[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio]
President Obama: You already
heard
my statement, so I’m going to take a couple of question, starting with
Kathleen Hennessey of AP. Where’s Kathleen? Where are you? There you
are.
Question: Thanks for doing
this, Mr. President. In the lead-up to this trip, there was a lot of
talk about strains in the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi
Arabia, some of it stemming from your comments about Gulf partners being
“free riders,” and specifically that Iran and Saudi Arabia should “share
the neighborhood.” I’m wondering if after your meeting you feel like
you’ve eased any of those tensions, if that was your goal. And if you
can point to any evidence of greater cooperation or engagement in the
campaign against ISIL. Do you feel now that the Gulf partners are
carrying their weight?
President Obama: Well, I think that
a lot of the strain was always overblown. The fact of the matter is, is
that the friendship and cooperation that exist between the United States
and the Gulf countries has been consistent for decades. During the
course of our administration, the GCC countries have extensively
cooperated with us on counterterrorism, on curbing the financing of
terrorist activities. They are part of the counter-ISIL coalition that
has made progress both in Syria and in Iraq.
If you think about last year, when we had the Camp David meeting, you
were already seeing the onset of conflict in Libya as well as in Yemen.
And as we come to this meeting in part because of the collective
efforts of members of the GCC, we have a new government in Libya that is
very nascent, but has the opportunity finally to organize itself in a
way that we haven’t seen in a couple of years. That would not have
happened had it not been for the effective diplomatic pressure that was
applied by all the GCC countries, as well as the United States and the
United Nations.
In Yemen, we now have a cessation of hostilities that allows us to build
a peace process that can relieve the suffering of the people inside of
Yemen. That would not have happened had it not been for the GCC-U.S.
cooperation. We would not have gotten an Iran deal to get their nuclear
weapons had not the GCC been supportive of it.
So what is true between the United States and the GCC, as is true with
all of our allies and friends, is that at any point in time, there are
going to be differences in tactics. And part of the goal here, as well
as the meeting at Camp David, is to make sure that not only do we share
a broad common vision of how prosperity and stability and peace are
achieved in this region and how we counter extremist activity, but that
we have knowledge of what each party is doing on an ongoing basis.
I think it is no doubt true that when we entered into the negotiations
with Iran around the nuclear deal, there was concern that in the
interest of getting the deal done, we would somehow look the other way
with respect to their other destabilizing activities. And in fact, what
we are able to report is not only have we seen Iran do what it was
supposed to do under the deal and the threat of an Iranian nuclear
weapon is greatly reduced, but what we’ve also seen, what the GCC has
seen, is our continued cooperation in, for example, interdicting Iranian
efforts to arm the Houthi militias inside of Yemen. That, I think, has
created some confidence.
But one of the things, at a time when the region is so fraught with so
many different problems and challenges, is the need for more consistent
institutionalized communication at every level of government. And
that’s part of what we’ve been able to achieve through these two
summits. And my hope is, is that it will continue into the next
administration. I think it has been highly useful, because the
possibilities of misunderstanding increase when there’s so much activity
taking place.
I’ll give you one last example. Inside of Iraq, there are
understandable concerns about Iranian influence in the Iraqi government
at a time when the Iraqi government is also critical for us fighting
ISIL. It was very important I think for us to describe our assessment
that Prime Minister Abadi is in fact effectively fighting against ISIL
and trying to reach out to Sunnis inside of Iraq, while acknowledging
that there are significant problems in terms of government stability
inside of Baghdad. And that’s a reason for us not to withdraw, but
rather to get more involved in helping to stabilize areas like Anbar,
where we’ve not cleared out ISIL but the towns that they were governing
have been left devastated. If we want Sunni communities to be able to
rebuild themselves and to get back into the lives they were leading
before ISIL took over, then we’re going to have to help the Iraqi
government respond.
The same is true with respect to Syria. Right now, the cessation of
hostilities is very fragile and may be breaking down in part because of
the Assad regime’s continuing attacks on areas where they perceive they
have an advantage. This is part of the reason why I called Mr. Putin on
Monday, indicating to him that in the same way that we are continually
urging the moderate opposition inside of Syria to abide by the cessation
of hostilities, he needs to be holding the regime into account.
For us to be able to describe the specifics of that conversation in a
setting like this to give the opportunity for the other heads of state
to ask questions about Russian intentions I think was extremely useful.
Question: Were you able to secure
any new commitments on the stabilization effort? I mean, you were
asking for aid. Did you get any?
President Obama: We’ve been able to
secure additional commitments with respect to the counter-ISIL campaign
more broadly. With respect to direct help to the Iraqi government, what
I recommended was that we wait to assess how the current government
turmoil in Iraq plays itself out over the next couple of weeks before we
make final decisions about how useful particular offers of assistance
will be. Although, already what we’ve seen is, for example, the
government of Kuwait over the last year has deferred payments that were
required under the U.N. resolution between Iraq and Kuwait. That’s
worth a couple of billion dollars to the Iraqi government. And we
described our efforts to make sure that in addition to the military
assistance that we’re providing Iraq, that we’re also focusing on these
stabilization functions.
But frankly, right now in Baghdad, there’s some big challenges in terms
of Prime Minister Abadi forming a new government -- or a new cabinet.
Until that’s settled, I think it’s important for us to make sure that
any additional stabilization dollars that are put in are going to be
effectively spent.
Greg Jaffe.
Question: I was going to ask, since
you just spoke about Prime Minister Abadi, how concerned are you about
his hold on power? Are there things that the GCC partners can do to
help solidify his government? And then, did you guys talk about a plan
B in Syria if the cessation of hostilities falters? And then lastly, I
was just going to ask, have you contemplated adding additional Special
Forces in Syria to bolster the counter-ISIL fight? And what might it
take for you to make that decision?
President Obama: Good. On the
first item, I'm concerned. I think Prime Minister Abadi has been a good
partner for us. But interestingly enough, right now in Baghdad, the
challenges within the government don't fall along the usual lines of
Kurdish-Sunni-Shia. There's actually significant dissension and
disputes even among the Shia power blocks.
Obviously, ultimately it's up to the Iraqis to make these decisions.
It's not up to us, it's not up to the Iranians, it's not up to GCC
countries. It's up to the Iraqi people to determine the government that
they form.
We do think, however, that it is vital for the health and stability of
Iraq that the cabinet and the makeup of government is finalized and
stabilized. And we've been urging them to get the job done. And we
have contacts with all the various factions and parties, saying to them
they have to take the long view and think about the well-being of the
country at a time when they're still fighting Daesh, Mosul is still
under ISIL control; at a time when, because of low oil prices, they've
got challenges with respect to their budget. There's a dam that needs
to be fixed. They've got a lot on their plate. Now is not the time for
government gridlock or bickering.
With respect to Syria, we had discussions about what options are
available to us should the current cessation of hostilities break down.
None of the options are good. It has been my view consistently that we
have to get a political solution inside of Syria and that all the
external actors involved have to be committed to that as well as the
actors inside of Syria. Certainly that's what the Syrian people want --
they want an end to the bombing. They want to be able to go back to
their homes. They want to be able to farm their lands and run their
businesses and send their kids to school.
And the problem with any plan B that does not involve a political
settlement is that it means more fighting, potentially for years. And
whoever comes out on top will be standing on top of a country that's
been devastated and that will then take years to rebuild. So the sooner
we can end fighting and resolve this in a political fashion, the better.
The primary reasons that we have been emphasizing the need for Assad to
go is not just because he's killed his people and barrel-bombed women
and children; it's that it is hard to conceive of him being at the head
of a government that would end the fighting because it was perceived as
legitimate. That's what we have to emphasize, that's what we have to
work on.
I'm going to take one last question. I assume this is Arab press, not
just you. Go ahead, but there are other people here.
Question: What, Mr. President, do
you think the main issue or case that you have a different opinion
between GCC and the United States and this -- something you think there
is different?
President Obama: I think that,
overall, there's a broad consensus in assisting each other in our
collective security. The GCC hosts the United States, and we could not
operate effectively militarily in the region if it weren't for GCC
countries. Our intelligence-sharing is vital in fighting against
terrorism, and has consistently improved.
We're starting to see the need to cooperate on new threats like
cyberattacks, for example. Our efforts as a consequence of these
summits to form a unified ballistic missile defense is very important.
Our belief that the prosperity and stability of the region depends on
countries treating all their citizens fairly and that sectarianism is an
enemy of peace and prosperity -- that if people are seeing themselves
not as a citizen of a country but as a member of a particular branch of
Islam, that that is a recipe for countries falling apart. I think
there's broad agreement there.
Probably the biggest area where there's been tactical differences has
been with respect to Iran. And the issue is not the need for shared
cooperation to deter against Iranian provocations -- on that, we're all
agreed. I think that there has been concern, even when we were working
on the Iran nuclear deal, that if we were in discussions with them about
these issues, that somehow Iran would feel emboldened to act more
provocatively in the region.
And what I've said to them is we have to have a dual track. We have to
be effective in our defenses and hold Iran to account where it is acting
in ways that are contrary to international rules and norms. But we also
have to have the capacity to enter into a dialogue to reduce tensions
and to identify ways in which the more reasonable forces inside of Iran
can negotiate with the countries in the region, with its neighbors, so
that we don't see an escalation of proxy fights across the region.
And I think that that view is one that is consistent with how many in
the GCC view it, but because there's been so much mistrust that's been
built up -- in part because of Iranian provocations -- that people are
cautious and want to make sure that nobody is naïve about what Iran may
be doing to stir up problems in other countries.
And what we've consistently shown them is we're not naïve. But as I
pointed out, during the height of the Cold War, both Democratic
Presidents like John F. Kennedy and Republican Presidents like Ronald
Reagan still negotiated with the Soviet Union. Even when the Soviet
Union was threatening the destruction of the United States, there was
still dialogue so that we could find ways to reduce tensions and the
dangers of war and chaos. And that's the same approach that we have to
take. Even as Iran is calling us "The Great Satan," we were able to get
a deal done where they got rid of their nuclear stockpiles, and that
makes us safer. That's not a sign of weakness, that's a sign of
strength.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Book/CDs by Michael E. Eidenmuller, Published by
McGraw-Hill (2008)
Text & Audio Source:
WhiteHouse.govAudio Note: AR-XE = American Rhetoric Extreme Enhancement
U.S. Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Public domain.