
going to the emergency room jacking up everybody
else's cost, and the employers
end up not having any responsibility for that.
What we did yesterday was simply to make
a adjustment in terms of their compliance,
because for many of these companies, just the
process of complying -- they're mid-sized, between
50 and 100 folks -- it may take them some time,
even if they're operating in good faith.
And we want to make sure that the purpose of the
law is not to punish them, it's simply to make sure
that they are either providing health insurance
to their employees, or that they're helping
to bear the costs of their employees
getting health insurance.
And that's consistent, actually,
with what we've done in the individual mandate.
The vast majority of Americans
want health insurance.
Many of them couldn't afford it;
we provide them tax credits.
But even with the tax credits, in some cases
they still can't afford it, and we have hardship
exemptions, phase-ins, to make sure that nobody
is unnecessarily burdened -- that's not the goal.
The goal is to make sure that folks are healthy
and have decent health care.
And so this was an example of, administratively,
us making sure that we're smoothing out this
transition, giving people the opportunities
to get right with the law, but recognizing that there
are going to be circumstances in which people are trying
to do the right thing and it may take
a little bit of time.
Our goal here is not to punish folks.
Our goal is to make sure that we've got people who
can count on the financial security
that health insurance provides.
And where we've got companies that want
to do the right thing and are trying to work with us,
we want to make sure that we're working
with them as well.
And that's going to be our attitude about
the law generally -- how do we make it work
for the American people and for their employers
in an optimal sort of way.
What was the second part
of that health care question?
>> The Press: Long term?
>> President Obama: Long term in terms
of employer-based.
Well, look, we have a unique system compared to
many parts of the world, including France,
where, partly because of historical accident and
some decisions that FDR made during wartime back
in World War II, our health care has been much
more tied to employers.
That's not the case in most
other developed countries.
It has worked for a long time, but what
is also true is that it has meant for a lot
of U.S. companies a greater burden, more costs
relative to their international competitors.
That's a challenge.
It's also meant that folks who were self-employed,
for example, or were independent contractors
weren't always getting the same deal
as somebody who had a job.
It meant that folks who worked for small
businesses sometimes had more trouble getting
decent premiums and decent rates
than folks with large companies.
So it just created a great amount
of unevenness in the system.
I don't think that an employer-based system is
going to be, or should be, replaced anytime soon.
But what the Affordable Care Act does
do is it gives people some flexibility.
It says if I'm working at a big company like IBM
or Google, and I decide I want to start my own
company that I'm not going to be inhibited from
starting a new company because I'm worried
about keeping health insurance for myself and my family.
I can go make that move.
If I'm a woman who is -- and I'd really like
to work with him on the farm, but we can't afford health
insurance on our own, so I've been working
at the county clerk's office for the last 10 years --
now maybe I've got the opportunity to no longer
work in a different job and instead work
on that farm and increase the likelihood of economic
success for my family.
So it's giving people more flexibility
and more opportunity to do what makes sense for them.
And ultimately I think that's going
to be good for our economy.
But we understood from the state that there were
going to be some challenges
in terms of transition.
When you've had one system where a whole
lot of people did not have any health insurance
whatsoever for a very long period of time,
and we finally passed a law to fix that, we knew that
there were going to be some bumps
and transitions in that process.
And that's what we're working with
all the stakeholders involved to address.
>> President Hollande: The question on the TTIP, the
trade partnership, you wanted to know when
this partnership would be signed.
Well, we discussed it with President Obama.
I'm aware of the debate that
is currently underway in Congress.
But as long as principles have been set up, as long
as mandates have been decided and the interests
of everyone are known, speed
is not of the essence.
What we need is to find a solution.
Of course a speedy agreement would
be a good thing because otherwise there will
be fears and threats.
So if we act in good faith, if we respect each
other, and if we want to promote growth,
as we said a few moments ago, well, we can go faster.
>> The Press: Since last year, foreign investments
in France have been crumbling,
and we are not benefiting in France from the world recovery.
President Obama, do you think that Mr. Hollande
doesn't do much to encourage American
investors to invest in France?
And, Mr. Hollande, you will meet businessmen.
For them, you are a socialist, you think that
the world of finance is an enemy,
and you tax wealth at 75 percent.
So how on earth are you going to convince
businessmen here?
And what will you tell Pierre Gattaz, the head
of the employee's union in France, who said here
in Washington that he wanted no compensation
for the labor cost cuts?
>> President Obama: It's good to know that
reporters have something in common
in France and the United States.
(Laughter)
>> President Hollande: These would be?
Which one would these be?
>> President Obama: I think that
all of us were traumatized by the crisis of 2007-2008.
And the United States has to take responsibility
for its role in that crisis.
We made some quick decisions that allowed
us to stabilize the financial markets and begin the long
process of recovery, but it was painful,
it was slow.
And it was only because of the incredible resilience
of the American people and our businesses,
as well as, I believe, some well-timed policies that
we were able to begin a growth process that
we've now sustained for some time.
And we've brought our unemployment rate down.
But Europe has a different set of challenges because
of the Eurozone, because of the nature of a shared
currency but not completely shared
governance and supervisory authorities.
That has created some particular difficulties
that François and others have had to deal with that
we did not have to deal with as a country with
a reserve currency that could
make some independent choices.
Despite that, I think Europe actually has made
enormous strides over the last year.
France, in particular, has taken some tough
structural reforms that I think are going
to help them be more competitive in the future.
I think all of us in the developed world are having
to balance the need for growth and
competitiveness, to be -- what we say in America --
lean and mean, and make sure that we are
maximizing efficiency as well as innovation,
but also do it in a way that allows for the benefits
of growth to be broad-based and so that workers
are all benefiting from some sense of security and
decent wages and rising incomes and the ability
to retire securely.
And so each country is going
to have different circumstances.
The kinds of reforms we need in this country right
now revolve around things like investing
in infrastructure, where we have not made the kind
of strides that I'd like us to see and would actually
boost growth even faster.
We're going to have to invest in skills training,
which every country is going to have to do,
because businesses will locate where they think
they've got the most capable,
most highly skilled workers.
We still have to do more on the innovation front.
As innovative as we are, I think we're still
underinvesting in research and development.
So America has some inherent strengths
but we also have some areas where
we've got to make progress.
And I think François would be the first
to say that France is in the same position.
I would certainly encourage American
companies to look at opportunities
for investment in France.
I'd encourage them even more
to look at opportunities to invest money back
in the United States.
And I would welcome any French companies
who want to come here to do business.
But one of the great things about our
commercial relationship, which is also part
of the reason why I think the Transatlantic Trade
Partnership could be valuable, is a lot of the
growth is in small and medium-size businesses
and they are the ones who could stand
to benefit greatly from export.
They don't have the ability to decide where
to be invest; they're going
to be in their home countries.
If we can open up trade opportunities for them --
because they don't have a lot of lawyers,
they don't have a lot of accountants, they can't move
locations and open up new plants in different places --
if we expand trade opportunities for them, that can mean
jobs and growth in France; it can mean jobs and
growth here in the United States.
And so I'm hopeful that we can get this deal,
which will be a tough negotiation,
but I'm confident we can actually get it done.
>> President Hollande: France is one of the
world's countries that receives the largest
amount of foreign investments, one of the
world countries that is the most open
to foreign capital.
And I want to strengthen and enhance this
attractiveness of France.
If you look at physical investments,
real investments -- not just financial investments,
not transfers between companies --
if you look at genuine investments,
tangible investments in France,
factories, job creation -- well,
in spite of the crisis, in 2013, we maintained the level
of investment in France, which bears witness
to the confidence in France, in France's talent,
know-how, companies.
And this is nothing new.
There are more than 2,000 American companies
that work in France, employing 500,000 people
in my country.
And the United States of America
is one of the main investors in France.
And I hope that this trend will be confirmed
and strengthened in the future.
And Barack is perfectly right --
I have nothing to fear from French investments here
in the United States.
There are many French companies here in the
United States, and they create 500,000
jobs -- not all in the Silicon Valley; everywhere
in the United States.
And when talents come and invest in the U.S., well,
this is good for the United States
and this is good for France.
I don't have this vision of focusing on protection
and blaming anyone who invests abroad, because
that won't bring about new technologies and know-how.
And it will be useful, especially
if they come back.
So we need to make efforts when
it comes to attractiveness.
And soon I shall invite many foreign companies
to take part in an "attractivity council,"
which we call the Invest in France Council,
to see what can be done to improve the situation
in France, including when it comes to tax stability,
for this what is very often referred to --
or the stability of rules, because companies want
visibility, first and foremost.
But American companies that have operations
in France ask them why they stay,
why they invest in France.
Well, it is precisely because they find French
society particularly welcoming for them.
You also asked me a question on a statement
that was made by Mr. Gattaz, the employers
union president, on what I called
the "responsibility pact."
Well, this sound has nothing
to do with the declaration of a statement.
What is the responsibility pact?
I'm explaining mostly to American journalists
because French journalists are familiar with it.
This responsibility pact is about mobilizing the
entire country to reach one goal.
Barack Obama mentioned the American economy's
resilience following the crisis.
Well, there comes a point where, after an ordeal,
you have to be stronger than you were before
the ordeal, before the crisis.
You need to be able to mobilize
more strength, more energy.
You need to be able to make sure that the economy
focuses not on what it was before,
but on what will be after.
This is precisely what is at the very root
of this recovery in the American economy.
Companies mobilized their workers to go ahead --
and this is precisely the spirit of this
responsibility pact -- we have modernized
our labor markets, we have modernized
and updated vocational training.
There's a whole list of things that we have done
and are doing, but there are other things
we can do.
We want to strengthen competitivity,
lower labor costs, streamline regulations, create more
visibility in terms of tax regime.
But everyone has to do its bit.
The state is going to make an effort.
There are tax breaks that have already been granted.
We also need to look at fiscal policies in order
to have sufficient room for maneuver,
and commitments will have to be made.
But these commitments need to be shared by companies
and businesses in order to create jobs,
in order to improve vocational training, to fight against
the outsourcing of activities,
to promote investments.
And I hope that discussions will move
along quickly between employers unions and
employees unions, because this
is a prerequisite for confidence.
And that it the key word: confidence, trust.
It is true of international relations,
but it is also true of the economy.