Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • President Obama: Please have a seat.

  • Good afternoon, everybody.

  • This month marks a notable anniversary --

  • 200 years since the Battle of New Orleans.

  • Here in America, we call it a great victory over

  • a mighty United Kingdom.

  • Our British friends call it a technicality.

  • The treaty ending the war was signed weeks before.

  • Either way, we've long since made up.

  • On this 200th anniversary of a great American victory,

  • we count the United Kingdom as one of our

  • greatest friends and strongest allies.

  • And today it's a great pleasure to welcome

  • Prime Minister David Cameron back to the White House.

  • Now, as many of you know, David recently noted how

  • comfortable the two of us are working together.

  • This sent some commentators into a tizzy.

  • Some explored the linguistic origins of the word "bro."

  • Others debated its definition.

  • Several analyzed how this term has evolved over time.

  • Some seemed confused and asked -- what does Obama mean?

  • And so, let me to put this speculation to rest.

  • Put simply, David is a great friend.

  • He's one of my closest and most trusted partners

  • in the world.

  • On many of the most pressing challenges that

  • we face, we see the world the same way.

  • We recognize that, as I've said before,

  • when the United States and United Kingdom stand together,

  • our nations are more secure and our people are more

  • prosperous, and the world is safer and more just.

  • Great Britain is our indispensable partner,

  • and David has been personally an outstanding partner,

  • and I thank you for your friendship.

  • With both of our economies growing and unemployment

  • falling, we used our working dinner last night to discuss

  • how we can help create more jobs for our people.

  • We believe that this needs to be the year when the United States

  • and the European Union make real progress toward the

  • Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

  • And we share the view that boosting demand

  • in Europe can also keep our economies growing.

  • As innovative economies in this information age,

  • we're expanding our collaboration on digital

  • technologies to improve how our governments serve

  • our citizens and businesses.

  • Given the urgent and growing danger of cyber threats,

  • we've decided to expand our cooperation on cybersecurity

  • to protect our critical infrastructure,

  • our businesses and the privacy of our people.

  • And as leaders in the global fight against climate change,

  • we believe that a strong commitment to reducing

  • greenhouse gases will be an essential element of any

  • ambitious climate agreement that we seek in Paris this

  • year and that this actually will help spur the creation

  • of more clean energy jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

  • With regard to security, American-British unity is

  • enabling us to meet challenges in Europe and beyond.

  • We agree on the need to maintain strong sanctions

  • against Russia until it ends its aggression in Ukraine,

  • and on the need to support Ukraine as it implements

  • important economic and democratic reforms.

  • We agree that the international community

  • needs to remain united

  • as we seek a comprehensive diplomatic solution

  • to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

  • And I'd add that additional sanctions on Iran at this

  • time would undermine that international unity

  • and set back our chances for a diplomatic solution.

  • And as the two leading contributors

  • to the global response to Ebola in West Africa,

  • we urge the world to continue stepping up with the resources

  • that are required so that we don't simply stop this

  • disease, we do more to prevent future epidemics.

  • Now, much of our discussion obviously

  • focused on the continuing threat of terrorism.

  • And in the wake of the vicious attacks in Paris,

  • as well as the news surfacing out of Belgium,

  • today we continue to stand unequivocally not only with

  • our French friends and allies, but with also all

  • of our partners who are dealing with this scourge.

  • I know David joins me when I say that we will continue

  • to do everything in our power to help France seek the justice

  • that is needed and that all our countries are working

  • together seamlessly to prevent attacks and to defeat

  • these terrorist networks.

  • With our combat mission in Afghanistan over,

  • we're also focused with our NATO allies on advising

  • and assisting and equipping Afghan forces to secure their

  • own country and deny to al Qaeda any safe haven there.

  • We'll continue to count on our British allies as our --

  • one of our strongest counterterrorism partners,

  • whether it's helping countries fight back against

  • al Qaeda affiliates or Boko Haram in Nigeria.

  • We reviewed our coalition's progress against ISIL.

  • We are systematically taking out their fighters,

  • we're destroying their infrastructure,

  • we are putting them on the defensive and helping

  • local forces in Iraq push these terrorists back.

  • And David and I agree that we need to keep stepping

  • up the training of Iraqi forces, and that

  • we're not going to relent until this

  • terrorist organization is destroyed.

  • The Paris attacks also underscored again how

  • terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIL are actively

  • trying to inspire and support people within

  • our own countries to engage in terrorism.

  • I led a special session of the United Nations Security Council

  • last fall to rally the world to meet the threat

  • of foreign terrorist fighters, including coming from Syria.

  • David and the United Kingdom continue to be strong

  • partners in this work, including sharing

  • intelligence and strengthening border security.

  • At the same time, we both recognize that intelligence

  • and military force alone is not going

  • to solve this problem.

  • So we're also going to keep working together on strategies

  • to counter the violent extremism that radicalizes,

  • recruits and mobilizes people, especially young people,

  • to engage in terrorism.

  • And local communities -- families, neighbors,

  • faith leaders -- have a vital role to play in that effort.

  • We also look forward to welcoming our British friends

  • to our summit next month on countering violent terrorism.

  • Because whether in Europe or in America,

  • a critical weapon against terrorism is our adherence

  • to our freedoms and values at home -- including

  • the pluralism and the respect and tolerance

  • that defines us as diverse and democratic societies.

  • And finally, I want to take this opportunity

  • to publicly congratulate David on last month's

  • Stormont House Agreement.

  • It's a tribute to the courage and determination

  • of everyone involved, especially the leaders

  • of Northern Ireland as well as the governments

  • of Ireland and the United Kingdom.

  • The United States was pleased to play a small role

  • in achieving this agreement, and we're going to keep

  • doing what we need to do to support the peace process

  • and a better future for the people of Northern Ireland.

  • So with that, let me turn it over to my good friend,

  • David Cameron.

  • Prime Minister Cameron: Well, thank you very much, Barack.

  • And thank you for welcoming me again to the White House.

  • You are a great friend to Britain and to me personally.

  • As leaders, we share the same values and, as you said,

  • on so many issues, we see the world in the same way.

  • And most of the time, we speak the same language.

  • (laughter)

  • In the last six years since you became President,

  • and in the nearly five since I've been Prime Minister,

  • we've faced some big issues on our watch.

  • And those challenges have boiled down to one word: Security.

  • Economic security -- the jobs and the living

  • standards of our citizens -- and national security --

  • the ability of our peoples to live safely and in peace.

  • And at the heart of both issues are the values

  • that our countries cherish: Freedom of expression,

  • the rule of law, and our democratic institutions.

  • Those are the things that make both our countries strong

  • and which give us confidence that even in the midst

  • of the most violent storms, with strong leadership,

  • we will come through to safer, to calmer

  • and to brighter days.

  • During your presidency, you've had to deal

  • with the aftermath of a massive banking crisis

  • and a deep recession.

  • When I became Prime Minister, Britain had

  • the highest budget deficit in its peacetime history,

  • our economy was in grave peril.

  • Five years ago, we had 110,000 troops serving

  • together in Afghanistan.

  • Thanks to their efforts, today it is Afghan forces

  • taking responsibility for security in their country.

  • But we continue to face difficult times for the world.

  • First and foremost, we have to deal with

  • the warning lights flashing in the global economy.

  • Wheat growth in the Eurozone has slowed down

  • in emerging markets.

  • That is why it is vital for our shared prosperity

  • that we both stick to the long-term economic plans

  • that we've set out.

  • We agreed that 2015 should be a pivotal year for an ambitious

  • and comprehensive EU-U.S. trade deal which could

  • benefit the average household in Britain

  • by 400 pounds a year.

  • The U.K. is now the top destination for American

  • and foreign investment, with 500 projects last year

  • providing 32,000 jobs.

  • And America is the U.K.'s biggest trade partner,

  • with exports worth nearly 90 billion pounds.

  • We want to build on this.

  • So our message on the economy today is simple:

  • We are going to stick to the course.

  • Because seeing through our economic plans is the only

  • sustainable way to create jobs, to raise living standards,

  • and to secure a better future for hardworking people.

  • Now, Britain and America both face threats to our

  • national security from people who hate what our countries

  • stand for and who are determined to do us harm.

  • In recent weeks, we've seen appalling attacks in Paris,

  • in Peshawar, in Nigeria.

  • The world is sickened by this terrorism,

  • so we will not be standing alone in this fight.

  • We know what we're up against, and we know how we will win.

  • We face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants

  • to pervert one of the world's major religions, Islam,

  • and create conflict, terror and death.

  • With our allies, we will confront it wherever

  • it appears.

  • In Iraq, the U.K. is the second largest

  • contributor to the anti-ISIL coalition.

  • RAF aircraft have conducted over 100 strikes

  • and will continue to play a leading role.

  • We will deploy additional intelligence and surveillance

  • assets to help Iraqi forces on the ground,

  • and we will ensure they are better trained

  • and equipped to counter explosive devices.

  • But most important of all, we must also

  • fight this poisonous ideology starting at home.

  • In the U.K., we're passing a law so that

  • every public body must combat extremism.

  • And this morning, we have agreed to establish

  • a joint group to identify what more

  • we can do to counter the rise of domestic

  • violent extremism, and to learn from one another.

  • In Europe, Russia has chosen to tear up the international

  • rulebook and trample over the affairs of a sovereign state.

  • This threatens our stability and our prosperity.

  • It is important that every country understands that,

  • and that no one in Europe forgets our history.

  • We cannot walk on by.

  • So we will continue to put pressure on Russia

  • to resolve this crisis diplomatically,

  • and at the same time, we will continue our efforts

  • to support Ukraine on the path of reform, including

  • with financial assistance.

  • We also reaffirmed our obligations as NATO partners

  • to stand by our allies, and we'll be contributing

  • an additional thousand troops for exercises

  • in Eastern Europe this year.

  • On Iran, we remain absolutely committed

  • to ensuring that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon.

  • The best way to achieve that now is to create the space

  • for negotiations to succeed.

  • We should not impose further sanctions now;

  • that would be counterproductive

  • and it could put at risk the valuable international

  • unity that has been so crucial to our approach.

  • We also have to keep pace with new threats,

  • such as cyber attacks.

  • We've discussed that in the last two days,

  • and we've today agreed to deepen our cybersecurity

  • cooperation to better protect ourselves.

  • Finally, we face -- the entire world faces a growing

  • threat from diseases.

  • Today, our fight is against Ebola.

  • In the future, it could be against a global flu pandemic.

  • Through our action in Sierra Leone,

  • the U.S. action in Liberia, France and Guinea,

  • we are beginning to turn the corner,

  • but we must get better at responding to these global

  • health emergencies and make sure we can master them

  • before they master us.

  • So reforming the WHO, the World Health Organization;

  • establishing a team of experts to be on standby to deploy

  • anywhere in the world; a new international platform

  • to stimulate the design and development of new drugs --

  • all of these things are needed.

  • And let 2015, the year we must crack Ebola,

  • also be the year we tackle extreme poverty

  • and climate change.

  • On poverty, we must set new, clear goals

  • to eradicate extreme poverty, to fight

  • corruption and to build strong institutions.

  • And on climate change, we want an outcome in Paris

  • that keeps our goal of limiting global warming

  • by 2050 to two degrees within reach.

  • These two things -- and they go together --

  • have the potential to give security to future

  • generations to come.

  • For almost two centuries, after those little difficulties

  • we were discussing earlier, America and Britain have

  • stood as kindred spirits in defending our freedoms

  • and advancing our shared prosperity.

  • Today, as we survey a world in flux,

  • our alliance stands strong, rooted in its long history,

  • and reinvigorated by the challenges we face today.

  • If our forebears could join us here in the White House today,

  • they might find the challenges that we're facing from ISIL

  • to Ebola, from cyberterrorism to banking crises,

  • they might find those hard to comprehend,

  • but they would surely recognize the ties that bind us across

  • the Atlantic and the values that our peoples hold so dear.

  • We've stood together so often, not just because we faced

  • common threats but because we fundamentally believe

  • in the same things.

  • That is as true today as it has always been,

  • and it hugely benefits our countries and the people

  • that we're here to serve.

  • Thank you very much.

  • President Obama: Thank you, David.

  • We're going to take a few questions.

  • We're going to start with Jonathan Karl of ABC.

  • The Press: Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Wrong mic.

  • You mentioned your opposition to the sanctions

  • bill on Iran, and this is obviously a bipartisan bill

  • supported by some very senior top members of your

  • own party in Congress.

  • Why do you oppose a bill that would only impose sanctions

  • if you fail to reach an agreement?

  • And if the Iranians fail to agree to take steps to curtail

  • their nuclear program, would you go so far as to veto a bill

  • supported by top Democrats in Congress on this issue?

  • And to Mr. Prime Minister, I understand you've been making

  • phone calls to senators on this issue of the Iran sanctions

  • bill, is that correct?

  • Are you actually lobbying the U.S.

  • Congress on this?

  • And if I may, Mr. President, I'd really like

  • to hear your reaction to the news that Mitt Romney

  • is thinking about running for President again.

  • (laughter)

  • President Obama: On your last question --

  • (laughter)

  • -- I have no comment.

  • (laughter)

  • The Press: None at all?

  • President Obama: On your first question,

  • when I came into office, I made a commitment

  • that Iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon,

  • that we would do everything we could to prevent that.

  • And that is important for our security and it's important

  • for the world's security.

  • If Iran obtained a nuclear weapon,

  • then it would trigger an arms race in the Middle East,

  • make our job in terms of preventing the proliferation

  • of nuclear materials much more difficult.

  • Given their missile capabilities,

  • it would threaten directly our closest allies,

  • including Israel, and ultimately could threaten us.

  • And so what we did was systematically,

  • with the help of Congress, construct the most forceful,

  • most effective sanctions regime in modern history.

  • And what was remarkable was that when I came into

  • office, the world was divided around this issue,

  • and Iran was united.

  • And through some very strong diplomatic work,

  • we united the world and isolated Iran.

  • And it's because of that work that we brought them

  • to the negotiating table -- not for posturing,

  • not for meetings that lead nowhere,

  • but to a very hard-nosed, nuts-and-bolt discussion

  • of their nuclear program.

  • Now, the interim deal that we entered into also froze

  • progress on their nuclear program, rolled back

  • in some cases the stockpiles of material that they had

  • already accumulated, and provided us insight into

  • their program that was unprecedented.

  • We have people on the ground who are able to verify

  • and inspect and tell us what exactly is going on.

  • That's not just our assessment, that's the assessment of

  • intelligence services around the world, including the Israelis.

  • So the agreement has held, and the negotiations

  • have been serious.

  • We have not lost ground.

  • Iran has not accelerated its program during

  • the time these negotiations have taken place.

  • In fact, Iran's program has not only been in abeyance,

  • but we've actually made gains in rolling back

  • some of the stockpiles that they had.

  • Now, we have on the table currently a series of

  • negotiations over the next several months

  • to determine whether or not Iran can get to yes.

  • And what's been remarkable is the unity

  • that we have maintained with the world in isolating

  • Iran and forcing them to negotiate in a serious way.

  • The P5-plus-1 includes not only China, but also includes Russia.

  • And they have continued to cooperate with us in setting

  • forth positions that would give us assurances

  • that Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon.

  • Now, I've always said that the chances that we can actually

  • get a diplomatic deal are probably less than 50/50.

  • Iran is a regime that is deeply suspicious

  • of the West, deeply suspicious of us.

  • In the past, they have surreptitiously

  • and secretly advanced aspects of this program.

  • We have huge differences with them

  • on a whole range of issues.

  • But if, in fact, we still have an opportunity

  • to get a diplomatic deal that provides

  • us verifiable assurances that they are not developing

  • a nuclear weapon, that is the best possible outcome

  • that we can arrive at right now.

  • And the question I had for members of Congress,

  • including those folks in my own party is:

  • Why is it that we would have to take actions that

  • might jeopardize the possibility of getting

  • a deal over the next 60 to 90 days?

  • What is it precisely that is going to be accomplished?

  • I can tell you what the risks are,

  • and I think David shares my assessment here.

  • Under the interim deal that brought Iran to the table,

  • we were not supposed to initiate new sanctions.

  • Now, you'll hear arguments -- well,

  • these technically aren't new sanctions,

  • they're simply laws putting in place the possibility

  • of additional sanctions.

  • I assure that is not how Iran would interpret

  • it or our partners would interpret it.

  • So the likelihood of the entire negotiations

  • collapsing is very high.

  • And if that happens, there is no constraint

  • on Iran at that point going back and doing exactly

  • what it had been doing before they came to the table:

  • Developing a heavy water reactor that, once built,

  • is extraordinarily difficult to dismantle

  • and very difficult to hit military; going back

  • at underground facilities that are very hard to reach

  • militarily; accelerating advanced centrifuges that

  • shorten the time span in which they can achieve

  • breakout capacity.

  • And they would be able to maintain that the reason that

  • they ended negotiations was because the United States

  • was operating in bad faith and blew up the deal,

  • and there would be some sympathy to that view around

  • the world -- which means that the sanctions that

  • we have in place now would potentially fray,

  • because imposing these sanctions are

  • a hardship on a number of countries around the world.

  • They would love to be able to buy Iranian oil.

  • And the reason that they've hung in there,

  • despite it being against their economic interest,

  • is because we have shown that we are credibly

  • trying to solve this problem and avert some sort

  • of military showdown.

  • Now, in that context, there is no good argument for

  • us to try to undercut, undermine the negotiations

  • until they've played themselves out.

  • Now, if Iran ends up ultimately not being able to say yes,

  • if they cannot provide us the kind of assurances that

  • would lead myself and David Cameron and others

  • to conclude that they are not obtaining a nuclear weapon,

  • then we're going to have to explore other options.

  • And I will be the first one to come to Congress

  • and say we need to tighten the screws.

  • And, by the way, that's not the only options that are

  • going to be available.

  • I've consistently said we leave all options

  • on the table.

  • But Congress should be aware that if this diplomatic solution

  • fails, then the risks and likelihood that this ends up

  • being at some point a military confrontation is heightened,

  • and Congress will have to own that as well,

  • and that will have to be debated by the American people.

  • And we may not be able to rebuild the kind of coalition

  • we need in that context if the world believes

  • that we were not serious about negotiations.

  • So I take this very seriously.

  • And I don't question the good faith of some

  • folks who think this might be helpful.

  • But it's my team that's at the table.

  • We are steeped in this stuff day in, day out.

  • We don't make these judgments blindly.

  • We have been working on this for five, six, seven years.

  • We consult closely with allies like the United Kingdom in

  • making these assessments.

  • And I am asking Congress to hold off, because our negotiators,

  • our partners, those who are most intimately involved

  • in this, assess that it will jeopardize the possibility

  • of resolving -- providing a diplomatic solution

  • to one of the most difficult and long-lasting

  • national security problems that we've faced

  • in a very long time.

  • And Congress needs to show patience.

  • So with respect to the veto, I said to my Democratic caucus

  • colleagues yesterday that I will veto a bill that

  • comes to my desk, and I will make this argument

  • to the American people as to why I'm doing so.

  • And I respectfully request them to hold off for

  • a few months to see if we have the possibility of solving

  • a big problem without resorting potentially to war.

  • And I think that's worth doing.

  • We'll see how persuasive I am, but if I'm not persuading

  • Congress, I promise you I'm going to be taking

  • my case to the American people on this.

  • Prime Minister Cameron: I think the big picture is very clear.

  • The sanctions that America and the European Union

  • put in place have had an effect.

  • That has led to pressure.

  • That pressure has led to talks.

  • And those talks at least have a prospect of success.

  • And I would argue with the President,

  • how much better is that than the other potential outcomes?

  • And that is what we should be focusing on.

  • But to answer you very directly, yes, I have

  • contacted a couple of senators this morning and I may

  • speak to one or two more this afternoon -- not in any way as

  • British Prime Minister to tell the American Senate what it

  • should or shouldn't do; that wouldn't be right -- but simply

  • to make the point as a country that stands alongside

  • America in these vital negotiations,

  • that it's the opinion of the United Kingdom that further

  • sanctions or further threat of sanctions

  • at this point won't actually help to bring the talks

  • to a successful conclusion and they could fracture

  • the international unity that there's been, which has

  • been so valuable in presenting a united front to Iran.

  • And I say this as someone who played quite, I think,

  • a strong role in getting Europe to sign up to the very tough

  • sanctions, including oil sanctions, in the first place.

  • And I would just simply make this point:

  • Those sanctions have had an effect.

  • And to those who said, if you do an interim deal,

  • if you even start discussing with the Iranians any

  • of these things, the sanctions will fall apart,

  • the pressure will dissipate, no one will be able

  • to stick at it.

  • That has demonstrably been shown not to be true.

  • So the pressure is still there.

  • And as the President says, if the Iranians say

  • no and there is no deal, then by all means let's sit down

  • and work out what extra sanctions to put in place.

  • Because I think we're absolutely united in a simple thought,

  • which is a deal that takes Iran away from a nuclear weapon

  • is better than either Iran having a nuclear weapon

  • or military action to prevent it.

  • In the end, it comes down to that simple choice.

  • And so will I do what I can to help as one

  • of the country's negotiating?

  • Sure I will.

  • The Press: Do you acknowledge a less than 50/50 --

  • Prime Minister Cameron: I think the way

  • the President put it, I wouldn't disagree with.

  • It's very hard to know what the Iranian thinking

  • is about this.

  • I'm the first British Prime Minister in 35 years

  • I think to meet with an Iranian President,

  • and it's very hard to know what their thinking is.

  • But there is a very clear offer there,

  • which is to take Iran away from a nuclear weapon

  • and to conclude an agreement with them which would

  • be mutually beneficial.

  • That's what should happen.

  • I think we've got a question from Nick Robinson

  • at the BBC.

  • The Press: Mr. Nick Robinson, BBC News.

  • Prime Minister, with extra security being put in place

  • today for the Jewish community and also for police officers,

  • would people be right to conclude that the threat

  • of an attack on the streets of Britain is now

  • all but imminent?

  • And, Mr. President, you've spoken of the threat

  • posed by fighters coming back from Syria.

  • Do you ever worry that this is a legacy of the decision

  • of the United States and the United Kingdom to in effect

  • stand on the sidelines during Syria's bloody civil war?

  • And if I may briefly, if you'll forgive me,

  • on the economy, you said you agree.

  • Is he right?

  • Is it time to stick to the plan?

  • Prime Minister Cameron: Well, first of all, look,

  • we do face a very serious Islamist extremist terrorist

  • threat in Europe, in America, across the world.

  • And we have to be incredibly vigilant in terms

  • of that threat.

  • We've got to strengthen our police and security.

  • We ought to make sure we do everything we can

  • to keep our country safe.

  • And that involves an incredibly long-term,

  • patient, disciplined approach.

  • There is no single, simple thing that needs to be done.

  • It means closing down the ungoverned spaces that

  • the terrorists operate in.

  • It means working against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.

  • It means countering this poisonous,

  • fanatical death cult of a narrative that

  • is perverting the religion of Islam.

  • It means working together with our oldest and best partners

  • so that we share intelligence and security and we try

  • and prevent terrorist atrocities from taking place.

  • It means all of these things, and it is going to be a long,

  • patient and hard struggle.

  • I'm quite convinced we will come through it and we will

  • overcome it, because in the end, the values that

  • we hold to of freedom, of democracy, of having open

  • and tolerant societies -- these are the strongest

  • values there can be.

  • And in the end, we will come through.

  • But like some of the challenges our countries have faced

  • together in the past, it will take great discipline,

  • great patience, great, hard work.

  • You asked specifically the question about imminence.

  • We have a system in the United Kingdom where threat levels

  • are set by the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre.

  • They're not set by politicians.

  • They have judged that the threat we face is severe.

  • That means, in their words, that an attack

  • is highly likely.

  • If ever there is an imminent threat of attack,

  • it goes to the next level up, which is critical.

  • But it's their decision, not mine.

  • My responsibility is to make sure we marshal everything

  • we have as a country in order to defeat the threat.

  • The Press: On the Jewish community?

  • Prime Minister Cameron: And on the Jewish community,

  • I think it's good that the metropolitan police have

  • announced that they'll be stepping up on patrols.

  • I met with the Jewish Leadership Council

  • earlier this week.

  • We already provide through their security organization,

  • the Community Security Trust, we already provide

  • government money to help protect Jewish schools.

  • But I think this is -- we have to recognize in fighting

  • terrorism, as we found in Britain before,

  • you cannot simply rely on policing and security.

  • This is a job for everyone.

  • This is a role that we're all going to have to play

  • in the vigilance and in making sure that we keep

  • our community safe.

  • President Obama: With respect to Syria and the connection to

  • foreign fighters, there is no doubt that in the chaos

  • and the vacuum that's been created in big chunks of Syria,

  • that that's given an opportunity for foreign fighters

  • to both come in and come back out.

  • And I chaired a U.N. Security Council meeting,

  • and we are now busy working with our partners

  • to implement a series of actions to identify who may

  • be traveling to Syria in order to get trained, to fight,

  • or to hatch plots that would be activated upon return

  • to their home countries.

  • So it's a very serious problem.

  • The notion that this is occurring because

  • the United States or Great Britain or other countries

  • stood on the sidelines I think is --

  • first of all, mischaracterizes our position.

  • We haven't been standing on the sidelines;

  • it's true we did not invade Syria.

  • If the assertion is, is that had we invaded Syria we would

  • be less prone to terrorist attacks, I'll leave it to you

  • to play out that scenario and whether that sounds accurate.

  • We've been very active in trying to resolve

  • a tragic situation in Syria -- diplomatically;

  • through humanitarian efforts; through

  • the removal of chemical weapons from Syria

  • that had been so deadly.

  • And now as ISIL has moved forward,

  • we've been very active in degrading their capabilities

  • inside of Syria, even as we're working with

  • partners to make sure that the foreign fighter

  • situation is resolved.

  • But I think David's point is the key one.

  • This phenomenon of violent extremism -- the ideology,

  • the networks, the capacity to recruit young people --

  • this has metastasized and it is widespread,

  • and it has penetrated communities around the world.

  • I do not consider it an existential threat.

  • As David said, this is one that we will solve.

  • We are stronger, we are representing values that the

  • vast majority of Muslims believe in -- in tolerance

  • and in working together to build rather than to destroy.

  • And so this is a problem that causes great heartache and

  • tragedy and destruction, but it is one that ultimately

  • we're going to defeat.

  • But we can't just defeat it through weapons.

  • One of the things that we spoke about is how

  • do we lift up those voices that represent

  • the vast majority of the Muslim world so that

  • that counter-narrative against this nihilism

  • is put out there as aggressively and as nimbly

  • as the messages coming out from these fanatics.

  • How do we make sure that we are working with

  • local communities and faith leaders and families --

  • whether in a neighborhood in London or a neighborhood

  • in Detroit, Michigan -- so that we are inoculating

  • ourselves against this kind of ideology.

  • And that's going to be slow, plodding, systematic work,

  • but it's work that I'm confident we're going

  • to be able to accomplish, particularly when we've

  • got strong partners like the United Kingdom doing it.

  • The Press: On the economy --

  • President Obama: On the economy, I would

  • note that Great Britain and the United States

  • are two economies that are standing out at a time

  • when a lot of other countries are having problems,

  • so we must be doing something right.

  • Major Garrett.

  • The President: Thank you, Mr. President.

  • Good afternoon, Mr. Prime Minister.

  • Good afternoon to you, sir.

  • Questions for all -- for both of you.

  • I want to make sure we heard what you were trying to say.

  • You clearly are directing a message to Congress

  • in the context of Iranian negotiations.

  • Were you also sending a message -- both of you --

  • to Iran that if the sanctions talks fail,

  • that war footing is the next most likely alternative

  • for this country and those who are allied with us

  • in this common pursuit?

  • And atrocities in Paris, raids and threats either

  • in Belgium and Netherlands, I'd like to ask you both:

  • Do you believe Europe is at a turning point now

  • in its recognition of what its threats

  • are and its own mobilization in terms

  • of new laws, security footing, larger budgets?

  • And you both talked about cybersecurity.

  • There is a crucial issue for both countries -- backdoors

  • in encryption to protect people and also privacy.

  • I'd like your comments on that.

  • Thank you.

  • President Obama: I am not -- repeat, not --

  • suggesting that we are in immediate war

  • footing should negotiations with Iran fail.

  • But as David put it very simply -- if, in fact,

  • our view is that we have to prevent Iran from getting

  • a nuclear weapon, then we have to recognize

  • the possibility that should diplomacy fail,

  • we have to look at other options to achieve

  • that goal.

  • And if you listen sometimes to the rhetoric surrounding

  • this issue, I think there is sometimes the view that

  • this regime cannot be trusted; that, effectively,

  • negotiations with Iran are pointless.

  • And since these claims are being made by individuals

  • who see Iran as a mortal threat and want as badly

  • as we do to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon,

  • the question then becomes: Well, what other alternatives

  • exactly are available?

  • That is part of what we have to consider as to why

  • it's so important for us to pursue every

  • possible avenue to see if we can get a deal.

  • Now, it's got to be good deal, not a bad deal.

  • I've already shown myself willing to walk away

  • from a bad deal.

  • And the P5-plus-1 walked away with us.

  • And so nobody is interested in some document that

  • undermines our sanctions and gives Iran the possibility

  • of, whether covertly or gradually, building

  • up its nuclear weapons capacity.

  • We're not going to allow that.

  • And anything that we do, any deal that we arrive at --

  • if we were to arrive at one -- would be subject to scrutiny

  • across the board, not just by members of Congress,

  • but more importantly, by people who actually know how

  • the technical aspects of nuclear programs can advance

  • and how we can effectively verify in the most rigorous

  • way possible that the terms of the deal are being met.

  • So the bottom line is this: W may not get there,

  • but we have a chance to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully.

  • And I should point out also, by the way,

  • that if -- even if we get a nuclear deal and we are

  • assured that Iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons,

  • we've still got a whole bunch of problems with

  • Iran on state-sponsored terrorism, their rhetoric

  • towards Israel, their financing of Hezbollah.

  • We've got differences with respect to Syria.

  • It's not as if suddenly we've got a great

  • relationship with Iran.

  • It solves one particular problem that is urgent,

  • and it solves it better than the other

  • alternatives that might present themselves.

  • So my main message to Congress at this point

  • is, just hold your fire.

  • Nobody around the world, least of all the Iranians,

  • doubt my ability to get some additional sanctions

  • passed should these negotiations fail.

  • That's not a hard vote for me to get through Congress.

  • And so the notion that we need to have additional sanctions,

  • or even the possibility of sanctions hanging

  • over their head to force them to a better deal,

  • I think the Iranians know that that is certainly

  • in our back pocket if the negotiations fail.

  • With respect to violent extremism,

  • my impression is that Europe has consistently

  • taken this seriously.

  • During the course of my presidency,

  • we have worked collaboratively and with great urgency

  • and a recognition that not only do you have foreigners

  • who may be trying to hatch plots in Europe, but

  • that, given large immigrant populations,

  • it's important to reach out to and work with local communities

  • and to have a very effective intelligence

  • and counterterrorism cooperation between countries

  • and between the United States and Europe.

  • There's no doubt that the most recent events

  • has amplified those concerns.

  • I think one of the things that I've learned over the last

  • six years is that there's always more that we can do.

  • We can always do it better.

  • We learn from mistakes.

  • Each incident that occurs teaches our professionals

  • how we might be able to prevent these the next time.

  • And I'm confident that the very strong cooperation

  • that already exists with Europe will get that much

  • better in the months and years to come.

  • The Press: Do you believe that Europe has been

  • as sensitized as the United States and Great Britain has?

  • President Obama: Here's where I actually think that Europe

  • has some particular challenges, and I said this to David.

  • The United States has one big advantage in this whole process,

  • and it's not that our law enforcement or our

  • intelligence services, et cetera, are so much better --

  • although ours are very, very good, and I think

  • Europeans would recognize that we've got capabilities

  • others don't have.

  • Our biggest advantage, Major, is that our Muslim populations,

  • they feel themselves to be Americans.

  • And there is this incredible process of immigration

  • and assimilation that is part of our tradition

  • that is probably our greatest strength.

  • Now, it doesn't mean that we aren't subject to the kinds

  • of tragedies that we saw at the Boston Marathon.

  • But that, I think, has been helpful.

  • There are parts of Europe in which that's not the case,

  • and that's probably the greatest danger that Europe faces --

  • which is why, as they respond, as they work with

  • us to respond to these circumstances,

  • it's important for Europe not to simply respond

  • with a hammer and law enforcement and military

  • approaches to these problems, but there also has to be a

  • recognition that the stronger the ties of a North African --

  • or a Frenchman of North African descent to French values,

  • French Republic, a sense of opportunity -- that's

  • going to be as important, if not more important,

  • in over time solving this problem.

  • And I think there's a recognition of that across

  • Europe, and it's important that we don't lose that.

  • The last point I'll make, and then I'll turn

  • it over to David, is with respect to the issue

  • of intelligence-gathering, signal intelligence,

  • encryptions, this is a challenge that we have

  • been working on since I've been President.

  • Obviously, it was amplified when Mr. Snowden

  • did what he did.

  • It's gone off the pages of -- the front pages

  • of the news, but we haven't stopped working on it.

  • And we've been in dialogue with companies and have

  • systematically worked through ways in which we can

  • meet legitimate privacy concerns, but also meet

  • the very real concerns that David has identified

  • and my FBI Director, Jim Comey, identified.

  • Social media and the Internet

  • is the primary way in which these terrorism

  • organizations are communicating.

  • Now, that's no different than anybody else,

  • but they're good at it.

  • And when we have the ability to track that in a way that

  • is legal, conforms with due process, rule of law,

  • and presents oversight, then that's the capability

  • that we have to preserve.

  • And the biggest damage that was done as a consequence

  • of the Snowden disclosures was I think,

  • in some cases, a complete undermining of trust.

  • Some would say that was justified.

  • I would argue that although there are some legitimate

  • concerns there, overall, the United States government

  • and, from what I've seen, the British government,

  • have operated in a scrupulous and lawful way to try

  • to balance these security and privacy concerns.

  • And we can do better, and that's what we're doing.

  • But we're still going to have to find ways to make sure

  • that if an al Qaeda affiliate is operating

  • in Great Britain or in the United States,

  • that we can try to prevent real tragedy.

  • And I think the companies want to see that as well.

  • They're patriots.

  • They have families that they want to see protected.

  • We just have to work through in many cases what

  • are technical issues.

  • So it's not so much that there's a difference in intent,

  • but how to square the circle on these issues is difficult.

  • And we're working with partners like Great Britain

  • and the United Kingdom, but we're also going

  • to be in dialogue with the companies to try

  • to make that work.

  • Prime Minister Cameron: On the Iranian issue,

  • I won't add much to what the President said.

  • I'd just make this point, that I don't think you

  • can characterize it as, if there's a deal then

  • the pressure is off Iran, and if there isn't

  • a deal, new pressure has to be applied to Iran.

  • I mean, even if there is a deal, the key to that deal

  • will be transparency and verification and making sure

  • that this country isn't developing a nuclear weapon.

  • And that will mean repeated pressure,

  • even after a deal is done.

  • I think that's very important.

  • And I would absolutely back up what Barack says

  • about recognizing that in so many other ways,

  • we have some major disagreements with

  • what the Iranians have been doing.

  • I mean, Britain has suffered particularly

  • from the appalling way that our embassy

  • and our staff were treated in that country.

  • So we approach this with a huge amount of skepticism

  • and concern.

  • But the goal of an Iran without a nuclear weapon

  • makes these talks worthwhile.

  • On the issue -- your question, has -- is this

  • a turning point for Europe in terms of terrorism,

  • I would argue that we turned some time ago.

  • Maybe Britain in particular because of the appalling

  • attacks that took place in 2005, but there have been

  • attacks elsewhere in Europe.

  • I mean, since I've been Prime Minister,

  • there's probably been at least one major plot

  • every year of quite a significant nature that

  • we have managed to intercept, stop and prevent.

  • So the awareness of the scale of the challenge

  • we face is absolutely there across government,

  • across parliament, across the different political parties

  • in the police and intelligence services.

  • I think there is an opportunity for countries in Europe,

  • who perhaps up to now have been less affected,

  • to work with them and make sure that we share

  • knowledge and skills.

  • Because when you say, have you -- the turning point

  • is making sure your legislation is up to date,

  • making sure your police and security services have the

  • capabilities they need, making sure you've got programs that

  • can channel extremists away and de-radicalize them,

  • making sure that you're better integrating your communities.

  • It means doing all of those things.

  • I very much agree with what Barack says about

  • the importance of building strong and integrated societies.

  • I made a speech about this at Munich a couple of years ago,

  • saying that it had been a mistake in the past when some

  • countries had treated different groups and different religious

  • groups as sort of separate blocks rather than

  • trying to build a strong, common home together.

  • That is what we should be doing, and that is what our

  • policy is directed to.

  • And, of course, you need to have -- as I believe

  • we are -- a multiracial, multiethnic society of huge

  • opportunity where in one generation or two generations

  • you can come to our country and you can

  • be in the Cabinet; you can serve at the highest level

  • in the armed forces; you can sit on the bench as a judge.

  • I've got in my Cabinet someone just like that,

  • who in two generations his family has gone from arriving

  • in Britain to sitting -- that's vitally important,

  • as is combatting unemployment, combatting poverty.

  • But here's I think the really determining point: You can have,

  • tragically, people who have had all the advantages

  • of integration, who have had all the economic opportunities

  • that our countries can offer, who still get seduced

  • by this poisonous, radical death cult of a narrative.

  • We've seen in recent weeks people who have gone to fight

  • in Syria and who may threaten us here back

  • at home who have had every opportunity

  • and every advantage in life in terms of integration.

  • So let's never lose sight of the real enemy here,

  • which is the poisonous narrative that's

  • perverting Islam.

  • That is what we have to focus on,

  • recognizing that of course we help ourselves in this

  • struggle if we create societies of genuine opportunity,

  • if we create genuine integration between our communities.

  • But let's never lose sight of the real --

  • the heart of the matter.

  • As for the issue on the techniques necessary for

  • our intelligence services to help keep us safe,

  • all I would say -- and the President and I had a good

  • discussion about this earlier -- I don't think either

  • of us are trying to annunciate some new doctrine.

  • The doctrine that I approach this -- what?

  • The Press: (inaudible)

  • Prime Mi Cameron: Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you,

  • but I take a very simple approach to this,

  • which is ever since we've been sending letters to each

  • other or making telephone calls to each other,

  • or mobile phone calls to each other,

  • or indeed contacting each other on the Internet,

  • it has been possible in both our countries,

  • in extremis -- in my country by a signed warrant

  • by the Home Secretary -- to potentially listen to a call

  • between two terrorists to stop them in their activity.

  • In your country, a judicial process.

  • We've had our own -- we're not asking for backdoors.

  • We believe in very clear front doors through legal processes

  • that should help to keep our countries safe.

  • And my only argument is that as technology develops,

  • as the world moves on, we should try to avoid

  • the safe havens that can otherwise be created

  • for terrorists to talk to each other.

  • That's the goal that I think is so important,

  • because I'm in no doubt, as having been Prime Minister for

  • four and a half years, having seen how our intelligence

  • services work, I know that some of these plots that

  • get prevented, the lives that get saved,

  • there is a very real connection between that

  • and the capabilities that our intelligence services

  • within the law use to defend our people.

  • I think the final question is from Robert Moore from ITN.

  • The Press: Thank you.

  • Yes, Robert Moore with the British network, ITV News.

  • Prime Minister, it's clear there is a sort

  • of security alert underway at the moment around

  • the Jewish community in Britain.

  • Can I just be clear, is that based

  • on specific intelligence?

  • Should people be concerned about doing

  • their daily activities this weekend?

  • And do you regard a terrorist attack on British soil

  • as almost inevitable?

  • And, Mr. President, you say there is a dialogue underway

  • with the big American tech companies,

  • but do you share the Prime Minister's view that

  • the current threat environment is so severe that there

  • does need to be a swing of the pendulum a little bit,

  • maybe from privacy towards counterterrorism,

  • and that this area of private encrypted communications is a

  • very dangerous one, potentially in terms

  • of facilitating dialogue between terrorist groups?

  • Prime Minister Cameron: On the issue of the threat that

  • we face, as I said, the level has been set at severe.

  • That is set by an independent expert organization,

  • so people can have full confidence that these things

  • aren't ever done for any other motives than literally

  • to look at the evidence that is there about

  • terrorist threats and to set the level accordingly.

  • When the level, as it is as the moment, is set at severe,

  • that means that the authorities believe an attack

  • is highly likely.

  • If we believed it was imminent, then you would

  • move to the next level, which is critical.

  • And we clearly do face a very real threat in our country.

  • I mean, in recent months, as I was discussing with

  • the President, we've had a number of potential attacks

  • averted, for instance, on British police officers.

  • So that is the threat picture.

  • It's regularly reviewed, regularly updated,

  • but it shouldn't be moved unless there

  • is real evidence to do so.

  • In terms of the protection to the Jewish community

  • and indeed other communities, and indeed to police officers

  • themselves, this is based on what has happened

  • in France, on the whole picture that we see.

  • And it is sensible, precautionary measures to make

  • sure we do what we can to reassure those communities --

  • communities who are all too aware of the threat

  • that they face.

  • And this is a bigger challenge for us.

  • I think one of the most moving sights in Paris was to see

  • so many people holding up signs saying "Je suis flic,"

  • I'm a cop; "Je suis juif," I'm a Jew.

  • And I thought that was incredibly moving,

  • that people wanted to stand together with one community

  • that had been singled out, and singled out not because

  • of anything other than the fact they were Jewish.

  • So I think it's very important that we speak

  • up and stand up for those communities and give

  • them the protection that they deserve.

  • President Obama: Obviously, in the wake

  • of Paris, our attention is heightened.

  • But I have to tell you, over the last six years

  • threat streams are fairly constant.

  • David deals with them every day, I deal with

  • them every day.

  • Our CT, our counterterrorism professionals

  • deal with them every day.

  • So I don't think there's a situation in which

  • because things are so much more dangerous,

  • the pendulum needs to swing.

  • I think what we have to find is a consistent framework whereby

  • our publics have confidence that their government

  • can both protect them, but not abuse our capacity

  • to operate in cyberspace.

  • And because this is a whole new world, as David said,

  • the laws that might have been designed for

  • the traditional wiretap have to be updated.

  • How we do that needs to be debated,

  • both here in the United States and in the U.K.

  • I think we're getting better at it.

  • I think we're striking the balance better.

  • I think the companies here in the United States at least

  • recognize that they have a responsibility to the public,

  • but also want to make sure that they're meeting

  • their responsibilities to their customers that

  • are using their products.

  • And so the dialogue that we're engaged in is designed

  • to make sure that all of us feel confident that

  • if there is an actual threat out there,

  • our law enforcement and our intelligence officers

  • can identify that threat and track that threat

  • at the same time that our governments are not going

  • around phishing into whatever text you might be sending

  • on your smartphone.

  • And I think that's something that can be achieved.

  • There are going to be situations where there

  • are hard cases.

  • But for the most part, those who are worried

  • about Big Brother sometimes obscure or deliberately

  • ignore all the legal safeguards that have been

  • put in place to assure people's privacy

  • and to make sure that government is not

  • abusing these powers.

  • And on the other hand, there are times where

  • law enforcement and those of us whose job

  • it is to protect the public aren't thinking about

  • those problems because we're trying to track

  • and prevent a particular terrorist event from happening.

  • And it's useful to have civil libertarians and others

  • tapping us on the shoulder in the midst of this process

  • and reminding us that there are values at stake as well.

  • And I think that David and I welcome that kind of debate.

  • The technologies are evolving in ways that potentially

  • make this trickier.

  • If we get into a situation in which the technologies

  • do not allow us at all to track somebody that we're

  • confident is a terrorist; if we find evidence

  • of a terrorist plot somewhere in the Middle East

  • that traces directly back to London or New York,

  • we have specific information and we are confident

  • that this individual or this network is about to activate

  • a plot, and despite knowing that information,

  • despite having a phone number, or despite having

  • a social media address or email address --

  • that we can't penetrate that, that's a problem.

  • And so that's the kind of dialogue that we're having

  • to have with these companies.

  • Part of it is a legal issue,

  • part of it is a technical question.

  • But overall, I'm actually confident that we can balance

  • these imperatives, and we shouldn't feel as if because

  • we've just seen such a horrific attack in Paris,

  • that suddenly everything should be going by the wayside.

  • Unfortunately, this has been a constant backdrop and I think

  • will continue to be for any Prime Minister or President

  • for some time to come, and we've got to make sure that

  • we don't overreact but that we remain vigilant

  • and are serious about our responsibilities there.

  • Thank you very much, everybody.

  • Appreciate it.

  • Thank you.

President Obama: Please have a seat.

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

オバマ大統領、英国首相と会談 (President Obama Meets with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)

  • 332 18
    marmot に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語