President Obama Says Donald Trump is Unfit to be President Questions... CSPAN August 3, 2016 12:31am-1:34am EDT
conflict, but others will not. there will be individuals who will be held to account for this crime of crimes. how to get there, one could have an icc referral by the security council. it is not something back that at this point wants to support. it comes with the necessity of daesh out of the area, but it is important to lay the foundation for it. is notto think the icc the perfect solution here. the icc generally only prosecutes three or four people maximum and each of these situations. it does not have a large investigative capacity. under law, it could not use u.n. resources for that and it is very busy with the cases it has.
i personally support what the canadians have suggested, which is that there will be a u.n. investigative commission, which is different than an inquiry. investigators and others would build the dossiers very solidly and would wait until a later resolution to establish a tribunal. every time this has happened in the past, that has been the first step. or, they could send this to the icc, but then the icc would have the evidence packed up so nicely. that is why i want to support that because baghdad is concerned, even though the canadian thing would talk about the crimes explicitly of daesh, and not alleged crimes committed by other forces. there are some, but they are not anywhere near the daesh crimes. so, that is one step. the other step is moving forward with accountability in iraq. there is a lot of interest in the kurdish region to do this.
they need to do this and cooperation with iraq, so as not to get caught up in an independence issue of kurdistan and get into that political pickle. but the iraqi judges i have spoken to and the kurdish judges want to see a mechanism established that would try people not just for their terrorism crime, but for their crimes committed against the population. i mean, this particular religious minority has faced some be to efforts to web it off the face of the earth in the past, but this is the most serious. onare coming up the anniversary of one thousands of men and boys were slaughtered. and younger women were taken into sexual slavery.
and thousands are in the same situation today. if they are children, they will alcide children. one of the ways in which genocide is committed, even if you don't kill the particular victim. so, genocides have been committed against this group, and horrendous crimes against other religious minorities, which constitute crimes against humanity. there needs to be accountability for those crimes and there will be perpetrators held accountable and it is important to try some of those individuals. closer to the scene of the crime would be better in court. it is probably representative of the communities and their region. but certainly, any kind of justice is needed. before that, there is the reason
why we can't get started. -- the current issue that is receiving a lot of attention in syria is surrounding aleppo. this was highlighted and exacerbated by the shooting down of the russian helicopter. >> a long ways away from aleppo. >> right. it was hit with some sort of chemical agent in the last 24 hours. again, details are unclear. so, my question is, and you have past,lluded to this in the given t how aleppo is surrounded -- it is the largest city with about 300,000 or so trapped there.
this is not the first time the assad regime has used these methods. fallhere do these tactics in the sort of spectrum of crimes. we are are we talking about a war crime here? third gantry,e, a like for example russia or iran, is involved in that procedure, are they involved in that crime? are they an accomplice to that crime? how are these things handled? >> i don't want to get too technical, but i will try to make it as quick as they can. without question, attacking medical facilities is a war crime, whether during a civil war or international conflict. intentionally attacking civilian objects or civilian populations, even when you have given morning, that is a crime.
-- even when you have given warning, that is a crime. russia was a leader in establishing the laws of foreign conflict. these are well-established rules. the question is, who is responsible? obviously, the direct perpetrators are. but as we had in the charles taylor case, he was the leader of liberia. and he has not set foot in liberia. if oyou aid a group that is committing crimes and that aid is substantial, and if you know they are committing crimes with it, then even though you do not intend the murder of innocent civilians, or the specific crime, you are responsible under international law. theit is that area where
russians, to the extent where you have built the evidence showing their involvement with the syrians. but certainly, to the extent that they become actively involved in an operation to the people that have not left aleppo to create then theyof idea, could become involved as co-perpetrators of that crime. so, my message to them is, don't go there. today you may be effectively save. tomorrow you are not. and you won't be. i myself, as long as i live, try to find a place to hold these guys responsible and build a file on them.
there will be people held responsible for these crimes. the day will happen. we have sent chiefs of state to present. to 50t charles taylor years of the maxim security prison in england he does not like it at all. cedents have been established. there are ways to do this. these are crimes under the laws of war. i should also note that when you attack a civilian population as part of a widespread, or campaign against a civilian population, which can be on a political basis, that is also a crime against humanity. so, it is not just a war crime. it can be a crime against timidity if we apply these new rules in aleppo. >> ok, let's see.
we will take one more question. josh logan. wait for the microphone, josh. >> i don't need a microphone. >> i know you don't need one, josh. [applause] -- [laughter] >> thank you, i wanted to follow up on what ambassador rapp just said. the united states and russia are considering joining forces inside syria. a proposal was given by john russia, hoping to establish integrated operations in places like aleppo. if the russians can be implicated for aiding and abetting, thing coperpetrators, for participating in operations the u.s.hese, does government, by extension if they
follow this proposal by john kerry, put themselves up to be crimesed of f being a covert traitor? a co-perpetrator? >> we would not have anything like the growsney rules in aleppo. we would have a more focused effort to go after terrorists groups. if you can get all of those conditions -- in other words, substantially improve russian targeting -- that could be positive. at frankly, we have not seen willingness to go along with
this in the past. the agreements have not been worth the paper they have been written on. and the fac that they would be gratuitously last week announcing the open of these roads, which would have everybody believe -- why would you need that in less you are planning this intensive bombardment, something that i understand, the united states was unaware was coming at all. it does not indicate to me good faith on their part. i think one has to be extremely cautious about getting involved. we joint operations, knowing at the same time, they might be and one mightings be relieving their forces to go to those other things. responsibility, aiding and --tting, again, the law i and needs to be substantial.
we have been attempting and in some cases, successfully assisting proxy forces. are we responsible for all of their work crimes? not necessarily. to do a lot of other things aggravate people. you might provide some assistance here and there and they might do something back. that might not reach the ground of substantiality. so, the dangers of us walking into the accused of a war crime may be limited, but i think it is highly dangerous. it is also dangerous in terms of the political equation. but as we saw in iraq, the only time we began to make progress in iraq was when we allied with the sunni community and became the protectors of the people in western iraq. if we are perceived as those
that are targeting the liberators and protectors of that community -- because these russians say these are extremists and we don't -- the, i think we run risk of undermining our relationship with syria. i would be very cautious with this, particularly with what russia was saying last weekend. that is something i would not be enthusiastic about seeing the united states pursuing. >> ok, we are out of time, unfortunately. thank all ofike to the panelists here today for the excellent presentations. let's give them a round of applause. this is not going to be the end of the road. it is just the beginning. the washington institute will be holding a series around this theme of international justice
in terms of war crimes and so on. we are following the most recent , aslopments in the region well as the presidential cycle august -- sorry, on september 9. lastll be quiet for the part of august, generally as part of the vacation schedule. we will have a policy forum on the anniversary of inherent resolve at the beginning of that. we will be covering a little bit about the chemical weapons issue and where we are with that. and in terms of the last but not least, in a bid of self-promotion, but definitely mytinent to this setting, co-invested or dennis ross and myself have written out a piece that will be in "the new york times" tomorrow. there will be a lot about what
we talked about here. all of you have been here today and i know you hold this issue closely. keep your ears open and let us know what is going on. and hopefully, we will see you next time. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> president obama said yesterday that donald trump is unfit to serve as president and called on republicans to denounce the gop presidential nominee. that is conference is next on c-span. then, we will bring you highlights from tonight's white house state dinner for singapore's prime minister and his wife. >> there will be three presidential debates. the first will be held at hofstra university in new york on the temper 26.
on sunday, october 9, hillary clinton and donald trump will debate at washington university in st. louis. the third and final debate will be held on october 19 at the university of nevada in las vegas. we will have live coverage here on c-span, on c-span radio, and on www.c-span.org. the u.s. commission on international freedom hosted a discussion on detention policies, removal, and treatment of asylum seekers. you can watch live tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. 2, 48 hoursn c-span of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some feature programs this weekend. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, kimberly strosshaulm argues that the left is utilizing tactics to usurp the political process in her book "the
intimidation game, how the left is silencing free speech." thomas.oined by ginny >> i think there are a couple of reasons it is one-sided. when i started this, i cared about free speech and the first amendment. i am a little bit of a libertarian. i have no allegiance to one party or the other. thise written a lot about for my column in "the wall street journal," but i assumed i would find a lot of stuff on the right, too. i didn't. >> on sunday come alive with author and legal analyst jeffrey toobin. we will take your calls, texts, and e-mail questions. he will be discussing his latest book "american heiress, the weld saga of the kidnapping, crimes and trial of patty hearst." inside the secret world of the supreme court.
too close to call, the 36 they battle to decide the election. conspiracy, the real story that nearly brought on a president." arguments: a young lawyer's first case." join in the conversation with your phone calls and tweets, beginning at noon eastern on c-span2. eastern, we look at the impact a hillary clinton impact would have on america in his book "hillary's america: the secret history of the democratic party." for theoktv.org complete weekend of schedule. >> at a joint news conference, president obama told reporters that republican presidential nominee is donald trump is "unfit to serve as president." president obama and prime minister lee both expressed strong support for the
transpacific partnership trade deal. >> ladies, the president of the united states and >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. i'm honored to welcome prime minister lee and his delegation. nd i always value his insight, counsel and our thoughts today are with former president and we join the people of singapore in praying for his full and speedy
asia with hundreds of american ships rotating through singapore each year. as i told the prime minister, we welcome singapore's interest in purchasing the f-35 aircraft and we will explore the concept of singaporean troops training on guam. and we reaffirmed our shared commitment to building a regional order where all nations play by the same rules and disputes are resolved peacefully, including in the self chinouth china sea. we agree to do more than encourage economic growth. with a little over a decade, trade between our countries has grown more than 50%. we are collaborating to jumpstart greater digital innovation, including research and development into technology and data to prove and promote
smart cities concepts that can improve the daily lives of our citizens. we will do more to connect our vibrant startup communities, so that an engineer in singapore can collaborate easily with an entrepreneur in silicon valley or austin, texas. with respect to trade, an issue that stirs great passion. economiesion means around the world are more innovative than ever and jobs in capital move across borders. automation means that goods and products can be produced with fewer workers and these forces of globalization and technology have not always benefited everybody evenly. there are fears and anxieties that people may be left behind. and these anxieties are legitimate. they cannot be ignored. they have to be taken seriously. as i have said before, that means we have to do everything we can to make your everybody shares and prosperity. we have strong rules to protect workers, to promote high wages,
to make sure our citizens are getting the education and training that they need. but the answer cannot be to back away from trade in the global economy. it is here to stay. it is not possible to cut ours v lves off given how integrated our economies off. trying to pull up a drawbridge on trade would hurt us and our workers. they answered is to makes her that globalization and trade is working for us, not against us. that is why today, we are reaffirming our commitment to the transpacific partnership. i am a strong supporter of tpp because it will reduce tariffs on american goods from cars to crops and make it easier for american goods to export into the fastest-growing markets of the world. it helps ensure countries abide by strong labor and environmental rules. this is an opportunity to grow
our economies and write the rules for trade in the 21st century in a way that is ethical. to give us a chance to reduce economic inequality and support good paying jobs, although strengthening critical strategic relationships in a vital region. so, i think not only is tpp important, but the prime minister and i agreed that we need to extend our partnership beyond just regional efforts. a globalork to do on scale. singapore was the first country in southeast asia to join the global coalition to destroy isil. we are grateful that singapore is making new contributions to this effort by providing g valuable medical support. we recognize the growing threats of cyber attacks and we will continue to work int to strengthen cyber security and to
promote peaceful norms on how nations should operate in cyberspace. singapore, the garden city, helped to achieve the paris climate agreement last year. mr. prime minister, thank you for your commitment this year. we are also working closely with the international community to reduce harmful aviation emissions. our countries will continue to work together to advance global health security as though the world is better prepared to address the threat of pandemics. last point, we agreed to keep promoting people to people ties between our two countries. we are expanding our trusted travelers program to make it easier for americans and singaporeans to do business with each other. i welcome singapore's new announcement of the exchange program, which will include scholarships between our countries. and through our southeast asian
leaders i initiative, we will be empowering young people to become the leaders of tomorrow in business and in civil society. i will note i had a chance to meet one of those young singaporean leaders last year. a remarkable young woman who is helping underprivileged women become financially self-sufficient. she talked about coming together with young people from across southeast asia. she said, "we bonded in our common endeavor to seek, to l earn, and understand from one another." and people like her give me hope. prime minister lee, i am confident that singapore and the united states will continue to advance our shared aspirations for a better world for many years to come. with that, i will turn it over to you, mr. prime minister. prime minister lee: thank you, president obama. i am happy to be here on the official visit for the 50th
visit for the anniversary of our diplomatic relations. i would like to thank president obama for his hospitality. and specifically, also for his good wishes on the condition of our former president. the president and i had a substantial conversation on a wide range of issues. we improved our long-standing partnership. our strong economic ties are underpinned by the u.s.-singapore free trade agreement. singapore is america's largest trading partner in southeast asia. the u.s. is singapore's fourth-largest direct investor. many companies run the regional office in singapore. the relationship deepens year by year. cooperation and
the strategic framework agreement, which we concluded in 2005. last year, we concluded the enhance defense cooperation agreement, which enhances cooperation into new areas, like you minute terry and systems, defenseerrorism -- like systems, tow counterterrorism, and health. areas,expanding into new like cyber security, while agencies are assigning an mou to work together to protect national security and economic interests. we also share an interest in smart cities. citieshave discussed how can use technology to tackle problems from health care to transportation to the delivery of public services. and there are a lot of interests from companies from both sides. underpinning the ties between the two countries of the
friendships and relationships between our people. thousands of american students are studying and working in singapore. thousands of singaporeans are working in america. , 600 people showed up at our embassy here. that is fitting to mark this special occasion of this anniversary. we're launching a scholarship for singaporeans and americans to enable undergraduates to do some exchanges in each other's countries and draw our young eople croser together and to get to know each other. we've implemented a program that will facilitate travel by singaporeans to the u.s. the president and i discussed the t.p.p. and just now you heard the president give an eloquent explanation why it's important to america and to
asia. it's an integral component of america's reba lance to asia apart from the economic benefits, trade, market access, standard setting, it's also vital from a strategic point of view. and it's important for the u.s. to obtain the regional commitment in the area. and we appreciate the president and its team to grow the t.p.p. t-four was chile, the group. they're near the finish line and we hope that the country particularly the u.s. will be able to ratify the t.p.p. as soon as possible. finally the president and i discuss our partnership in tackling global challenges that counter terrorism. it's a problem for all countries. every day in the newspapers you
read of new attacks somewhere, america, europe, middle east, closer to home to indonesia and southeast asia. we are are very concerned because the terrorist are active in many countries in the region, several hundred perhaps a thousand in the middle east like in isis. we have witnessed attacks in indonesia and malaysia that were mounted from isis operatives in the middle east to launch attacks in their home country. so the efforts to counter isis or isil is crucial. that's why we are a member of the coalition and we are making a modest contribution to the effort. we have been participating in other ways and now we're going to send a medical team into iraq.
it is also important to address the extremism in order to counter act isil as well as to address extremists views being propagated by isil. these are the major issues that we've discussed and we look forward to working together and take our relationship even further forward. president obama: first question is margaret grennan. >> thank you, mr. president. given the republican nominee's recent family about the kahn family and if president he would consider recognizing russian annexation of crimea does it make you question his fitness as president. and you said the worst thing is to plan for the nato intervention in libya.
do you see your new dediscussion to bomb isis as a direct result of that? president obama: yes, i think the republican nominee is unfit to serve as president. i said so last week. e keeps on proving it. he notion that he would attack a gold star family that had made such extraordinary sacrifices on , the fact ur country that he doesn't appear to have basic knowledge around critical , in europe and the immediatele east, in asia means that he's woefully unprepared to
do this job. this is not just my opinion. i think what's been interesting is the reaped denunciations of of leading ts republicans including speaker of the house and the senate majority leader and prominent andblicans like john mccain the questions they have to ask themselveses if you are repeatedly having to say in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still endorsing him? what does it say about your party that this is your standard earer?
this santa situation where you have an -- this isn't a situation where you have an episodic gap. this is daily and weekly where they are distancing themselves from statements he's making. there has to be a point in which you say this is not somebody i can support for president of the .nited states even if he por ports to be a member of my party. the fact that that has not yet happen make some of these . nunciation i don't douse the sincerity or the statements that mr. trump and his supports made about the kahn family but there has to come a point in which you say
somebody that makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the moststanding to occupy the powerful position in the world. because a lot of people depend on the white house getting stuff right. and this is different than just having policy disagreements. i recognize that they all profoundly disagree with myself or hillary clinton on tax policy or on certain elements of foreign policy. but, you know, there have been republican presidents with whom i disagreed with but i didn't have a doubt that they could function as president. i think i was right in mitt romney and john mccain were
wrong on certain policy issues but i never thought that they couldn't do the job and had they won i would have been disappointed but i would have said to all americans they are -- this is our president and i know they're going to abide by ertain norms and rules and common sense will observe basic decency. d will have respect for rule of law that our government will work and then we'll compete four years from now to try to win an election. but that's not the situation here. and that's not just my opinion
that is the opinion of many prominent republicans. there has to come a point in which you say enough. and the alternative is that the entire party, the republican party effectively endorses invalidates the positions that are being articulated by mr. trump and as i said in my speech last week, i don't think that actually represents the view of a whole lot of republicans out there. .ith respect to libya i have said on several occasions that we did the right thing in preventing what could have been a massacre, a bloodbath in libya and we did so under u.s. coalition and a mandate. i think that all of us
collectively were not sufficiently attentive to what had to happen the day after and the day after and the day after that in order to insure that there were strong structures in place to assure basic security and peace inside of libya. the good news is that we now -- the beginnings of a government and the government of national accord. they are serious about trying to ring all the factions together to start creating a basic security structure, to begin to to or libya's borders and cooperate enter nationally to deal with issues like isil enetration on their territory. and at the request of that
government after they had already made significant rogress against isil and had essentially pushed isil into a in and aroundarea ourificate -- sert, it's in security interest that they finish the jofpblet to insure that'sle does not get a strong hold in libya even as libya begins what is going to be a -- a ong process to establish funking government and security system there. you know, the good news is that they recognize these -- this terrorist organization in their midst is contrary to their national interest as well as the
world's. you know, we're hopeful that having completed this process of driving isil out, they will be in a position to start bringing the parties together inside that country and not only us but the europeans and other countries around the world have a great interest in seeing stability in libya because that -- the absence of stability has helped to fuel some of the challenges that we've seen in terms of the migration crisis in europe and some of the humanitarian strategies that we've seen in he open seas between libya and europe. >> all right. nicholas. >> thank you, president obama. those questions for prime minister lee. you spokenen about the u.s. reba lansing, a significant part of peace and stability in asia. how do you envision this
continuation proceeding in the next 50 years? and what role do you see singapore playing in this con next? what are some of the hot button issues that we're likely to face as the u.s. continues to reba lance? second question, you mentioned a strong bipartisan link that singapore has had with nine different u.s. presidents from both sides of the political divide, very strong record there. how would we address the u.s. leader, which is more empty globalization, for example, if you see that in november, poth bama, i have a question about the military collaboration which has been a corner stone of the relationship between singapore and the u.s. especially coming heels on the global threat of isis. the potential for military confrontation in the south china sea. how you do see singapore
featuring in plans to address this going forward? last question, four more years is a phrase that we've been hearing a little bit in the past few weeks and months and while it's not possible if it were, how would you continue developing relationships with singapore? what would be your key focus going forward maybe the next 50 years as well? prime minister lee: 50 years is a long time. 50 years ago, nobody imagined what the world would be like today or what singapore would be like today. and that we would have such a deep and broad relationship and so many things to do together. we would like to build on this for the next 50 years. it depends on how we -- each of oun country does in singapore whether we are able to remain stable, prosperous, open, successful. in america whether you remain one of the dynamic, vibrant leading economies in the world, in a world in which there are
other powers, other centers of creativity and -- and -- and technology and progress, but yet, unique participant with a history of contributing to the world not just for your own interest but because you believe that the world should be a better place for all countries. and if america can do that and if singapore can maintain our success then i think there are many opportunities for us to make common cause together and then the reba lansing that the president has denunsyated has l be for the years to come. it will be a very different world. countrys will grow, other countries will slow down. demographics will be a factor to come. if you look at japan, the population will be shrinking and they will have to do something to turn it around otherwise 50 years of population shrinking
then you have a very small country left in terms of economy, in terms of influence nationally. singapore has demographic issues. america has a demographic change. the population is not changing but the composition is changing. and in this situation we have to adjust to a new world, maintaining our possession and our ability to compete and yet knowing that it's not going to be the same in 1946 when america was half the world's g.d.p. or one quarter of the world's g.d.p. so that's the crucial factor over the next 50 years. as for what we do over by partisan links if there is a u.s. leader that wants to turn inward, i don't think that's the right forum for me to talk about u.s. politics in public at this moment. we will work with whoever is a u.s. administration whichever party we have worked with, five
republicans and four democrat administrations and our experience of american elections, presidential elections has been that many precious build-up during the election campaign and after the cooler in a calmer atmosphere, positions are and a certain balance is kept in the direction of the ship of state. it doesn't turn completely up side down. the americans take pride in having a system of checks and balances so that it's not so easy to do things but it's not so easy to completely mess things up. [laughter] and we admire that and sometimes we depend upon that. [laughter]
president obama: he's absolutely right. the wisdom of our founders. with respect to military cooperation, obviously singapore is a small country but it punches above its weight because so much of our work in the asia -pacific region is not a matter of active conflict but rather create ang architecture, a framework of rules and norms that keeps the peace and that has underwritten security for the region and for us for many years now. and singapore is so often the level the room, the us work with help a wide range of countries around certain issues, help diffuse the ons in many ways
diplomatic work and collaboration that we do with singapore is as critical if not more critical than the work militarily but what is also true if the nature of thres today, threats think of cyber our concern about enforcing sanctions against north korea to insure nonproliferation of nuclear materials, or being able in a ntermessage isil place like southeast asia and insure information sharing with countries where there may be a budding terrorist threat. those are all issues of military finesse. -- and intelligence and precision and those are area where is singapore excels.
so in addition to being a very portant logistical hub and a center for our operations, the partnership that we're able to aintain helps us to -- to work with a whole range of other countries, much more effectively if singapore weren't there and we would try to gather all these countries collectively. and that's where the summit is important because it's institutionalizing many of these practices in ways that hopefully avoids conflict in the first place which would be in everybody's interest. as far as where the relationship goes, i think the prime minister is absolutely right. 50 years from now, it's very hard to anticipate where we're going but there are certain
trends that i think are inevitable. the ashay-pacific region will continue to grow and will continue to account for a larger .hare of of the world's economy there are going to be countries in the southeast asian reezwhroon look to follow the path of singapore into a mature advanced economy. it is going to be a big market. and the united states is still going to have a massive interest in maintaining itself as a asia maintainingr and in strong bonds of trade and commerce and scientific exchange and educational exchange and iven the close strategic
interest but maybe even more importantly the close people, the people ties between america and singapore, i think we can anticipate that that will be just as strong 50 years from now as it is today. singapore has to take into account not just american interest. china's a big neighbor and there are strong commercial ties and culture ties there as well. in that sense singapore conserves as a useful partner with us and with china to insure that the u.s. sign a relationship, moves in a productive way, which i think would be in the interest of both countries. so the other -- this is going to e a central engine for world growth and if we do a good job in maintaining stability, insuring a rules based order,
continuing to promote greater transparency and reducing corporation in the region so that all people are benefiting from the rapid growth that's taking place, then i think the future 50 years from now will be bright. jordan fabian? >> thank you, mr. president. you're here tote touting the plan.-pacific donald trump said that the next spth opposed to the field. so if you take both candidates at their word how do you plan to get dong pass this deal during the lame duck and what's your plan to convince members to do so given the opposition i just described? and secondly, security officials inside and outside the government has said they're almost certain that half of the democratic national committee came from russia. does i look like russia is meddling in the u.s. election
and what impact should that have on your administration's relationship with moscow? president obama: well, right now i'm president and i'm for it. and i think i've got the better argument. and i've made this argue before, 'll make it again. we are part of a global economy. we're not reversing that. t can't be reversed. because it is driven by technology and it is driven by travel and cargo containers and e fact that the demand for products inside of our country means we've got to get some things from other places and our exports sector is a huge contributor to jobs and our
economic well-being. most manufactured products now have -- involve a global supply chain where parts are made in all corners of the globe and converge and then get assembled thepackaged and sold and so netion we're going pull that up is unrealistic, point number one. , it is mber two absolutely true. the evidence shows that some past trade deals have nom delivered on all the benefits that were promised and had very localized cost. there were communities that were hurt because plants moved out. people lost jobs. jobs were created because of those trade deals but jobs were also lost. and people who experienced those losses, those communities didn't
get as much help as they needed o. and what is also true is labor workers losing leverage and capital being mobile being able to locate around the world that is all cribbed to growing inequality both here in the united states but in many advanced economies. so there's real problem. but the answer is not cutting off globalization. the answer is how do we make re that globalization, technology, automation those things work for us. and t.p.p. is designed to do precisely that. number one it knocks out 18,000 terrorists that other countries place on american products and goods. our economy is more open than
many of our trading partners. so if everybody agrees that we're going to have lower terrorists that's good for american businesses and american workers and we should want that. we should pursue it. number two, the complain about previous trade deals was that labor agreements and environmental agreements sounded good but they weren't enforceable the same way you complain about terrorists and insure you get action and insure the terrorists were not inforced. well, t.p.p. actually strengthen environmental agreements and they are just as enforceable as any other part of the agreement. in fact, people take them so seriously that right now for example vietnam is drafting and
presenting unprecedented labor reforms in vietnam, changing their constitution to recognize worker organizations in vietnam for the first time. so what we're doing is we're raising standards for workers in those countries which means it's harder for them to undercut labor standards here in the united states, the same is true for environmental standards. the same true for things like human trafficking where we've got a country like malaysia taking really serious efforts to crack down on human trafficking. why? because t.p.p. says you need to. it gives us leverage to promote things that progressives and people here in this country including labor unions say they care about. o if you care about preventing
busive workers, child labor, wildlife trafficking, overfishing, the dez mation of forests, all those things are -- decimation of forces, all those things are addressed in this agreement. i have not yet heard anybody make an argument that the existing trading rules are better for issues like labor rights and environmental rights than they would be than if we got t.p.p. passed. so i'm going to don't
-- i will continue to make this case. i have some very close friends, people i admire a lot. i disagree with him. that's ok. i respect the argument they are making. they are coming from a sincere concern about the position of workers and wages in this country. i think i have the better argument and i have the evidence to support it. hopefully after the election is over, there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal it will just be a political symbol or a political football. i will sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left, i will sit down publicly with them and we will go down through the provisions. i would enjoy that. because there is a lot of misinformation. i am really confident i can make the case that this is good for american workers. somehow, we muddle through and
got it done. and i intend to do the same with respect to the actual agreement. you had the second question? that was a long answer. my villagers mr. prime minister, but every once in a while -- dennis i apologize. the fbi is still doing an investigation. there have been some assessments made this might have been a russian hack. what i can tell you without commenting on the specifics is there are a lot of countries out there that are trying to hack into our stuff. governmental, databases, private sector databases. not-for-profit databases. this is why we have stood up such an aggressive effort to strengthen our cyber security. we have provisions in place
where if we see evidence of a malicious attack by a state actor, we can enforce penalties. pin down and know what we are talking about. i don't want to get out ahead of the legal evidence and the facts that we may have in order to make those kinds of decisions. more broadly, we are trying to promote international norms and rules that say there are certain things that states should not be doing it to each other when it comes to cyber attacks. certain things are out of bounds. those norms are going to slowly build. they will get more adherence over time.
we still early in the process. in some ways the explosion of the internet and its importance to our systems has outstretched the legal architecture. we're playing catch. were going to have to keep at it. in terms of how it affects our relationship with russia, we've got a lot of differences with russia on a bunch of issues. i think we have been able to stay focused on those areas where we still have a common interest. we have deep disagreements on issues like ukraine. if we have an interest in bringing an end to violence in syria, how we balance those issues. that is pretty standard