tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 3, 2016 4:49am-7:01am EDT
-- the end of the route. it doesn't make any difference even if it was a highway lined with forces. and dormitories at the other end to make that kind of declaration. to make that kind of declaration and turn around and target everyone who does not leave with indiscriminate bombing or unleashing killers on the ground is murder. it is a war crime. also, extermination is a crime against humanity and as we saw in grossman, the large presence of chesney and -- chechnya and, it does not destroy them. it creates them. it is criminal conduct. it is unthinkable that anyone would think the vladimir putin government was playing a constructive role in syria. they made common cause with vladimir putin and assad to go against the group. commanders are now in danger of
of being charged as aiders and a bettors of the war crimes. that information is from physicians for human rights. doing that kind of thing and aleppo, formerly the largest city in syria is what threatens to make them direct perpetrators in war crimes and crimes against humanity. what does that mean? when are people going to be held to account for these crimes? first of all, i want to note the day of accountability will come. i'm not talking about going to the icc. supported by the united states, supported by 14 members of the un security council in 2014, referral to the icc was blocked by russian and chinese veto will stop it does not require necessarily the internationalized cleared to or a future syrian court. that is what we really want to see, a syrian court widely representative of the syrian country. there is jurisdiction now to prosecute this crime.
the traders are coming within range of prosecutors with the jurisdiction to go after them. first of all, it is because of the documentation that has been brought out. ben taub has described the work of mike good friends and the papers and several hundred thousand pages that have recently left syria. other organizations are part of that. close to one million pages of this kind of documentation. it is impressive. the other day we had done a search on the documents written in arabic which is not that easy to do character recognition with to see if there is any mention in the 600,000 pages of one man
and we found a logbook of his arrest. that they arrested him and certain of his friends. and he was quite moved to see , that and then suddenly became -- he suddenly became emotional and said, all of the friends who were with me are now dead. it was amazing to find the document that started all of that. the reason i was involved in the case in africa where fantastically strong evidence was discovered against the president 10 years after he was overthrown of his hand on the torture instrument saying, nobody should be allowed to leave this prison alive. the strength of that evidence
created the dynamic of what was needed to prosecute him and he -- when you have strong evidence it is impossible to get over. you will find a way. it is better than that. todayhere is jurisdiction in countries where some of the national or international. we see a sample of that and it youertain that it tells what is coming. -- it isbrought by my
a 33-page complaint. i urge you to go to it. they have identified the responsible parties. directly responsible the weather of the sod. a general, the head of the baath party, it directly responsible for her death. they bombarded her and killed her and her french photographer and of course injured others that are still with us in journalism. that gave rise to the lawsuit in american court under the foreign sovereign immunities act, extremely strong case. there's also witness testimony that ties these individuals. we've been successful in
relocating them said they are secured to testify in other cases. keep in mind that this makes these individuals also responsible for the murder under american law. the murder of an american citizen is murder under -- i first agree under the laws of the american states. this opens up a special prosecutions division of the u.s. department of justice that peopleady prosecuting like charles taylor, junior. taylorrosecuting charles junior in the hague, he was sentenced to prison for 97 euros. these are the kind of cases that can be made. exact --h as well, and an active investigation. to prosecute these individuals as well under their laws. there is an open investigation. ande is also of course,
these individuals are not turning up in washington anytime soon but they can certainly create an investigation where there is more than 100 in the world where they cannot safely go from now until the day they die. we also have perpetrators beginning to come out of syria, many of them associated with the opposition. as my friends have shown and we are working with a number of prosecutors, you'd be amazed at some of the torturers that are now among the refugee population that can be identified and pointed out. those are cases they can be prosecuted. crime committed elsewhere if the perpetrator is in your country you can prosecute the crime. i was at the day -- for the
first six months of 2016 on the 29th of may i established the -- 30 two countries and prosecution at units working in conjunction. there are 14 of these units that have successfully prosecuted the genocide and other tried -- torture committed abroad. all on syrian cases. to those whoclear might think it was a syrian regime, this might be the wave of the future. but the massive crimes they have committed that led to the greatest flow of refugees in human history. more people on the road as refugees than we had in world war i or world war ii two.
60 5 million today and so many of them coming out of this conflict some. they are saying the day of justice is arriving and they will face consequences. for the victims and people are working to document these crimes who are so discouraged because it often seemed the world would as theyd with them withstood the bombs, their eyes were ghost out, they were hacked. it was shown in the season roles part ofasier -- early the uprising that those should come forward and assist. the evidence is being preserved. they could come forward and assist the so we can deter these atrocities and secure the fact that those who would otherwise
have been afraid will be secure with their families. thank you very much. >> thank you very much ambassador for the root -- moving remarks. the floor is yours wa'el: thank you for having me. as somebody who was born and raised in syria, i have no doubt that eventually those responsible will face prosecution in court. i commend you on everything you're doing. i commend you ben taub on what you are doing. thank you and you for highlighting this issue and giving it importance. the focus is usually on isil and al nusra but other atrocities
are taking place on a daily basis in the regime. there can be no doubt. as reprehensible as they are, the focus right now at least within the u.s. government is on supporting the steps we can take to lay the groundwork for justice. with respect to syria. including efforts by syrian society and international organizations to gather evidence and help eventually build a case to assist many of these efforts we've heard about to prosecute responsible parties whether they are on the government or the opposition side even though most of the assad attacks were directed it seems by the government. we support these efforts but
also not just those pertaining to abuse of the detainees, sexual violence, and by the way a larger amount of sexual related cases have actually been traded by the regime against those who they deem to be sympathizing with the families of the opposition. it is not just isil, it is a much bigger darker picture thanks and prior to the files we're been able to get out of syria that really painted a more systematic targeting by the syrian regime. efforts are these standing up of the joint investigators that is currently still reviewing evidence and will be publishing hopefully end making public its report sometime in september regarding who was responsible for the use of chemical weapons in syria.
while the number of those affected by chemical weapons is far less land those who have been possibly detained, killed, displayed, there is a clear international consensus and a number of pretty good -- that hold all of the parties accountable. whether it is the regime or non-state actors. we have supported the efforts and look forward to the report coming out in a month about. as noted in the geneva communique of 2012, there needs to be comprehensive approach towards transitional justice. i know people are worried about the united states trying to cut a deal that keeps us in power or perhaps gives immunity. there's no such thing going on. let me be very clear about that. while we are indeed trying to find a political solution to the conflict that certainly the
regime does not think is -- and they are pursuing a military victory in syria. while pursuing a victory is preferable, the only way to sustainable case in syria was also to ensure the issue of transitional justice, part and parcel, of transition. that is part of the geneva communique. we support a syrian-led process too late the groundwork for future transitional justice and criminal accountability and ultimately sustainability. on a side note, i was the first u.s. official to use the file. i was working with ambassador robert ford and one of his liaisons with the opposition, the activist, the ngo's, many of
the people. protesters who started the revolution and in the summer of 2013, once caesar had left jordan i had a surreal moment at a mcdonald's in istanbul where a member of the opposition came to me. i was finishing a great dinner and he opened up a laptop in showed me 50,000 pictures. you can see them here. so, there is a lot of people in the u.s. government that are personally invested in the issue of accountability and will make sure that we provide whatever support we can offer to various and accountability and transitional justice efforts. i will stop here. i'm sure i will be taking questions. >> thank you. [applause] not often happen, but --
>> this does not often happen but you can as we are at live streaming, apparently as i mentioned the caesar photos are scrolling on your left referred to a number of times by all three gentlemen. caesar is watching and he has sent us a message. he said, i want to thank you for remembering the victims. and for pursuing justice. it is important to act, not just speak. that is why i hope we can do more to stop the atrocities and applied it congress for the important bill in support of syrian civilians. what he is referring to is the syria civilian protection act of 2015 which is a bipartisan bill
sponsored by congressman eliot engel. 2016 by congressman eliot ingle and ed royce and you can speak with others in the audience and from the hill on the details from that. it is not just in terms of we are dealing with the executive branch and the executive branch response but there are sanctions. i can tell you is somebody who lived in syria for a long time, there is one thing that the syrian regime worries about and that is sanctions. it complicates their lives significantly in ways we do not even fully understand. moderators prohibitive, i will ask the first question. what caesar has asked here.
so as all three of you said, there is overwhelming evidence of atrocity crimes committed by the syrian regime. and they have been committed by all sides but the overwhelming majority -- there is a chain of evidence, some of which we can see here. those violations have been outlined. usually i ask a question in the , whyr to but for this haven't we been going after them from the beginning? what is stopping the united states and its allies for going after them for the crimes? are we waiting for the war to be over? is there a lot more going on behind the scenes? let me jump in on that.
i was fighting all the time to lay the groundwork for accountability of these crimes. this was not a situation like was blocked. sanction orrt to criticize the government for ofse crimes -- the kind by thewe have had security council and by the referral dartmoor and by the icc , it was blocked. jurisdiction unless crimes are committed by syrians and as they are a party to the icc then they could be prosecuted but that avenue was
closed. and the agreement between the government and sierra leone and in process it would its crimes. as we were dealing with this, we realized we could prosecute but it would take time. you could begin to develop and give it to the standards that we expect. or, you have the perpetrators begin to turn up. and they are not on the road. so it was specific to the documentation. so we supported a commission of inquiry.
the council is what the united mytes has been a member of many years. our concern in 2014 became that this wasn't enough. they were writing a narrative report but they were not selecting documents. they were not in the business of documentation. that led secretary clinton to go 2012 and ask for a documentation bill. which was called the syrian justice accountability center. it was an independent board.
it then supported other documentation efforts in syria. all of this had to be a partnership between international experts and syrian victims in survivors. since then, it has a budget of $6 million a year as it collects these documents and employs 135 people, the majority of them from syria and ask prosecutors and investigators. so we are laying the foundation. we didn't prosecute the nazis until we beat them in the war. in the case of the former
-- that was intended -- that was until the end of the 1999 convention. time not like a bank robber. it's not going to be that way. and it is discouraging to people who would like to see justice right now. case ofhave in the international arrest warrants. but getting arrest warrant insert -- sometimes you can do it. sometimes we create situations the we did in liberia after arrest warrant was unsealed, he was overthrown in his own country and enough information
became available to arrest. but you don't necessarily get that right away. people have been discouraged that this has gone on so long and there has been little progress. todaye absence of trials doesn't mean that there will be trials tomorrow because there will be. there are people on the opposition with isis who have committed horrible crimes. they will be held accountable for that. and the best place for that is in the future syria. a democratic country with all of the areas represented. that is what we want to build four. but the impact of this with the refugees in europe, we now are in a situation where cases will
begin for these crimes. he laid out the challenges quite well. certainly, it has taken time and it will take more time. investigating on the ground is almost impossible. prosecutors are reliant on the information that gets out. material tonty of sift through for future prosecution. on the council, i can tell you firsthand that it is virtually impossible to get any real andtions given russia chinese -- it doesn't make it right but that is the fact.
russians,e of the they are a party to the accomplice and will not agree to measures that have a meaningful impact on the syrian regime. to procuree able this report. there is a debate on why they went along with it. my consensus is that they know come backhey will with, it has to go back to the security council. aty basically have a shot expressing their displeasure with the report. a boldll, it was quite move on their part to reject the findings of a body that the andians helped create
support of mandate so we will see. it is to be determined. it will be interesting to see what comes out on this front. and it is true, the efforts right now is relied on documentation. also, we catch a lot of flak for that, supporting the end to a conflict. time whereg in a credible justice can take place. trying to reach true accountability now -- again, it it is almost impossible. evidenceyou do have the prosecution moves forward evidence is undeniable and i think you will see us being supportive of that moving
forward. not conflate this usg being happy with the current state of affairs or in some way depressing the process of moving forward. i can tell you that firsthand. >> ok. so, i would like to open up now to questions. please raise your hand. we will get a microphone to you. over here on my left. barbara from the atlantic council. masseter, could you tell us more about the cases that are moving forward in europe? could you mention any specifics about that? keep in mind that in civil
law countries they make no disclosures until there ready to hold somebody under a judicial order and i don't want to compromise anything in those investigations were in the process. i would say that the cases to withve situations procedure files and surviving family members are cooperating with international authorities to prosecute the people who are responsible for the crimes. keep in mind, usually international prosecutions, there are exceptions. prosecutors would rather get rather somebody today than a foreign country where it may take them a decade to get them into custody. but they are willing to wait a there are countries
take perpetrators who are outside of the country and set them know that they are wanted. and they will be looking for perpetrators elsewhere. they may not be the highest level individuals but they have been identified by those refugees by behaving in similar conduct. so we will be doing things like that. it is based upon citizenship of the victim. we will also see states that have been much more common in the case of rwanda and some crimes from latin america -- prosecutors in europe because the perpetrators are there and there are several major perpetrators who are in europe
who have been identified and cases are being built against them. is not to letance individuals know. we don't want them back in syria. we want strong cases so that when they are arrested, we can hold them until the time of prosecution. but there are a number of these cases being made. and understand, my own goal and my current role with the holocaust museum are largely ofking on this issue documentary ongoing crimes for international prosecution for areas that have the capacity to do it themselves. but i am not saying prosecute this guy or prosecute this guy. i'm trying to make sure they know where the witnesses are. that they have connections that need to be made. the documentation is open to the
magistrate and they are. fromdures have moved brussels to portugal, actually. investigators are going there to dig out these files and asking for additional information. and doing their own work. couple of things that are very close to filing today. but i know better than to say it will happen tomorrow. but i confidently think we will begin to see this kind of thing this year. -- we have first resources in the united states of torture in liberia. he was found on a false passport because of sanctions. because of his presence in the united states it could prosecute him.
that involved going to liberia and finding the witnesses and bringing them to the united states to testify. in european countries, they can go to where the witnesses are and take a statement. but these statements are never as easy. thus far, the record of the european prosecutors with cases involving crimes in africa and latin america are almost 100%. if i could jump in quickly. i recognize that we are live streaming. but security concerns -- anyone this, theying about
prefer you to write "western europe" i have spent a lot of time talking about them with this. >> thank you. a quick question to the ambassador. let's suppose that in pursuit of a political solution, some powers try to cut out a deal with another regime by which president assad would leave the country in exchange for immunity. how would prosecution versus political views play out then? all, under first of international law, it is quite well-recognized in national the consummation of leaders -- like in el salvador, who struck down the amnesty law but they were for atrocities of -- theyghts, genocide
basically are not binding agreements and whatever anybody science, it will not bar prosecution of that individual in the future. somebody will regret that and say it is too bad we can't make those deals anymore but we can't make those deals and perpetrators know that. so it is not possible. the is not to say that in individual country, they can't proceed with their own transitional justice approach. just because a person doesn't have amnesty doesn't mean they don't get prosecuted. most people think that prosecution should be limited to a very high level and there should be efforts to redskins i'll -- efforts to reconcile with others. those are questions that a country should make and receive that kind of thing happening in colombia. there is a transitional framework and it is essential to get the people of colombia to
agree to that. there is a tendency on the international community to say, if they can work this out in a way that would salvage the truth ,nd requires pedal consequences we will not disturb that. bindingar as a agreement that somebody can't be prosecuted, it is not on. isn't to say that somebody couldn't reach an agreement and go and go somewhere where he might be hard to get to. but one could never truly guarantee that they would derive when the government of that country might change and decide, hey, it is time. approach more passive is something that people can live with. but a deal is not a good thing. keep in mind -- i prosecuted in
sierra leone, they negotiated -- they gave him amnesty and his group would disarm and they would engage in , the minister of mines was made prime minister. they shot demonstrators down and took peacekeepers hostage. and then the government said no amnesty. impunity breeds impunity. confront that actually the past and hold people
responsible have much lower levels of violence in the society that they are after. and it is not a question of peace or justice. it is necessary to have justice in order to have genuine, long-term peace. >> i have a question for you. we have discussed the geopolitical agonies of the security council in terms of bringing forth any avenue for justice or referrals to the icc. we can conceive of a scenario in which russia and china might not want a resolution but then, what scenarioif we have a where anyone who is left behind
can be targeted. those individual russian actors who are making those decisions be held to account given that they are voting on the un security council and russia is not party ?o the icc what would be the hypothetical avenue to pursuing justice for that crime? >> well, obviously, the bottom line of this, and i was careful about this. i think one could develop an aiding and abetting case against russia now. my friends at the syrian observatory in london documented some particular attacks in their work. there is potential liability there. but if you actually became part of this kind of operation and
part of the bombing of the city of aleppo, those who did not leave, and very few people leave, then you would have very serious war crimes. of course, that would mean, if a russia was not against it already, that you would not get a solution to the security council. but that also means that russian commanders, people that are going to a meeting somewhere, could suddenly find themselves tagged in those countries for these crimes. so, there could be jurisdiction if they want to spend all their time within the russian federation.
fine, they are never bothered. there could be lawsuits. there could be efforts to seize accounts elsewhere, that kind of thing. i have met these people, engaged some of them. and there is corruption and things like that that could provide some resources and reasons to go after their money. so, i do think there could be some accountability. it would still be challenging. right now, we are investigating russia formally in terms of crimes committed against german nationals during the 2008 war. -- against georgian nationals during the 2008 war. in georgia is a state party. so, the icc could get involved. but i don't think we are likely to get that kind of jurisdiction. icc could get inv. but i don't think we are likely to get that kind of jurisdiction. but the possibility of justice is there. it is obviously, much stronger in the case of syrians who might be tempted, who might be even today thinking, we will find a
some safe place where some of our family members are and go live there. loudnk the message quite and clear is forget that. if you want to commit these kinds of crimes, there will not be places available to you. >> if i could get a microphone, sorry. i am right here in the middle. read your hand so i can see you for the microphone. there we go. greag rose, formally at the defense department. one of two questions. just a quick follow-up on the russia question. i don't recall there being accountability for what happened in chechnya. i would like to suggest that russia, given it already has some liability -- and i have spoken about this on some panels
-- it is hard to imagine they would agree to a situation that would create political accountability in the u.n. i am a group that is very involved in working with the ambassador to deal with judicial acts. i am wondering how this issue of isis accountability fits into this question of accountability by the syrian regime. in other words, some of us are working specifically on that issue and it is clear the state department has not developed a sense of how to deal with that. i would expect because the assad issue would work in a different way. does the administration have a position on that now? , ambassadorng, invested o rapp, what it should do about
that issue of targeted minorities? you the state department and other agencies are actively looking and compiling evidence of crimes against humanity, war crimes and thatide in syria and iraq might have been perpetrated by nazi actors or the syrian regime. those investigations, and terms of building our own internal understanding, whether it was systematic, and that is the key here. it is ongoing. so, they have not reached a final determination. was --ey were able to do basically, the overwhelming evidence, some of them based on , that theystatements want to wipe out the community of northern iraq, it was definitely a quicker case to make. like you see in the role of
language, the decision was that isil was responsible for many other communities in iraq. but in terms of the regime that is ongoing, personally, i think it is a matter of time. >> well, first of all, i don't want to minimize the horrible crimes that have been committed by isis, particularly against religious minorities in northern iraq. i do want to say anything in this world is easy, but that is much easier than the syrian overwhelmingse the crimes have been committed by daesh. isis or we have not made more progress on this to date. one of the things i can do now
is, i will be out of the white house tomorrow night at 8:00, holding a candle with others on the second anniversary of the genocide. you are all invited. important to take action on the. we have a syrian commission created by the human rights council. some of these crimes were committed in syria. they have made a determination that appears the genocide was committed against the assides. still, more work needs to be
done to help bolster that particular finding that was mandated by congress. it is important, i think, to open up the avenue for these crimes. because some of these perpetrators are coming into custody. saief, the man who used women for his sexual pleasure, his wife who was involved in that, was taken in 2015delta raid in may of and was transported to kurdish authority. she has been prosecuted for material support to a terrorist organization. she has been charged, frankly in richmond for that crime because of the time into the united states as well.
she will not be extradited because she is an iraqi citizen. though she claims to be a citizen of the caliphate, she is constitutionally protected from exhibition, but she is not being prosecuted for the genocide and sexual slavery, which is a crime against humanity, in which she care appears to be complicit. will look and hope mosul be freed one of these days, there are major perpetrators there in mosul. some of them may die in 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]
>> president obama said yesterday that donald trump is unfit to serve as president and called on republicans to denounce the gop presidential nominee. that news conference is next. on today's washington journal, we will get an update on the transfer pacific ownership deal. that is live at 7:00 a.m. on washington journal. there will be three presidential debates, the first held in new york on monday. on sunday, october 9, hillary clinton and donald trump will debate at washington university in st. louis. the third and final debate will theeld on october 19 at university of devout in las vegas. we will have coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org.
and the asylum seeker removal and detention policies live today at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. >> on saturday, c-span's issues but light looks at police and race relations. we will show president obama at thememorial service for policeman shot in dallas. pres. obama: when the bullets started flying, the police of dallas did not flinch and they recklessly.t >> south carolina representative tim scott giving a speech on the senate floor about his interactions with police. >> the vast majority of times i was pulled over for nothing more then driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or some other trivial.stice >> the program includes one
family's story about an encounter with police in washington d c followed i a panel with the city's police chief cap the linear. ifmost people get defensive they feel you're being offensive. so if you are being very respectful and encounters -- in encounters and it is not a dangerous request versus a demand, those things change the dynamics. >> watch the spotlight on police and race relations on c-span and 8:00 p.m. eastern. conference,t news president obama told reporters that republican presidential nominee is quote unquote to serve as president. primeent obama and minister lee both expressed their strong support for the transpacific partnership trade deal.
>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states prime minister of singapore. pres. obama: hello everyone, please have a seat. i am pleased to announce my friend prime minister lee. i have been pleased to work with him throughout my presidency in bed by -- and i always appreciated his friendship, counsel, and outstanding advice. my thoughts are with the former president and we joined the people in praying for his full and speedy recovery. as president, i have rebalanced american foreign-policy so we are pla ang aarger and long-term role in the asia as of
a, a region critical to our security and prosperity. as i said this morning, singapore has played a vital role in the rebalance. with singapore support, the united states is engaging more deeply the end of across the region. asiading in the east summit. given its strategic location, presence in the region for stability and peace. i want to thank you, prime minister lee, for the contribution you have made. today we agreed to continue building on this progress. u.s. and singapore are united in our commitment to advance the original stability. and defensel
relationship remains one of the closest in southeast 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 south china sea. we agree to do more than encourage economic growth. and innovation among our economies with a little over a decade, trade between our countries has grown more the 50%. 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. globalization means economies 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 in prosperity. that 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 ourse 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. tpp 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
equitable. 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 important but the prime minister and i agreed that we need to extend our partnership beyond just regional efforts. we have work to do on a global 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 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. and face down's. fcp's.down 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 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 -- to understand into learn from one another in pursuit of our aspirations for a better world." 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 anniversary visit of our diplomatic relations. would like to thank president
obama for his gracious 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 affirmed our strong, standingted, and long 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. there are many singaporean companies also which are in america. in the defense area, we have 1990 andoperation from 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 defense systems, counterterrorism, and health. we are expanding into new areas, 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. so, we have discussed how cities 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. last sunday, 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 people closer together and to get to know each other's strengths,cultures, and opportunities to cooperate together. with recently implemented programs that will facilitate travel by singaporeans to the united states, the president and i also discussed the tpp and the president gave an eloquent explanation of why it was important to america and asia. it is in integral component of the values. apart from the economic
benefits, it is also vital for of view and aoint strong signal of the united states commitment to continue its deep engagement in the region. we greatly appreciate efforts of the president and his team to fromfor the tpp which grew a small one that we had started, willr group, now the tpp be a pre-trade agreement in 40% of the world's population and 30% of the world steep deep -- gdp. uss -- we hopee that the united states and other countries will be able to ratify the tpp is in its possible. finally, global terrorism. a problem for all countries. every day in the newspapers you read of new attacks somewhere. america, europe, middle east, home. to
we in southeast asia are very concerned about this because the terrorists are in many countries in the region. from southeast asia, the middle east fighting isis. witnessed attacks in indonesia and malaysia mounted by isis followers under orders from isis operatives in the ondle east to launch attacks their own countries. so the efforts to counter isil crucial and we are making a modest contribution to that and. we will send a medical team to iraq. we have been participating in other ways and now we are going to send a medical team into iraq. it is also important to fundamentally assists -- ss the root cause to understand the
fundamental root cause of isil. and what is being propagated by isil. we have discussed this amongst our two countries and you and taking our relationship even further. >> first question is margaret brennan. you mr. president. given the republican nominee's recent comments at about the con khan family, does it make you question his fitness to be president? and second, you said the worst mistake of your presidency might have been your the year to plan the failedermath of intervention in libya. do you see your new decision as a direct result of that? >> yes.
i think the republican nominee is unfit. i said so last week and he keeps on proving it. would attackat he a gold star family that had made such extraordinary sacrifices on , the factour country that he does not appear have basic knowledge around critical in europe, in the middle ist, in asia means that he woefully unprepared to do this job. not just my opinion. i think what has been interesting is the repeated
enunciation's of his statements ,y leading republicans including the speaker of the house and the senate majority leader and prominent republicans .ike john mccain and the question i think they have to ask themselves is, if sayare repeatedly having to in very strong terms that what he has said is unacceptable, why are you still and forcing him? why are you still and endorsing him? about yourt say party that this is your standardbearer? this is not a situation where you have an episodic gaffe. this is daily.
and weekly. where they are distancing themselves from statements he is making. there has to be a point at which this is not somebody i can support for president of the united states. if he purports to be a member of my party. fact thatnow, the that has not yet happened makes some of these denunciations very hollow. i do not doubt their sincerity, i do not doubt they were outraged about some of the statements mr. trump and his kahnorters made about the family, but there has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements does not 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 for getting right. and this is different from just having policy disagreements. i recognize that they'll fondly disagree with myself or hillary clinton on tax policy or on certain elements of foreign but there have been republican presidents with whom i disagreed but i did not have a down to that they could function as president -- i did not have a doubt that they could function as president. i think i was right and john mccain and mitt romney were wrong on certain policies but i never thought they could not do the job. in had they won, i had -- i
would have been disappointed but i would have said to all americans, this is our president i know they are going to abide by certain norms and rules and common sense. they will observe basic decency. aboutave enough knowledge economic policy and foreign policy and our constitutional decisions in role of law that our government will work. we will compete for years from now to try to win and election. -- win an election. but that is not the case here and that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of many republicans. prominent republicans.
there has to come a point when you say, enough. is that thernative entire party, the republican party, effectively endorses and positions that are being articulated by mr. trump and as i said in my speech last week, i do not think that actually represents the views of a whole lot of republicans. with respect to libya. know, i have said on several occasions that we did the right thing in preventing what could have been a massacre led bath in libya. we did so as part of an international coalition in under u.n. mandate but i think that all of us collectively were not sufficiently attentive to what had to have been the day after or the day after or the day
after that in order to ensure there were strong structures in basic security and peace inside of libya. thegood news is we now have beginnings of a government and the government of national accord. they are serious about trying to bring all of the factions creating a start basic security structure and to monitor it libya's borders and cooperate internationally to deal with isils like basil -- penetration on their territory and at the request of that hadrnment after they already made significant hadress against isil and
essentially pushed isil into a very confined area, in and is in certain -- it america's national security interest in our fight against cannot doke sure they that again so we are working in partnership to make sure isil does not get a stronghold in libya even as libya begins what is going to be a long process to establish a functioning government and security system there. the good news is that they recognize this terrorist organization is in their midst contrary to their international interests as well as the world's and we are having completed
this process of driving a soul out to they will be in a position to start bringing parties together inside the 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 we have seen in terms of the migration crises in europe. and other issues and europe. >> this question is for prime minister lee, you have spoken about peace and stability in asia. how do you envision this continuation proceeding in the next 50 years and what role do you see? what are some of the hot button
issues you are likely to face question mark second question, you mentioned the strong bipartisan links you once had with nine different u.s. presidents from both sides of the political divide. a strong record. moreould we drive the empty globalization of the u.s., for example that we see in november. president obama a question about military collaboration which has been a cornerstone of the relationship between singapore and the u.s., especially come in medical teamof the of the global coalition against isis. but terrorist asia and the rest of the world has the potential for confrontation in the south china sea. how do you see singapore featuring in the plans to forward?his going last question, four more years
is a phrase you are hearing in the last few weeks and months. if it were possible, how would you continue developing relationships with singapore? what would you do going forward and in the next 50 years as : 50? prime minister league years ago nobody imagined what the world would be like today or what singapore would be like today and that we would have such indeed and broad relationship and so many things to do together. we would like to build on this for the next 50 years. it depends upon how each of our countries does in singapore. as they are able to remain stable, open, successful. in america, whether you're remain one of the dynamic, vibrant, leading economies of the world in a world in which there are other powers, other centers of creativity and
technology and science and it is a uniqueet participant with a history of contributing to the world not just for your own interests but because you believe that the world could be a better place for all countries. if america could do that and if singapore can maintain that, it to gather,goal the president in an sedated and executed, willis sustain for many years. other countries will grow, slow down, demographics will have changes. will have to do something to turn around. 50 more years of population shrinking and you have a very small country left in terms of economy, influence internationally.
has demographic issues. america estimate graphic change. the population is not drinking but the composition is shrinking. we have to adjust to a new world, maintaining our position compete andity to yet knowing there is not going to be the same as it was in 1946 when america was about half of the world's gdp -- one quarter of the world's gdp. that is the worlds crucial factor over the next 50 years. so what we do over my partisan links to eight u.s. leader who wants to turn inward and is closed off, i do not think this is the right form for me to talk about u.s. politics in public at this moment. we will work with whichever party is the u.s. administration. we have worked with other administrations. our experience of american elections, presidential
elections, has been the build up during the election and after the election it is calmer, kohler, positions are rethought. strategies are nuanced. kepta certain balance is in the direction of the ship of state. it does not turn completely upside down. the system of checks and balances makes it not so easy to do things but not so easy to completely mess things up. [laughter] prime minister lee: sometimes we admire that and sometimes we depend upon that. ] aughter pres. obama: he is absolutely right. the wisdom of our fathers.
with respect to military cooperation, obviously singapore is a small country but it as i said before punches above its weight. so much of our work in the asia-pacific region is not a matter of of conflict -- active creating an rather architecture, a framework of rules and norms that keeps the underwrittent has security for the region a.m. for us. for many years now. singapore is so often the adult in the room. help usl head that can work with a wide range of countries around certain issues. help diffuse tensions. diplomatics, the collaboration we do with singapore is as critical if not
the workical than militarily but what is also true today when you think of cyber threats, or our concern about enforcing sanctions against north korea to ensure nonplayer a fresh and of nuclear materials -- to ensure a nonproliferation of nuclear materials. be in a place like southeast asia in to ensure information sharing and countries where there may be a terrorist threat. those are issues of military andatics and intelligence precision. those are areas where singapore excels. to being a very important logistical hub and theer for our operations,
partnership we are able to to work with aus whole range of other countries much more effectively than we would've singapore were not there in we had to just try to gather up all of these countries individually and that is why the southeast asian summit has been important. it is institutionalizing many of these practices and ways that hopefully avoids conflict in the first place, which would be in everybody's interest. as far as where the relationship goes, he is right. the pragmatist or's right, 50 years from now it is very hard to anticipate where we are going but there are certain trends that are in heaven above. inevitable.
the asia-pacific region will continue to grow and will continue to account for a larger economy.the world's there are going to be countries in the southeast asian region that look to follow the path of singapore into a mature advanced economy. it is going to be a big market. the united states is still going to have a massive interest in maintaining itself is a asia-pacific power and in maintaining strong bonds of trade and commerce and scientific exchange and educational exchange and even -- and given the close strategic interests but more importantly the close people-to-people ties to america and
singapore, i think we can anticipate it will be just a strong 50 years from now as it is today but singapore has to take into account not just american interest but china is a big neighbor and there are strong commercial ties and cultural ties there as well. in that sense, singapore can serve as a useful partner with us and with china to ensure that the u.s.-china relationship moves in a productive way. which i think would be in the interest of both countries. this is going to be a central engine for world growth a good job of maintaining stability, insuring rules-based order, continuing to promote greater transparency and reduce corruption in the region so that all people are
benefiting from the rapid growth theng place, then i think future 50 years from now will be right. : iq mr. president. the transpacific ownership, hillary is against it, her vice verseential nominee has himself and is against it. donald trump is opposed. my question is, if you take both candidates at their word, how do you plan to get congress to pass the steel during the lame. and convinceour plan to members given the situation i described. secondly, it has been said they are certain a certain the hack of the democratic national committee came from russia. so it looks to you like russia is meddling in the election and how will that affect your administrations relation with
moscow? pres. obama: right now i am president and i am for it. in and i think i have a better argument. in and i have made this argument before, i will make it again. global economy. we are not reversing that. it cannot be reversed. driven by is technology and it is driven by travel and cargo containers and the fact that the demand for products inside of our country thingsave got to get from other places and our export sector is a huge contributor to jobs in and our economic well-being. most of manufactured now
involves a global supply chain where parts are made in all corners of the globe that you and converged and assembled and packaged and sold. and so the notion that we are going to pull up root and branch is on realistic. -- is unrealistic. it is absolutely true, the evidence shows that some past trade deals have not delivered on all of the benefits promised event have a very localized costs. communities were hurt because plants moved out. people lost jobs. jobs were created as of those trade deals by jobs were also people who experienced those losses in those communities did not get as much help as they needed to end what is also true is as a consequence of globalization and automation,
what you have seen is labor, anders, losing leverage capital being mobile, being able to locate around the world. that has all contributed to growing inequality both here and in many advanced economies. so there is a real problem but cutting offs not globalization. the answer is, how do we make sure that globalization, technology, automation work for us. not against us. tpp is designed to do precisely that. it knocks out 18,000 tariffs that other countries place on american and goods. our economy currently has fewer arabs and is more open than many of our trading partners. so if everybody agrees that we
are going to lower tariffs, that is good for american businesses and american workers and we should want that. we should pursue it. number two, the complaint about previous trade deals was that labor agreements and environmental agreements sounded good but they were not enforceable the same way you could complain about tariffs and actually get action to ensure enforced.re not well, tpp actually strengthens label agreements -- labor agreements and 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 and those countries, which means it is harder for them to undercut labor standards here in the united states. the same is true for environmental standards. the same is true for human trafficking where we have got a country like malaysia taking really serious efforts to crack down on human trafficking. why? because tpp says it you need to. a gives us leverage to promote the things that progressives in you in this country including labor unions say they care about. preventingare about abusive workers, child labor, wildlife trafficking,
the decimation of forests -- all of those things agreement.ed in this i have not yet heard anybody make an argument that the -- rulestrading world are better for issues like labor rights, environmental rights, then they would be if we got tpp ed.t -- pass so i'm going to continue to make this case and i am very close friends, people i admire a lot but i disagree with them and that is ok. i respect the arguments they are making. they are coming from a sincere concern about the position of workers and wages in this country.
but i think i have got the haver argument and i evidence to support it and ,opefully after the election and the dust settles, there will be more attention to the actual us behind the deal and it will not just be a political symbol or a clinical footfall. and i will actually sit down with people on both the right and left in disgust that. i am confident i can make the case this is good for american workers and the american people. people said we were not going to be able to get the trade thisrity to even present before congress and somehow we muddled through and got it done. i intend to do the same with the
respect -- with respect to the actual agreement. that was a long answer. minister.e mr. prime but every once a while -- in fbi is still doing investigation. you are right there have been some assessments made that this might have been a russian hack. but i can tell you without commenting on the specifics is that there are a lot of countries out there that are trying to hack into our stuff. butrnmental, databases, also private sector databases and not-for-profit databases and ans is why we stood up such aggressive effort to strengthen our cyber security and we have provisions in place where if we a malicious of attack by a state actor we can
certainotentially proportional penalties. but that requires us to really be able to pin down and snow when we are talking about so i do not want to get ahead of the have evidence and we may in order to make those kinds of decisions. more broadly, we will try to promote international norms and there are certain things that states it should not be doing to each other when it .omes to cyber attacks there are certain things out of bounds. and those norms, i think him are and get slowly build more adherence over time. we are still early in the us us. in some ways the explosion of
the internet and its importance to our communication systems has far outstrip the legal architecture to protect that and where playing catch-up. but we have to keep at it. in terms of how it affects our relationship with russia, look, we have already got a lot of differences with russia on a whole bunch of issues but i tonk that we have been able those stay focused on areas where we still have a common interest and understanding that we have deep disagreements on issues like ukraine but perhaps, potentially, if we have an interest in bringing an end to the violence in syria, how do we balance those issues. states pretty standard with russia. point
if in fact russia engaged in this act to be, it is just one on a long list of issues that me putin talkt -- mr. about that i have a rope problem with. the tough, think difficult relationship with russia right now is going to stop us from still trying to pursue solution so that we can't, for example, implement the minsk agreement and get russia in their separatists to lay down arms and stop bullying ukraine. that is not going to stop us from trying to make sure that we can bring a political transition inside syria that could end the hardship there. >> can i say something about the tpp? i do not want to wait until your wade intoolitics --
your domestic politics but looking at it from the other side as someone intimately four,ed, we started the p on which the tpp formed in became this important initiative. the economic arguments for the tpp in terms of trade, the president has portrayed them eloquently with the benefits are to american companies. it is a deal the countries negotiated, each one providing market access on their side in term for gaining access on the other side. in order forcommit another. it is a hard-fought process. the negotiators spent many nights, many dawns, and flooded out. but at the end of it, everybody must decide is it a plus or a minus for them in thy think in
your case, micrometer did a very good job as ustr. good negotiators did their best to make sure they can bring something back that political leadership's can stand by and support. all of the members of the tpp, at the end of this, are still with us. so obviously there is something in it for each one of us. i think we should also look at the other side of the economic i am exporting, therefore i am earning a job. also, i am spending, consuming, importing and because it is free dock trade, i am getting a wider range of product, services, opportunities. it will improve our livelihood. people talk about walmart all over asia. who benefits? wal-mart. many people in america. not just exporters but even people living in the rest belt.
people in the midwest. these are parts of your everyday invisible standard of living and yet it israel real and valuable. some terms of economic benefits, the tpp is a big deal. in terms of america's and gauge meant of the region, that you have put a reputation online. it is the big thing which america is doing in the pacific consistently over many years of hard work and pushing. friends whos, your have come to the table who have negotiated, each one of them has overcome some mastic political objection. some sensitivity. to come tocal cost the table and makes his steel. if at the end, like at the altar the bride does not arrive, i think people are going to feel not just heard emotionally but
damaged for a long time to come. mr. robbie, for example. butral of his predecessors seriously about this and decided not to anticipate. he came through and decided to commit. because he wants to help. he once the country to open its markets and to this is one way to do it. you don't do it when it hurts him is one thing, but when it hurts her relationship with japan, your security agreement with japan, and the japanese living in the world depending upon an american nuclear umbrella will have to say, on trade the americans cannot follow through. to risk life and death, whom do i have to depend upon? that consolation will not be said openly but i have no doubts
it will be thought. if you go beyond that i would like to link up the tpp question with an earlier question from nicholas, where do we go for the next 50 years. that depends on whether we go towards interdependence and therefore peaceful cooperation selfether we go for sufficiency, rivalry, and therefore the higher risk of conflict. and the tried both world has tried both. the 1930's with smoot-hawley, the that depression. a difficult international and ferment. you went for protectionist policies, you had a rivalry with japan which led to war. americae war, because was open, because you promoted trade, because you encouraged investments and and charged other countries to open up the
asian pacific is been peaceful, the pax americana has been a packed and not a war. if you continue to work toward interdependence and cooperation and mutual prosperity, 50 years from now we can say these have been peaceful years and we have made further progress together. but if you're going in the opposite direction, and you decide this is a big pacific but begin up to split down the middle and one chunk is mine and some otherelongs to asians, china, india, japan, then it is a different world. have athe reasons you manageable relationship with china now is because you have trade. it is enormous, mutually beneficial, besides want to maintain the relationship. it would be like the soviet union in the cold war when you had negligible trade and you
still had to find ways to work together but it was much harder. the tpp does not include china. it points eight direction towards the world. towards the orientation of your society and if you sent in the wrong direction, maybe in the next 50 years sometime you will turn around but it will cost you many years in the world won't never be quite the same. >> i am from the business times in singapore. good afternoon. i have two questions. the first is a follow-up to the tpp. a lot has been said. everyone knows what is at stake. tpp if the future of the it does not get ratified by january 3, the lame-duck session. if things waitt need to bemight
reopened up for renegotiation and that will probably kill the deal. post january is dead. nation we reassure the and the world there is the political will to get this done as soon as possible. the second question is for president obama, it is almost at the end of your eight years in office. i would like you to evaluate the progress of the united states to asia. what is something your most proud of? is it something you would have done differently and what is your message to your successor whoever they may be, to engage singapore and the rest of the south asia pacific? thank you. pres. obama: well, with respect tpp. i thought that prime minister lee's points were right on target.
and this is an economic agreement. what we have learned in history is that you cannot separate out interests and issues and security issues and interests. the prime minister is absolutely right. we have benefited from enormous peace and rest bernie around the world. an unprecedented. where the great powers were not in partin conflict because of growing interdependence. if you think about those parts seehe world where we still ,igh levels of violence particularly in his places less integrated into the world economy and there is a reason
for that. a powerfulthere is economic case, a basic bread and butter case to be made about why this is good for american workers and good for american exports and ultimately good for american wages if it is structured properly but i also think there is a strong security but i also think is important is for people to recognize the alternative is not tpp or some imaginary circumstance in which suddenly we are able to sell goods around the world wherever we want but nobody is able to sell goods to us. where we can operate anywhere around the world under fair roles but they cannot operate here in that fashion. beings not, whatever is
imagined is not the alternative. the alternative is what we have today. a situation in which we do not around many protections labor and environmental issues as we would like. a situation in which there are countries like japan that sell a lot of goods here but that keep pretty restricted access for u.s. companies and u.s. workers to their markets. right.inister lee is japan has taken some risks because the president knows he has to make the economy more competitive and as a consequence he is willing to open up axis we have not seen in the past. that is a big market. so one of the top three economies in the world. the last point i would make around this is china.
as prime minister lee mentioned, tppa is not a partner of but if we do not establish stronger rules and norms, for how tpp trade is conducted in the then chatic region, note well. in china is already engaging all of the countries in the region around its own version of trade agreements and they are not worried about labor standards or environmental standards or human trafficking or anticorruption measures. low,u get a low standard, and denominator trade deal and if america is not creating high standards then china's roles will govern. us economically
security also bad for interests. it is also bad for the interests norms against child labor or human trafficking or making sure that everybody is working harder to raise conservation standards. that is the alternative. that is the option. so i think it is very important for us to get this done in terms of insurances. assurances. in life is certain. but we have got a pretty good track record which i think is important and i will say this, this actually is not just a obama administration initiative, this concept began in a
republican administration. we pushed it through. we made it happen. i carebe things that about in terms of labor and environmental standards were incorporated into a but this has trans-partisan report. the bottom line is morocco and we will make those arguments and i think will be successful. in terms of my rebalanced we are across the board just in the game. focused on asia and away we were not when i came along. the countries in asia have noticed. our alliances are stronger. our security arrangements. theher in australia or philippines or singapore. budgets reflect our things likeo
maritime security in the region. continuing efforts around building the east asia summit there is ae means kind of day to day interaction around a whole range of issues whether it is disaster relief or public health issues or counterterrorism. those consultations taking place today were not taking place eight years ago. dimension,on every we are in a much stronger influence, engage, and learn from our asian-pacific partners. the things i enjoyed most has the young southeast asian leaders program because whenever i meet with the young people those countries, i am
inspired and it makes me very optimistic and what will happen over the next 50 years because of you asked them about the future they want to see they are very much committed to in interdependent world in which people are learning and ideas and engaged in scientific and educational exchange and a world in which people's different cultures and backgrounds are a source of strength and cooperation is supposed to conflict and fear. that is true and southeast asia, that is true in africa, that is true in latin america, that is true in europe. a lot of this fear is a choice posed by prime minister lee between dependence and
self-sufficiency that is not achievable and ultimately rivalry and conflict. aree who opt for rivalry looking backwards. you talk to young people around the world, they understand interdependence is the way we are going to assure peace and prosperity for all of us for years to come. that may be the thing that has some of the most lasting impact. i suspect some of the town hall meetings, there are some future presidents, business leaders, not-for-profit leaders that are going to do great things and i'm glad to have been able to play a small part in that. >> thank you. thank you very much gentleman. gentleman.
[crowd murmuring] announcer: sunday night on q&a, civil war. book,essor discusses his after the civil war, the heroes, villains, and soldiers who changed america. >> it went as far back in generations as there were settlers in the country and i think one has to keep that in mind. i am not be littering -- i'm not little in slavery without the actions of the war. you can defend the actions of good men like robert e. lee and
jackson. they fight because virginia needs them. not that they supported the confederate cause. neither one did. announcer: sunday night on >>pan q&a will stop washington journalist next. we will get your reaction to president obama saying yesterday that donald trump is unfit to be resident. there will be a ceremony for the chief.ional guard we'll have live coverage from the undergone at 11 a.m. eastern. meeting about the conference held in durban, south africa, this summer. we will hear about the latest advancements for hiv-aids research. that is live at 12:00 noon eastern. this hour, we will talk to the white house correspondent for the hill, jordan fabian about the transpacific partnership trade deal. kevinistory professor
mattson joins us. he has compared the donald trump presidential campaign to richard nixon's 1960 eight run for the white house. you can join the opposition on facebook and twitter. ♪ even as donald trump held off on endorsing john mccain's mette campaign, mike pence with senator mccain. members formally associated with the trump campaign networking for paul ryan's primary challenger. the white house yesterday during a q&a session with reporters. president obama to d