Prime Minister Reinfeldt:
It's a great honor and
pleasure for me to welcome President Barack Obama
to Sweden. As you all know,
this is a historic event -- the first bilateral visit ever by a President of the
United States to Sweden. We have had a very
constructive meeting. There are many reasons
why the relationship between the United States
and Sweden is special. Many Swedes emigrated
to the United States at the end of the 19th century and somewhere around
4 million Americans today claim Swedish heritage. Business ties flourish
between our two countries. Sweden is, in fact,
one of the largest investors per capita in the U.S., and we have considerable
American investments in Sweden. The United States
is the most important foreign employer in our country. Our societies are founded
on the same core values -- democracy,
respect for human rights, and rule of law. All these values
are at the heart of the deeds
of Raoul Wallenberg, and I'm looking forward
to the possibility to pay tribute to Raoul
Wallenberg this afternoon, a man who chose
not to be indifferent and who saved thousands
of Hungarian Jews from the Holocaust. The United States and Sweden
also share ambitions when it comes to the opening
of global trade flows. Trade has laid the foundation of
Sweden's wealth and prosperity. Around 50 percent of
our GDP comes from exports, and Sweden strongly support
open trade regimes and, in particular, free trade
agreements now being negotiated between the European Union
and the United States. This will not only
bring more jobs and growth to both our continents, it will also
strengthen our political and economic partnership. We also touched upon
the economic situation in Europe and
in the United States. I mentioned that
the crisis has hit countries in
Europe differently -- Sweden being one
of those countries that has done relatively
well during the crisis. But the need for
structural reforms exists throughout Europe
to stay competitive, and at the same time preserving
all our welfare ambitions. We have also discussed climate
change and its consequences. It represents one of the most
important challenges to our societies. Sweden has reduced
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent since 1990, while GDP at the same time
has increased by 60 percent. So there is no contradiction
between economic growth and the protection
of environment. I welcome President Obama's ambitious new
Climate Action Plan. U.S. emissions have,
in recent years, already fallen substantially, and your new plan
will help United States to make even further reductions. We have agreed to work together in the international climate
negotiations to make sure that other countries also are
prepared to cut their emissions. This is the only way that we
can protect our environment. We have discussed a few foreign
policy issues as well -- the most topical, of course,
being the situation in Syria. Sweden condemns the use of
chemical weapons in Syria in the strongest possible terms. It's a clear violation
of international law. Those responsible should
be held accountable. Sweden believes that serious
matters concerning international peace and security should be
handled by the United Nations. But I also understand the
potential consequences of letting a violation
like this go unanswered. In the long term, I know that we
both agree that the situation in Syria needs a
political solution. So thank you once
again, Mr. President, for coming to Sweden. I look forward to our program
together this afternoon. Please. President Obama:
Thank you so much. Hej. (Laughter.) I've just exhausted
my Swedish. (Laughter.) Thank you,
Prime Minister Reinfeldt, for your very kind words
and welcoming me today. I'm proud to be making the
first-ever bilateral visit by a U.S. President to Sweden. I've only been
here a short time, but I already want to
thank all the people here for the warm hospitality
that's been extended to me and my delegation. This is truly one of the
world's great cities. It is spectacularly beautiful. The Prime Minister
tells me that the weather is like this year round. (Laughter.) And so like so many
who've come here, I feel Stockholm in my heart, and I'm sure that I'll
want to bring back my family to have a visit
sometime in the future. I've said before that it's
no accident that democracies are America's closest partners. And that includes Sweden. That's why I'm here today. As free peoples,
we recognize that democracy is the most effective
form of government ever devised for delivering
progress and opportunity and prosperity
and freedom to people. And as two of the most
innovative economies on Earth, we cherish that freedom that
allows us to innovate and create, which is why we're
leaders in science and research and development -- those things
that pioneer new industries and broaden our horizons. We share a belief
in the dignity and equality of every human being; that our daughters deserve the same opportunities
as our sons; that our gay and lesbian
brothers and sisters must be treated
equally under the law; that our societies
are strengthened and not weakened by diversity. And we stand up for
universal human rights, not only in America and
in Europe, but beyond, because we believe that when
these rights are respected, nations are more successful and our world is
safer and more just. So I want to thank Sweden and
the Swedish people for being such strong partners in pursuit
of these values that we share. The partnership is rooted
in deep friendship, but as was also mentioned, we have very strong
people-to-people ties. My hometown of Chicago has a lot
of people of Swedish descent. Vice President Biden was honored
to welcome King Gustaf and Queen Silvia to the
United States earlier this year to mark the 375th anniversary of the first Swedish
colony in America, and I'm looking
forward to visiting with the King
and Queen tomorrow. I should mention
on behalf of hockey fans back home in Chicago, I have to say how grateful
our championship Blackhawks are for their several teammates
who hail from Sweden. So that's been an excellent
export that we gladly accept. (Laughter.) I had a chance to visit with
Prime Minister Reinfeldt in the White House during
my first year in office. And he has always proved to be
a thoughtful and deliberative partner on a whole host
of international issues, and I'm pleased that we've
been able to strengthen that partnership in our
discussions here today. We of course discussed the
appalling violence being inflicted on the Syrian
people by the Assad regime, including the horrific chemical
weapons attacks two weeks ago. I discussed our assessment,
which clearly implicates the Syrian government
in this outrage. The Prime Minister
and I are in agreement that in the face
of such barbarism the international community
cannot be silent, and that failing to respond to
this attack would only increase the risk of more attacks
and the possibility that other countries
would use these weapons as well. I respect -- and I've said this
to the Prime Minister -- the U.N. process. Obviously, the U.N.
investigation team has done heroic work under
very difficult circumstances. But we believe very strongly,
with high confidence, that, in fact,
chemical weapons were used and that Mr. Assad
was the source. And we want to join with
the international community in an effective response that
deters such use in the future. So I updated the Prime Minister
on our efforts to secure congressional authorization for
taking action as well as our effort to continue to build
international support for holding the Assad regime
accountable in order to deter these kinds of
attacks in the future. And we also discussed
our broader strategy. The United States and Sweden
are both major donors of humanitarian assistance
to the Syrian people. We will continue those efforts. We're going to continue to try
to strengthen the capabilities of an inclusive and
representative opposition, and to support the diplomacy
that could bring an end to all the violence and advance
a political transition and a future in Syria where
all people's rights are upheld. Those are goals that we share. And we will keep working
towards those goals. And more broadly, given Sweden's
close partnership with NATO, we also touched on some of
the other security challenges, and I expressed my appreciation
for the extraordinary work that the Swedish armed forces has
done in a whole range of issues, including Afghanistan, efforts
to resolve some of the conflicts in Central Eastern Europe, and
the ongoing training that's also being provided and the good
example that's being provided by the Swedish armed
forces here in Europe. Mindful of the jobs that are
supported by trade between our two countries, we discussed
ways to partner more, including creating a clean
energy partnership that creates jobs and combats climate
change effectively. Sweden is obviously an
extraordinary leader when it comes to
tackling climate change and increasing
energy efficiency, and developing
new technologies. And the goal of achieving
a carbon-neutral economy is remarkable, and Sweden
is well on its way. We deeply respect
and admire that and think we can learn from it. In the United States, we've
taken some historic steps -- doubling our electricity
from wind and solar, improving the fuel
efficiency of our cars, reducing our carbon pollution
to the lowest levels in nearly 20 years -- but we all know
we need to do more. So my new
Climate Action Plan -- more clean energy,
more energy efficiency, less emissions -- will allow us to do
even more in the years to come. And we look forward to a close
partnership with Sweden on what is going to
be a global challenge. And at the Royal Institute of
Technology today I look forward to seeing some of the innovative
ways that we can cooperate. We also talked about trade and the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership, or T-TIP. I want to thank Sweden
and the Prime Minister for the strong support
of these negotiations, and I believe that
for the U.S. and the EU to reach a high-standard, comprehensive agreement can
create more jobs and opportunity on both sides of the Atlantic. And as I head into the G-20, I shared my view that here in
Europe and around the world, we've got to stay focused on
creating jobs and growth. That's going to be critically
important not only for our economies but
also to maintain stability in many of our democracies
that are under severe stress at this point. And finally, I want
to salute Sweden, along with all the
Nordic countries, for your strong support for
democracy and development -- strengthening democratic
governance in Eastern Europe; global efforts against
AIDS, TB, and malaria; responsible
development in Africa. I want to thank in advance the
Prime Minister for hosting our meeting tonight with the leaders
of all the Nordic countries, and I look forward
to our discussions. So to Prime Minister Reinfeldt, thank you so much
for your hospitality. To the people of
Sweden, thank you. This is a wonderful visit,
and I'm looking forward to it producing concrete results
that will enhance the lives of both the American people
and the people of Sweden. So with that, I think
we'll take some questions. The Press:
Mr. President,
welcome to Sweden. President Obama:
Thank you. The Press:
As you might know,
the NSA surveillance affair has stirred up quite
a few angry reactions, even here in Sweden. What do you want to
say to those upset, and how do you think the affair
affects the relationship between our countries? And, as a follow-up to that, I know that at home
you are sometimes accused of wanting to turn
the U.S. into Sweden. (Laughter.) Now that you're here -- you've been here
for several hours -- what have you seen? What actually inspires you? What do you want to
import to the U.S. in terms of ideas for society? President Obama:
Well, let me take
the NSA question first, because this is a question that
I've received in previous visits to Europe since the stories
broke in The Guardian and I suspect
I'll continue to get as I travel through Europe
and around the world for quite some time. Like other countries, we have
an intelligence operation that tries to improve
our understanding of what's happening
around the world. And in light of 9/11, a lot of
energy was focused on improving our intelligence when it
came to combating terrorism. And what I can
say with confidence is that when it comes
to our domestic operations, the concerns that
people have back home in the United
States of America that we do not surveil
the American people or persons within
the United States; that there are a lot of
checks and balances in place designed to avoid
a surveillance state. There have been times
where the procedures -- because these are
human endeavors -- have not worked
the way they should and we had to tighten them up. And I think there are legitimate
questions that have been raised about the fact that as
technology advances and capabilities grow, it may be that the
laws that are currently in place are not sufficient
to guard against the dangers of us being able
to track so much. Now, when it comes to
intelligence gathering internationally, our focus
is on counterterrorism, weapons of mass destruction,
cybersecurity -- core national security interests
of the United States. But what is true is,
is that the United States has enormous capabilities
when it comes to intelligence. One way to think about
it is, in the same way that our military capabilities
are significantly greater than in many other countries, the same is true for our
intelligence capabilities. So even though we may
have the same goals, our means are
significantly greater. And I can give assurances
to the publics in Europe and around the world that we're
not going around snooping at people's emails or listening
to their phone calls. What we try to
do is to target very specifically
areas of concern. Having said that, what I've said
domestically and what I say to international audiences is
with changes in technology, with the growth of
our capabilities, if our attitude is
because we can do it, we should go ahead and do it,
then we may not be addressing some of the legitimate concerns
and dangers that exist any time we're talking about intelligence
gathering and surveillance. So what I've asked my
national security team to do, as well as independent persons
who are well-known lawyers or civil libertarians or
privacy experts to do, is to review everything
that we're doing with the instructions
to them that we have to balance the ends with the means. And just because we
can do something, doesn't mean we should do it. And there may be situations
in which we're gathering information just because
we can that doesn't help us with national security, but does raise
questions in terms of whether we're tipping over
into being too intrusive with respect to the interactions
of other governments. And that is something that we are currently
reviewing carefully. We are consulting with
the EU in this process. We are consulting with other
countries in this process and finding out from them what are
their areas of specific concern, and trying to align what we do
in a way that I think alleviates some of the public concerns
that people may have. But this is always
going to be -- there's going to be some
balancing that takes place on these issues. Some of the folks who have been
most greatly offended publicly we know privately engage in the
same activities directed at us, or use information
that we've obtained to protect their people. And we recognize that. But I think all of us have to
take a very thoughtful approach to this problem. And I'm the first one to
acknowledge that given advances in technology and the fact that
so much of our information flow today is through the
Internet, through wireless, that the risks
of abuse are greater than they have been in the past. Now, with respect to Sweden,
I haven't had a chance to wander around Stockholm
as much as I would like. It is a gorgeous country. What I know about Sweden I think
offers us some good lessons. Number one, the work you've done
on energy I think is something that the United States
can, and will, learn from, because every country in the
world right now has to recognize that if we're going
to continue to grow, improve our standard of living while maintaining
a sustainable planet, then we're going
to have to change our patterns of energy use. And Sweden I think is far
ahead of many other countries. Sweden also has been able to
have a robust market economy while recognizing that there are
some investments in education or infrastructure or research
that are important, and there's no contradiction
between making public investments and being a firm
believer in free markets. And that's a debate
and a discussion that we often have
in the United States. I have to say that if
I were here in Europe, I'd probably be considered
right in the middle, maybe center-left,
maybe center-right depending on the country. In the United States
sometimes the names I'm called are quite different. (Laughter.) And I think a third observation
and final observation I'd make is I know that -- I'm sure Fredrik doesn't
feel this as he's engaging in difficult
debates here -- I do get a sense that the
politics in Sweden right now involve both the ruling party
and the opposition engaged in a respectful
and rational debate that's based
on facts and issues. And I think that kind of
recognition that people can have political
differences but we're all trying to
achieve the same goals, that's something that
Swedes should be proud of and should try to maintain. The Press:
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, sir. Have you made up your mind whether to take action
against Syria whether or not you have a congressional
resolution approved? Is a strike needed in order
to preserve your credibility for when you set these
sort of red lines? And were you able
to enlist the support of the Prime Minister
here for support in Syria? President Obama:
Let me unpack the question. First of all, I didn't set a red
line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when
governments representing 98 percent of the world's
population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent
and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when
countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when
it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it
indicated that -- in a piece of legislation titled the Syria
Accountability Act -- that some of the horrendous things that
are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so when I said in a press
conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria
would be altered by the use of the chemical weapons, which
the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong,
that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it
out of thin air. There's a reason for it. That's point number one. Point number two -- my credibility is
not on the line. The international community's
credibility is on the line. And America and Congress's
credibility is on the line because we give lip service
to the notion that these international
norms are important. And when those videos first
broke and you saw images of over 400 children
subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage: How can this happen
in this modern world? Well, it happened because a
government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on
civilian populations. And so the question is, how
credible is the international community when it says
this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is, how credible is
Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid
the use of chemical weapons? And I do think that we have
to act, because if we don't, we are effectively saying that
even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions,
and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by
resolutions can continue to act with impunity. And those international
norms begin to erode. And other despots and
authoritarian regimes can start looking and saying, that's
something we can get away with. And that, then,
calls into question other international
norms and laws of war and whether those are
going to be enforced. So, as I told the
Prime Minister, I am very respectful of
the U.N. investigators who went in at great danger
to try to gather evidence about what happened. We want more
information, not less. But when I said that I have high
confidence that chemical weapons were used and that
the Assad government through their chain of
command ordered their use, that was based on both
public sourcing, intercepts, evidence that we feel
very confident about, including samples that
have been tested showing sarin from individuals who were there. And I'm very mindful of the
fact that around the world, and here in Europe
in particular, there are still
memories of Iraq and weapons of
mass destruction accusations, and people being concerned about how accurate
this information is. Keep in mind, I'm somebody
who opposed the war in Iraq and not interested
in repeated mistakes of us basing decisions
on faulty intelligence. But having done a thoroughgoing
evaluation of the information that is currently available,
I can say with high confidence chemical weapons were used. And, by the way,
Iran doesn't deny it. Even Syria doesn't actually
deny that they were used. And that is what
the U.N. investigators are supposed to be determining. And, frankly,
nobody is really disputing that chemical weapons were used. The only remaining
dispute is who used them, which is outside the parameters
of the U.N. investigation. So the U.N. investigation will not be able to
answer that preliminarily; they're not supposed to. But what we know is, is that
the opposition doesn't have the capability to deliver
weapons on this scale. These weapons are in
Assad's possession. We have intercepts indicating
people in the chain of command, both before and
after the attacks, with knowledge of these attacks. We can show that
the rockets that delivered these chemical weapons went
from areas controlled by Assad into these areas where the
opposition was lodged. And the accumulation of evidence
gives us high confidence that Assad carried this out. And so the question is, after
we've gone through all this, are we going to try to
find a reason not to act? And if that's the case, then I think the world
community should admit it. Because you can always
find a reason not to act. This is a complicated,
difficult situation. And an initial response will not
solve the underlying tragedy of the civil war in Syria. As Fredrik mentioned, that will
be solved through, eventually, a political transition. But we can send a very clear,
strong message against the prohibition --
or in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad's calculus
about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does
not use them again. And so what I'm talking
about is an action that is limited
in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task
of degrading his capabilities and deterring the use
of those weapons again. And, in the meantime,
we will continue to engage the entire international
community in trying to find a solution to the
underlying problems, which brings me
to the last question. And that is what happens if
Congress doesn't approve it. I believe that Congress
will approve it. I believe Congress will approve
it because I think America recognizes that, as difficult
as it is to take any military action -- even as one as
limited as we're talking about, even one without
boots on the ground -- that's a sober decision. But I think America
also recognizes that if the international
community fails to maintain certain norms,
standards, laws governing how countries interact
and how people are treated, that over time, this world
becomes less safe. It becomes more dangerous not
only for those people who are subjected to these horrible
crimes, but to all of humanity. And we've seen that happen
again and again in our history. And the people of Europe
are certainly familiar with what happens when
the international community finds excuses not to act. And I would not have taken
this before Congress just as a symbolic gesture. I think it's very
important that Congress say that we mean what we say. And I think we will be stronger
as a country in our response if the President and
Congress does it together. As Commander-in-Chief, I always
preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf
of America's national security. I do not believe
that I was required to take this to Congress. But I did not take
this to Congress just because it's an empty exercise;
I think it's important to have Congress's
support on it. The Press:
Mr. President, you've
given very eloquent talks about the moral
force of nonviolence. I was wondering, could you
describe the dilemma to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner and
getting ready to attack Syria? And also, in what way did the
talk that you had today with Prime Minister Reinfeldt move
the world a step closer to resolving the climate crisis? President Obama:
I would refer you to
the speech that I gave when I received
the Nobel Prize. And I think I started the
speech by saying that, compared to previous recipients,
I was certainly unworthy. But what I also described was
the challenge that all of us face when we believe
in peace but we confront a world that is full of violence
and occasional evil. And the question then becomes,
what are our responsibilities? So I've made every effort
to end the war in Iraq; to wind down the
war in Afghanistan; to strengthen our commitment
to multilateral action; to promote diplomacy as
the solution to problems. The question, though, that all
of us face -- not just me -- our citizens face, not just
political leaders -- is at what point do we say we
need to confront actions that are violating
our common humanity? And I would argue that
when I see 400 children subjected to gas, over 1,400 innocent
civilians dying senselessly in an environment in
which you already have tens of thousands dying, and we have the opportunity
to take some action that is meaningful, even if it
doesn't solve the entire problem may at least mitigate
this particular problem, then the moral thing to do is
not to stand by and do nothing. But it's difficult. This is the part of my job
that I find most challenging every single day. I would much rather spend my
time talking about how to make sure every 3- and 4-year-old
gets a good education than I would spending time
thinking about how can I prevent 3- and 4-year-olds from being
subjected to chemical weapons and nerve gas. Unfortunately, that's
sometimes the decisions that I'm confronted with as
President of the United States. And, frankly, as President
of the United States, I can't avoid those
questions because, as much as we are criticized,
when bad stuff happens around the world,
the first question is what is the United States
going to do about it. That's true on every issue. It's true in Libya. It's true in Rwanda. It's true in Sierra Leone. It's now true in Syria. That's part of the deal. What was the second question? The Press:
Climate. President Obama:
I think we have great
opportunities -- I think this is a
good chance for Fredrik to talk about our
shared views here, because we have
I think a joint belief that developed countries
have to make progress, but we have to have an
international framework to address where the increases in
emissions are now occurring. Prime Minister Reinfeldt:
Okay, well, I totally
agreed with that. I think it's been a very
interesting development after Copenhagen. I learned to -- we were
both present in Copenhagen, but we were saying that U.S.
had the highest emissions in the world and that
China was catching up. Now, only a few years later,
we have a situation where China is now doubled the emissions
of the ones we have in U.S. This is actually
reshaping the situation when it comes
to climate protection. We are both responsible
for lowering our emissions, and we are doing so. But we must also face the
fact that we very soon have a situation where 25 percent
of the global emissions is from European Union and
United States together. So the world can say: Solve
it -- pointing at a quarter. They need to take
in the 75 percent outside of European Union
and United States. That is our problem. We want to deal with this, but
it has to be a global answer. The Press:
Thank you. Mr. President, tomorrow you'll
see President Putin at the G-20 with Russia and U.S. relations
seriously strained. Do you see value in trying
to persuade him still to drop opposition
to a Syrian strike, or are your efforts now
in that excluding Russia from the decision? And looking back at
your hopes for a reset, do you believe that
you overestimated what you could change, or do you believe that Mr. Putin
changed the rules midway? If you will indulge me,
I have one more -- but it's all related. President Obama:
I will indulge you -- The Press:
Thank you. President Obama:
-- to let you ask
the question. I may not answer it,
but go ahead. The Press:
Could you take us
behind the scenes on that 45-minute walk
around the South Lawn where you changed your mind and decided to take
this before Congress? And, Mr. Prime Minister -- President Obama:
Oh, goodness. Margaret, you're really
pressing things now. (Laughter.) So this is question
number four now. The Press:
No, this is for
the Prime Minister. President Obama:
Okay. The Press:
You have expressed some doubts
about military action in Syria, and I'm wondering
if you could be a little bit more specific about what
your concerned the consequences may be and whether you
believe that President Putin has any -- shares any burden
of the responsibility for Mr. Assad's actions. Thank you. President Obama:
Okay. I mean, I'm going to try
to remember all this. (Laughter.) First of all, the reset in
the Russian relationship was not done on a whim. There were specific U.S.
interests that I believed we could pursue with Russia
where interests overlapped that would help us both on
our long-term national security and our economy. And we succeeded. We succeeded in passing a
new START Treaty that reduced nuclear stockpiles for both
the United States and Russia. Russia joined the WTO, which bound them to a set
of international rules governing trade, which I think ultimately will
be good for the Russian economy, but is also good for its trading
partners and potential companies that are investing in Russia, and that includes
U.S. companies. We work together on
counterterrorism issues. They have provided us
significant assistance in supplying our troops
in Afghanistan. There were a whole host
of outcomes from that reset that were valuable to
the United States. Now, there's no doubt that,
as I indicated a while back, we've kind of hit a wall in
terms of additional progress. But I have not written off the
idea that the United States and Russia are going to continue
to have common interests even as we have some very
profound differences on some other issues. And where our interests overlap,
we should pursue common action. Where we've got differences,
we should be candid about them, try to manage those differences
but not sugarcoat them. One area where we've got a
significant difference right now is the situation in Syria. Russia has a longstanding
relationship with the Assad regime and, as a consequence,
it has been very difficult to get Russia, working through
the Security Council, to acknowledge some of
the terrible behavior of the Assad regime and
to try to push towards the kind of political
transition that's needed in order to stabilize Syria. And I've said to
Mr. Putin directly, and I continue to believe that
even if you have great concerns about elements in
the opposition -- and we've got some concerns
about certain elements of the opposition
like al Nusra -- and even if you're concerned about the territorial
integrity of Syria -- and we're concerned about the territorial
integrity of Syria -- if you, in fact, want to end the
violence and slaughter inside of Syria, then you're
going to have to have a political transition, because
it is not possible for Mr. Assad to regain legitimacy
in a country where he's killed tens of
thousands of his own people. That will not happen. So far, at least, Mr. Putin
has rejected that logic. As far as security action --
Security Council action -- we have gone repeatedly to the
Security Council for even the most modest of resolutions
condemning some of the actions that have taken place there, and
it has been resisted by Russia. And do I hold out hope that
Mr. Putin may change his position on some
of these issues? I'm always hopeful. And I will continue to engage
him because I think that international action would
be much more effective and ultimately we can end deaths
much more rapidly if Russia takes a different approach
to these problems. In terms of my decision to
take the issue to Congress, this had been brewing
in my mind for a while. Some people have noted --
and I think this is true -- that had I been in the Senate
in the midst of this period, I probably would have suggested
to a Democratic or a Republican President that Congress should
have the ability to weigh in on an issue like this
that is not immediate, imminent, time-sensitive. When the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, Mr. Dempsey, indicated to me that whether
we struck today, tomorrow, or a month from now, we could
still do so effectively, then I think that raised the
question of why not ask Congress to debate this in a serious way? Because I do think it raises
issues that are going to occur for us and for the
international community for many years to come. The truth of the matter is, is that under international law, Security Council resolution
or self-defense or defense of an ally provides a
clear basis for action. But increasingly, what we're
going to be confronted with are situations like Syria,
like Kosovo, like Rwanda, in which we may not always
have a Security Council that can act -- it may be paralyzed for
a whole host of reasons -- and yet we've got all
these international norms that we're interested
in upholding. We may not be directly,
imminently threatened by what's taking place in a Kosovo
or a Syria or a Rwanda in the short term, but our
long-term national security will be impacted in
a profound way, and our humanity is impacted
in a profound way. And so I think it's important
for us to get out of the habit in those circumstances --
again, I'm not talking about circumstances where our national
security is directly impacted, we've been attacked, et cetera,
where the President has to act quickly -- but in circumstances
of the type that I describe, it's important for us to get
out of the habit of just saying, well, we'll let the President
kind of stretch the boundaries of his authority
as far as he can; Congress will sit on the
sidelines, snipe; if it works, the sniping will be a
little less; if it doesn't, a little more; but either way,
the American people and their representatives are
not fully invested in what are tough choices. And we as a country and
the world are going to start having to
take tough choices. I do get frustrated -- although I understand
how complex this is, and any time you're
involving military action, then people will ask, well,
this may do more harm than good. I understand those arguments;
I wrestle with them every day. But I do have to ask
people, well, if, in fact, you're outraged by the
slaughter of innocent people, what are you doing about it? And if the answer is, well, we
should engage diplomatically -- well, we've engaged
diplomatically. If the answer is, well, we
should shine the spotlight and shame these governments -- well, these governments
oftentimes show no shame. Well, we should act
internationally -- well, sometimes because of
the various alignments it's hard to act through a
Security Council resolution. And so either we resign
ourselves to saying there's nothing we can do about it and
we'll just shake our heads and go about our business,
or we make decisions even when they're difficult. And I think this is an
example of where we need to make decisions even
though they're difficult. And I think it's
important for Congress to be involved in that decision. Prime Minister Reinfeldt:
I think I should
answer the question. I think you're right in saying
that this is a very difficult decision to take and, as
always, it's a balancing act. And we've been discussing
this during our talks. Just to remind you, you're now
in Sweden -- a small country with a deep belief in
the United Nations. You're also in a country where,
I think yesterday or the day before, we took the decision
that all the people that are now coming from the war in
Syria are allowed to stay permanently in Sweden. So a lot of the people following
this press conference here in Sweden are actually just
now coming from Syria and, of course, wondering what is
the view of their country. And they have a lot of their
countrymen also in this country, so we have a lot of
roots and links to Syria. I think the main problem has
been for two and a half years now that we have a war without
a clear political solution. And, that, at the end
of the day, must be -- we must get a cease-fire. We must get a peace process. We must get people to
talk to each other. I totally understand
the complex situation also on the opposition, because we have part
of the opposition also here in Sweden, which is now
conducted of different groups. They want to get Assad
out of the picture, but what do they want instead? That is, of course, a
question we need to attend to. The weapons inspection that
was present in Damascus is headed by a Swede. So in this country, of course,
we are asking for the time to be able to see what
were their findings, especially since President Obama
has sent the decision also to Congress. We think that that
gives us some more time, and we are welcoming that. Having said that, I also said I
understand the absolute problem of not having a reaction to use
of chemical weapons and what kind of signal that sends to
the world in a time where we are developing our view on
international law -- not saying that you're allowed to do
whatever you like to your own people as long as it's
inside your own borders, no. We have these -- we
need to protect people. We need to look at the
interest of each and every one. So this is the
development we are seeing. That's the same discussion
we are having in Sweden. So I understand, especially
the U.S. President needs to react; otherwise he will get
another kind of discussion. But this small country will
always say let's put our hope into the United Nations. Let us push on some more
to get a better situation. Of course, President Putin
has a responsibility in that; of course. Because everyone understands
that Russia and also China has been outside of the
decision-making that we would have needed a long time ago
to put more clear pressure and more political solution. So that is what we have
been discussing today. If you balance all
these sentences, that shows how
difficult this is. President Obama:
Thank you.
