14年3月24日：白宮新聞簡報會 (3/24/14: White House Press Briefing)

字幕列表影片播放

Mr. Carney: Thank you for being here.
Thank you for joining us on this trip.
Ben Rhodes, the President's Deputy
National Security Advisor for Strategic
Communications, is joining me today.
He can go over the meetings the President has
had today thus far as well as preview some of the
meetings he will have later today.
He'll take questions on those subjects or any
other subjects that you have for him and I will
stand by for questions on other matters.
With that, I give you Ben Rhodes.
Mr. Rhodes: Thanks, everybody.
And thanks for people joining us virtually.
I'll just give a brief readout of the President's
meetings this morning.
You saw his comments with the Prime Minister of the
Netherlands after their meeting.
I'd just note in particular that there was
strong agreement in their meeting about the need
to support the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian
government; to continue to impose costs on Russia
for its actions.
And as one of our key allies here in Europe
and in NATO, we'll be consulting closely with
the Dutch going forward.
We also very much welcome the announcement made
today by the Dutch to join the effort that the
United States is leading to end financing for coal-fired
plants abroad as part of our efforts
to combat climate change.
Turning to the meeting with President Xi
of China, first of all, the President expressed
his thanks, as he did publicly, for the welcome
and hospitality the First Lady and his family
has received in China.
The President also indicated his condolences
for the loss of life in the recent terrorist
attack in China, and also noted our determination
to work with the Chinese to continue to try to locate
the Malaysian airliner that has gone missing,
and expressed his sympathies to the Chinese families.
In terms of issues, the President reviewed
a number of global and bilateral
issues with China.
On climate change, the President stressed
a need for the United States and China to work together
to set a strong example in terms of reducing
our emissions as we head into the 2015 climate
negotiations; also noted the importance
of continuing to work together to phase
out HFCs, something that was committed
to at Sunnylands.
And we're working to bring other countries
into a global effort to phase out the use of HFCs.
On the situation in North Korea, the President
underscored the need for close coordination
in sending a clear message that there needs
to be denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and
that any discussions or dialogue among the six
parties around the situation in North Korea
needs to be based upon actions taken
by North Korea, which has not yet demonstrated
its willingness to come to the table seriously.
We've had good cooperation with China in applying
some pressure on North Korea,
but we as an international community need to continue
to insist that North Korea abide by its obligations.
On Iran, the President welcomed China's
leadership within the P5-plus-1,
where they've been a constructive partner.
The two leaders agreed that we have a good
opportunity here to reach a diplomatic resolution
to the Iranian nuclear issue.
The President reviewed a number of bilateral
economic issues, including our desire to continue
to see China move to a more flexible and market-based
exchange rate, expressing our concerns
in that regard.
The President also discussed a range
of other economic issues, including our continued interest
in seeing China move forward with the economic reform
package that President Xi has put forward,
the importance, for instance, of transparency
in Sino enterprises, and also the potential for greater
energy cooperation between our two countries.
On cybersecurity, the President once again
underscored the need for the U.S.
and China to cooperate closely on this issue.
He raised, again, our concerns about the theft
of trade secrets for commercial purposes,
reiterated that the United States does not engage
in intelligence for the purpose of gaining
a commercial advantage.
The two leaders welcomed the good progress
that's been made on military-to-military
exchanges and agreed to continue
to expand those exchanges.
On maritime security and regional security issues,
the President reiterated our concern over
the Chinese ADIZ that was recently announced.
He also expressed a concern over the need
to reduce tensions in the East and South China Sea,
noting that the United States is not a claimant.
He underscored the need for resolutions to these
issues based on dialogue and international law,
and expressed continued
U.S. support for that effort.
In that context, of course, the President
reiterated his support for the security of our
allies, Japan and the Philippines.
The two leaders also discussed the need to
cooperate on counterterrorism issues.
The President also raised issues related to human
rights and the rule of law in China, specifically
expressing concern over the recent
lack of visas to U.S.
media outlets like The New York Times and Bloomberg
and Voice of America.
On Ukraine, the President reiterated our interest
in seeing the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of Ukraine respected, reaching
a diplomatic resolution that deescalates the crisis
and allows for the Ukrainian people to make decisions
about their own future.
With that, we'd be happy to take your questions
on this or any other matters.
Yes, Steve.
The Press: Did it come up, the NSA report having
to do with China?
Did the Chinese President bring that up?
And, secondly, how do you interpret
this Russia troop buildup along the border?
Is that an ominous sign?
Do you see signs of --
Mr. Rhodes: Well, President Xi did raise
those recent reports in the context
of their discussion on cybersecurity.
What President Obama made clear to him is that,
again, the United States does not engage
in espionage to gain a commercial advantage.
We don't share information with our companies.
Both the United States and China, understandably,
like other countries in the world,
engage in intelligence activities on behalf
of our national security.
But there's a clear distinction, in our view,
between intelligence activities that have
a national security purpose versus intelligence
activities that have a commercial purpose.
And what we've tried to stress to the Chinese
in our cyber dialogue is that while we understand that
different nations are going to have approaches
to cybersecurity and intelligence collection,
that we need to cooperate in setting clear rules of
the road that wall off theft of tradecraft
related to commercial entities,
theft of intellectual property.
And so that was President Obama's message on those
issues generally, including
when those recent reports were raised.
With respect to the Russian troop movements,
we've been very concerned by the potential
for escalation into eastern and southern Ukraine.
We've monitored very closely Russian troop
movements along the border of Ukraine and,
frankly, it underscores the need for there
to be a de-escalation because any further steps into eastern
and southern Ukraine would represent
a very dangerous escalation of the situation.
At the same time, I think we've sent a clear message
that we are prepared to continue escalating
our response to Russia and imposing costs
for that type of activity.
To take one example, the executive order
the President signed gives us the authority
to sanction and designate major significant sectors
of the Russian economy.
And the message to Russia is clear:
They're already facing consequences.
They're already going to face costs.
Should there be any further escalation,
we have the ability, together with our partners here
in Europe and around the world,
to dramatically escalate those costs on Russia.
Jim.
The Press: In his interview with
de Volkskrant, the President was asked what
he would say the members of the EU with regard
to imposing heavy sanctions against Russia and he said,
"There have to be consequences.
And if Russia continues to escalate the situation,
we need to be prepared to impose a greater cost."
What the EU has announced has been short
of what the U.S. has --
the steps the U.S. has taken.
The economic sanctions are not as specific
as the executive order the President signed.
So I wonder what will we see from the G7 today
and the EU tomorrow that goes beyond just harsh rhetoric
against the Russians?
Mr. Rhodes: Jim, I'd say a few things.
First of all, the EU has moved with
us in a coordinated fashion and imposed
sanctions on Russia.
They've implemented visa bans, asset freezes,
designated individuals,
often in coordination with us.
Their lists coordinate broadly with ours,
for instance, in terms of the individuals
who we've designated.
They've also moved to politically isolate
Russia, cancelling several upcoming
meetings and engagements.
So we've had good cooperation to date.
And in that European Council statement,
they indicated clearly that there would
be broader for the Russian economy going
forward if the situation continues.
In terms of the meetings coming up with the G7,
I think what we want to send is a strong message
in several respects -- number one, that there will
be growing costs for Russia for its actions.
And frankly, Jim, the type of consequences
we'd like to see are what the President foreshadowed
in his executive order.
So we identified sectors of the Russian economy.
We believe that those broader sanctions have
the ability to send a powerful message to Russia
that it will face costs.
And so, consistent with the European Council's
statement that foreshadows consequences
for the Russian economy, I think out of that G7 meeting
we're looking to send a message that we're
not done with building out the types of sanctions
that we would impose upon Russia for its actions.
We'd also, though, I think, importantly,
with the G7, want to underscore our support
for the Ukrainian government and people,
our support for a very robust IMF package getting done as soon
as possible, and our support for individual member
states of the G7 and of the EU providing
assistance to the Ukrainians as well.
The Press: Is there any talk -- obviously a lot
of those sanctions are something
for the EU and in those countries.
Is there any talk in the conversation
with the Chinese President about China putting any economic
pressure on Russia?
Mr. Rhodes: They had a good
discussion on Ukraine.
Again, what the President said is China has always
held sovereignty and territorial integrity
as a core of its foreign policy and national security
approach and that that principle needs
to be applied to Ukraine, and that China's interest
should be in working with us to deescalate
the situation in a way that respects
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Chinese leader did affirm again
that the principle of the independence
and sovereignty of nations was fundamental
to their approach and that they did want
to see a de-escalation and a political
resolution to the conflict.
In terms of economic pressure,
the Chinese have not generally moved to the types of sanctions
that we have with the Europeans, so I think that would
be a more dramatic action on their part.
I think we would find it as a constructive step
for them to continue to refrain from
supporting Russia's action, and to speaking
out for the principle of the rule of
law, international law, and the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Doing so I think further isolates Russia
on the international stage, as they were at the U.N.
when it was a 13-1-1 vote in the Security Council.
The Press: Is there anything specific
that the President asked the Chinese
to do vis-à-vis Ukraine?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, I think his specific request
is one that he would make of any country,
which is that all of us have an interest
in an international system that upholds
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states,
and that that is the position that we would like to see China
stand behind in its international engagements.
And we're going to continue to work with them
to try to deescalate the situation.
Furthermore, China has a relationship with Russia
insofar as they can be constructive in urging
de-escalation and a political resolution --
they could play a constructive role in that
regard as well.
The Press: On the G7 meeting (inaudible) --
Mr. Rhodes: We'll also be discussing
that at the meeting.
I don't want to get ahead of it, but clearly
we believe that there's no reason
for the G7 countries to engage with Russia going forward based
on its behavior.
So I think the leaders will discuss
the upcoming future of the G7 and the G8.
I think the very fact of a G7 meeting here in the
Netherlands -- which is extraordinary
in its own right; it's not common for the
G7 to meet in a country that is not a G7 country itself --
I think speaks to both the need for the G7 to mobilize
as an entity to isolate Russia and support
the Ukrainian people, but also speaks
to Russia's isolation from an organization that they've
been a part of now for almost two decades.
The Press: Are you looking for any G7 sanctions --
Mr. Rhodes: No, we wouldn't.
We are looking to coordinate our sanctions
in the G7.
The G7 as an entity doesn't impose sanctions,
but every member state of the G7 has already imposed
sanctions -- because in addition to the United
States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy,
Canada and Japan have also come along with us in
imposing sanctions as well -- Germany, of course.
So what we want to do is take the G7 as a platform
to coordinate the national actions that we're taking
and then to work with our European partners
as they formulate responses through the EU
and European Council so that we have the strongest
unified voice in imposing sanctions --
because the more we coordinate the designation of individuals
and entities and potentially sectors
of the Russian economy, the more that's going to have
an impact on Russia.
The Press: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Rhodes: I think what you'll have is you've seen
a steady ratcheting up of the pressure on Russia.
You've seen a response to that ratcheting up,
continued market plummeting in Russia,
downgrading of Russia as a place to do business,
investors staying away from Russia.
So we are already seeing the impact of sanctions.
I think we would like to see a steady ratcheting
up of that pressure.
I think the outcomes that we're seeking
in the coming days are a continued unified front
in terms of our ability to impose sanctions and
to go further as necessary; continued support
for our Eastern European NATO allies to reassure them
of our commitment to their security;
and also, importantly, robust economic assistance
from the IMF to individual member states
to provide the support that the Ukrainian people
in government really need at this time.
The Press: So two questions --
and it was hard to hear some of the questions,
so I apologize if I repeat, but are there specific things
that you want to come out of
this G7 meeting tonight, specific statements?
Are you hoping that there will be a formal
declaration that Russia is no longer a part
of the G8 and it's now the G7?
And is there some way to measure how well
the discussion goes by trying to get a sense
of what you're hoping the seven nations actually agree
to coming out of it tonight?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, what I think we'd like
to see coming out of it is, again, a foreshadowing
of what economic sanctions Russia will be faced
with if it continues down this course; a commitment
to provide support to the Ukrainian people
that's going to lead to concrete outcomes --
an IMF package, economic assistance that reaches
the people and government of Ukraine --
reassurance for the allies here in Europe who are eyeing
very warily the events in Ukraine;
continued political isolate of Russia.
And with respect to the future of the G7,
that's something that the leaders will discuss tonight.
Our view is simply that as long as Russia
is flagrantly violating international law
and the order the G7 has helped to build since the end
of the Cold War, there's no need
for the G7 to engage with Russia.
And so I'm sure that that's a topic
that the leaders will take up as well.
The Press: Not to put too fine a point on this,
but are you saying that the President will be seeking
expulsion of Russia from the G8?
Is that what you're saying?
I know you're saying you don't want to get ahead,
but it sure sounds like
that's what you're suggesting.
Mr. Rhodes: I don't want to suggest --
what we're looking at is how we engage with Russia
in the coming months and years.
The G7 is an entity.
If there came a point where Russia would
deescalate the situation and abide by international
law, we would not want to foreclose the potential
that the G7 would engage with them.
So I'm speaking more about how do we engage
with Russia going forward here in the context
of the crisis in Ukraine.
Again, the door is open for Russia to deescalate
the situation, to abide by international law,
to come back in line with the international community.
I think the message is, so long as they don't
do that, they're outside the rules of the road.
And I'd just note one other thing,
which is that people speak of a new Cold War.
The fact is Russia is leading
no bloc of countries.
There's no ideological entity,
like communism, that Russia is leading that has global appeal.
There's no bloc of nations,
like the Warsaw Pact, that they're leading.
They're isolated in what they're doing in Ukraine.
And I think that's very much the message
that we want to send at the G7, with the EU,
with NATO over the course of the next several days.
The Press: On flight 370, Malaysia flight 370 --
has the Malaysian government communicated anything
to the White House in terms of what has happened
to that flight?
What have you heard?
Mr. Rhodes: Yes, we've been in very regular
contact, as you know, with the Malaysian government.
We have teams on the ground that
are working with them on a daily basis.
The Prime Minister's announcement today tracks
with, frankly, where we've dedicated our assets,
which is in the Indian Ocean, in pursuit
of recovering the flight.
So we feel like we have very good lines
of communication with the Malaysians.
We're going to continue to support them.
We have resources dedicated, as we speak,
not just to the investigation,
but also to the recovery of the plane if we can locate it.
And we're focused, as the Prime Minister said,
on that southern corridor.
The Press: How concerned are we about
the Russian military movement on the border with Ukraine?
The comments from NATO military commander,
concern about what they may be doing.
The Ukrainian Foreign Minister yesterday
said he thinks chances of all-out war with Russia are
higher than they have ever been.
And there was also the suggestion out of NATO
that Russia may reposition itself
to move into Moldova.
What is our current sense of how concerned
we are about Russia's next step?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, again, our current sense
is that we are deeply concerned about Russian movements
along that border.
We are watching it very closely, as is NATO,
as is the Ukrainian government.
And again, we believe that Russia stands an enormous
amount to lose in terms of economic pressure,
international isolation should they take
this escalatory step of moving into Ukraine.
There is a pathway to deescalate, but if they
don't want to take that they're going to be faced
with growing pressure, condemnation, sanctions
from the international community.
With respect to Moldova, similarly,
the President met with the leader of Moldova recently
at the White House.
So did the Vice President.
We've expressed our support for their
sovereignty and territorial integrity,
and we believe that there, too, we would strongly
stand up for the principle that Moldova should
be able to make determinations
about its own future.
Again, that's further down the line.
We have not seen actions taken yet
that directly compromise Moldova's security,
although we would note that we watch very closely
the situation in Transnistria and our position is going
to be very clear in support of Moldova
and its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Press: -- an army preparing to invade
or is it consistent with the Russians' plan,
which is military exercises?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, the Russians have claimed
a lot of things in recent days that didn't bear out.
So they've said that these
are for the purposes of exercises.
We'll see whether or not the troop movements
are consistent with military exercises.
We believe that there's every reason
to be skeptical of Russian assertions,
which is why we're watching the situation very closely,
as are the Ukrainians.
I'd note that to date the Ukrainians have shown
extraordinary restraint in how they've responded
to the situation in Crimea, in particular,
but also more broadly.
And that continues today with the manner
in which they are pulling back their forces in Crimea.
The Press: This is the first time a lot of these
leaders have gotten together since the crisis
in Crimea, and I wonder -- any atmospherics
in the sense of either shock or dismay about what
Russia has done, and if the President is bringing
to this meeting a sense of urgency about what's
at stake for all the things he's talked about,
like collective security and international law,
taking a stand against Russia.
Is he using this as an opportunity to identify
this as a huge turning point, potentially?
And is that working?
Mr. Rhodes: Absolutely, we come here, Major,
with a sense of urgency.
And it's not just because these are things
the President has spoken about.
These are things that all of these institutions
have built over many years in terms of respect
for international law, respect for nations to make
their own decisions, leaving behind the days
in which major powers made decisions about
the futures of other countries over their heads.
That's what the EU is
about. That's what NATO is about.
That's, frankly, what the United Nations is about.
And so what Russia has done is in violation
of that entire international order that
has been built up over many decades.
And it's for that purpose that we are focusing
on this issue here.
We have the right people at the table to have
that discussion at the G7 here today, and on Wednesday
in Brussels, the President will meet with leaders
of the European Union, with the leaders of NATO,
to underscore that message.
And we do feel that leaders are coming
to the table with a sense of urgency because this
is a matter of not just European security,
it's a matter of whether the international order
that all of us are so invested in can stand
up to this Russian aggression.
And as I said, what's different about the past,
what's different about now versus the Cold War,
is that Russia is finding itself totally alone.
It does not have some bloc of nations
that is standing with it in support of its position
in violating Ukraine's sovereignty.
They are isolated among these nations
that are gathered here at the Nuclear Security Summit
and they are going to find themselves more isolated
if they do not take steps to de-escalate
this crisis and engage in dialogue with the government
in Kyiv and to pull back their forces.
The Press: Quickly back to the plane.
I just wanted to specifically try --
the Malaysian Prime Minister also said that he believes
all lives have been lost on that plane based
on the new analysis they've had.
I just wonder, specifically,
has the President been briefed on that piece of information
either by the Malaysians or by White House
officials, and does that assessment
square with what the U.S.
believes about the flight?
Mr. Rhodes: Ed, we'll have
to get our own independent confirmation on that.
We obviously noted the
Malaysian Prime Minister's statement.
They are very much in the lead
for this investigation.
We're sharing information.
But I don't want to indicate that
we have independent confirmation of the fate
of the passengers on that plane.
What we are focused on is the same southern
corridor space where we've dedicated our resources
in trying to recover the plane.
And so that's where our current focus is.
The President is briefed on a daily basis about
our efforts to support the Malaysian government
and to locate the airliner.
We'll continue to do that.
The Press: This is on Ukraine.
Mitt Romney went on CBS yesterday and claimed
that he believes the President is naïve
on Ukraine and Russia.
Dick Durbin, another Democrat, pushed back
on that, but I wonder if the White House wants
to weigh in.
Mr. Rhodes: Well, look, we've been very clear-eyed
about our Russia policy from when we came
into office, which is that we will cooperate when
we have common interests and we can form common
positions, but we'll be very clear
when we have differences.
And it was the right thing to do to pursue
cooperation in the beginning of the
administration that helped us put in place Iran
sanctions; that helped us supply our troops
in Afghanistan; that helped us reach the New START
Treaty; and frankly, helped us to advance
in some of the nuclear security objectives
we were talking about here at the summit,
like the removal of highly-enriched uranium from
a number of countries.
At the same time, we've stood up to Russia
when we've had differences.
And there's nothing new about
the United States and Russia having differences.
I would note that, as we've said before,
we've heard this criticism that somehow the President's
inaction in terms of taking military --
using military force in Syria has anything
to do with the situation in Crimea or Ukraine.
When George Bush was President we went
to war in Iraq, we went to war in Afghanistan;
that did not in any way deter Russia from going
into Georgia in 2008.
So time and again, we have seen the Russians
push the boundaries of international law,
particularly when it relates to countries
that are near their borders.
And what we're doing is standing up to that
aggression and mobilizing the entire international
community to stand up to that aggression.
And, frankly, in terms of the steps
that we've outlined and the steps that we're taking,
they go far beyond any previous steps that have
been taken in response to Russian aggression.
In terms of the sanctions that you saw not just
on Russian officials but on members of Vladimir
Putin's inner circle, in terms of designating
for potential sanction sectors to the Russian economy,
that goes well beyond any response, for instance,
to the incursion into Georgia.
So we believe we have a record of standing
up for our interests.
Again, that means working with countries
when we have overlapping interests, which was the
case with Russia earlier in the administration.
But, increasingly, as Russia has taken a different turn, particularly under
President Putin, that involves standing up and
mobilizing the international community
to isolate Russia when they take the types of steps
that they've taken.
The Press: Hey, Ben, I want to go back
to your readout on China.
When you were asked specifically if China
would participate in any of the sanctions,
you essentially said, no, that they'd talked about
the importance of sovereignty.
And then you said before that everybody that's
attending this summit is basically
of the position of isolating Russia.
Is there something substantial that China
is going to do vis-à-vis Russia
in punishing them in some way or participating
in this isolation, beyond this readout?
Is there something tangible that
you can point to?
Mr. Rhodes: Look, I think it matters --
Russia cares a lot about its standing in the world,
its world position.
And it matters if traditional friends of
Russia cannot express support for their
position, and indeed -- or express support for the
principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity
that Russia is currently violating.
We've said that the costs that Russia is going
to face run across the board.
A big piece of those, and the most significant thing
we can do, frankly, is impose economic
costs on Russia.
And that's what we're doing with our sanctions,
and those are already sinking in.
We've said we can politically isolate them
by separating them from institutions like the G7;
by cancelling the types of engagements that the U.S.
and the EU traditionally has with Russia.
But also, it's a blow to their international
standing when they are not able
to look and find support for their positions.
That's what happened at the United Nations.
So that is a consequence for Russia.
It is going to lead to an erosion of Russia's
position in the world.
And I think the reason is, is because they're
in violation of the international order.
And as I said, China, as they speak to their
own national security interests, has always
put front and center this notion of sovereignty
and territorial integrity when you look at different
regions of China, like Tibet.
And so it's very much in their interests to stand
up for the notion that a nation should make
decisions about its own future and not have
external actors come in and make
those decisions for them.
And that's the conversation we'll
continue to have with China going forward.
The Press: So you're saying because China
is not supporting the Russian government in their move
in Crimea, that that in itself is significant?
Mr. Rhodes: I would say that if you look
at the pattern, Chuck, just of voting at the
U.N. Security Council, generally
China and Russia are aligned.
Generally, they're aligned on political and security
issues on the world stage.
And it says something when Russia is completely
isolated as they were
at the United Nations Security Council.
And it, I think, foreshadows a future that
Russia is going to face if they continue down this
course where they can't even look at traditional
places for full support for their positions.
And they're just going to face continued
isolation if they don't take this opportunity to deescalate
the situation.
The Press: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Rhodes: We are -- the way -- we are in the sense
that when you target certain individuals
and entities, it has a chilling effect
on the broader economy.
So I think it's important to understand that when
we sanction individuals with significant resources
who are in President Putin's inner circle, when we
sanction a bank that is associated with one of
those individuals, not only does that have
a direct impact on them, but it has a broader chilling
effect on the Russian economy that makes
investors think twice about putting
their money into Russia.
That has an effect, a knock-on effect on the
ruble, on the Russian market in ways that
sanctioning me does not have
on the U.S. market
and the U.S. currency.
The Press: I know we talked a lot about
the possibility still of de-escalation,
but can you give us a sense, even a general sense,
of what de-escalation would be at this point?
Because wouldn't you agree that there's really
no way Russia is going to leave Crimea at this point?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, again, the path to de-escalation
is open to Russia in part because the government
in Ukraine has indicated a willingness
to have a discussion about how to ensure that ethnic
Russians, for instance, are protected
within their territory.
For instance, the government of Ukraine
has indicated an openness to having a dialogue
on constitutional reform.
As a part of that, they could look at autonomy
for regions like Crimea.
They can look at different solutions to provide
an assurance that people in different regions
and people of different ethnicities
are being protected.
But, frankly, they should not have that conversation
in the context of military threats and coercion.
So what we've said to the Russians is:
Deescalate the situation; put it back onto a political
and diplomatic track; pull back your forces;
engage in a discussion directly with the government
in Kyiv -- not over their heads.
The international community
will support that process.
And precisely because the government of Ukraine
has indicated a willingness to pursue
constitution reform, and precisely because
they have an election coming up in the spring,
there is a pathway that could be taken that could
lead to a de-escalation of the situation.
We have not seen Russia take that pathway yet,
which is why we've pivoted to the pressure that we've
applying, but we've kept the diplomatic lines open
and we'll continue to urge the Russians to engage
in that dialogue directly with
the Ukrainian government.
The Press: Just one quick question, Ben.
There are 58 leaders here; is the President going
to try to build consensus among them so that maybe
something can be written up against what
Russia has done in Crimea?
Something will appear in the declaration
or on the side of the declaration?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, I think we're engaging with
enough nations and entities that we can send that message
through the outcome of the G7 meeting,
through the U.S.-EU Summit that is upcoming on Wednesday,
through the meeting with NATO on Wednesday,
and some of the President's bilateral engagements.
The Nuclear Security Summit is going to remain
focused on the agenda at hand,
which is securing nuclear materials so they can't fall
in the hands of terrorists.
We had some important announcements today,
including Japan taking an historic step
to get rid of an enormous quantity of
highly-enriched uranium and plutonium.
We want to continue to encourage other nations
to take similar steps and build
up their security practices.
I'd note that Ukraine was one of the countries
that showed leadership in recent years in getting
rid of its highly-enriched uranium as well.
So the Nuclear Security Summit is going to
continue to tackle that agenda, but if you look
at all the President's other engagements with the
relevant transatlantic and European security
and political entities, as well as his bilateral
engagements on the margins of the summit,
we will be able to touch a broad representation of that
leadership that is here at the summit in The Hague,
and I think sent a clear message on where
we are in Ukraine.
The Press: I want to talk real quick
on the plane crash.
Is the announcement by the Malaysian Prime Minister
today -- and I know Malaysia is handling
the investigation primarily, but does the announcement
this afternoon give you guys any more clarity
on what presumably happened to this plane,
whether it was a mechanical failure
or something more sinister?
Mr. Rhodes: I don't want to get ahead
of that determination yet.
I think the Malaysian Prime Minister was
speaking above all to the location in which
they're focused now in the southern corridor.
So I don't think determinations have
been made about the cause.
But we'll continue to support them as they
work to locate the plane and also to try
to make a determination on the cause.
The Press: Is the FBI still investigating?
Mr. Rhodes: The FBI is still working with the
Malaysians, as is the NTSB, the FAA,
and all our other entities.
The Press: Are you facing any reluctance from the
Europeans to go along with the sort of wide sanctions
that you're wanting to do against Russia --
financial sector, energy sectors?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, look, clearly, we know that
those have an enormous impact.
And as the President said in his own statement,
those would be an impact on the global economy;
those would have an impact on the European economy.
But we believe it's necessary to be prepared
to use that leverage and to impose
those costs on Russia.
And we've had, frankly, good talks with the
Europeans about it.
Their announcements, again, the other day
tracked roughly what we were announcing in terms
of political isolation, individual designations,
but also an indication that we would move towards
broader consequences for the Russian
economy going forward.
So I think they get it.
Obviously, they are critical in making that
cost higher for Russia, given the interconnection
between the European and Russian economy.
But we believe we've had good cooperation.
The President has talked to Chancellor Merkel
about this, Prime Minister Cameron,
President Hollande.
We believe that they are moving with
us in lockstep in terms of how we're looking at sanctions.
We're also looking at things like energy
cooperation in terms of how we deal
with the current situation.
And the President has designated
Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz to engage
in a dialogue with Russia -- sorry, with Europe about how
they can continue to diversify some of their energy sources,
which could be a mitigating factor
in terms of their concerns about the sanctions that
may be imposed on Russia, including
on the Russian energy sector.
So we'll continue that side of the dialogue
as well in the days to come.
The Press: In stressing economic sanctions
to Ukraine you're still facing a problem with
Congress in trying to get that package through,
and reluctance from House Republicans to accept
the IMF quota reforms.
two in order to get this through quickly 0:39:05.834,1193:02:47.295 Is the administration willing to decouple those
and to provide an example to the rest of the Europeans?
Mr. Rhodes: The fact is, Jim, that you can't
decouple the IMF quota reform from the support
package to Ukraine because it has a direct impact
on the ability of the IMF to provide a more robust
assistance package to the Ukrainian government
on the order of several billion in additional
funds that could be available
in an IMF package.
So we believe that the bill that is making
its way through the Senate is, frankly,
the right approach, because it couples, again,
both punitive measures on the Russian government,
$1 billion in loan guarantees and additional technical
assistance for the Ukrainian government,
but also that quota reform, which is going to allow
for a substantially larger IMF package
for the Ukrainian government.
So people in the House who talk about supporting
Ukraine can't decouple the IMF piece from what
the Ukrainians need because, frankly,
the best thing that could happen for the Ukrainian economy today
is for a very robust IMF package
to be put in place.
That would stabilize their economy.
That would strengthen the government in Kyiv.
That would allow them to move forward with reform.
That would allow them to meet the basic needs
of their people and strengthen
them vis-à-vis any Russian attempt
to destabilize the government.
So our message is clear to Congress:
If you want to support the Ukrainian government,
you need to support this IMF package as well as the loan
guarantee program that is making
its way through the Senate.
The Press: Hey, Ben, it's Julie.
Mr. Rhodes: Double AP here.
The Press: Double AP.
You guys have glossed over this a little bit,
including in Michelle's question here --
but is Crimea gone?
Can you just lay that out for us?
Mr. Rhodes: If you look at the nations of the world,
there is a broad rejection of the referendum.
So the United States doesn't recognize the
results of the referendum;
Europe doesn't recognize the results of the referendum.
I think if you look across Asia, Africa and the
Americas, there are not a lot of takers
for recognizing an illegal annexation
of a part of another country.
So, in that regard, we're just not going
to recognize a new status quo that allows for the
annexation of one piece of Ukraine over the heads
of the Ukrainian government.
The Press: If the U.S. and
other countries don't recognize it,
does that change anything for Russia?
Is Russia going to in any way change the treaty
that they signed for annexation?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, what I will be candid about,
Julie, is that clearly we have to affect the
calculus of the Russian government here over time.
And the tools that we are giving ourselves
with these sanctions have the ability to do that.
And, frankly, what has to happen is the Russian
leadership needs to see that ultimately this
is leading into a dead-end for them of greater
economic pain, of greater international isolation.
But we see Crimea as part of that.
To be clear, we've already taken steps based
on what they've done in Crimea.
So while we're deeply concerned about escalation
into eastern and southern Ukraine, which would
be a very dangerous and destabilizing move
by the Russian government, our concerns about what
they've already done in Crimea stand.
The Press: Just to go back to the readout of the
meeting with President Xi, are China and the United
States on the same page regarding Russia
and Ukraine, or is there a difference there?
How would you describe that half of the meeting?
Mr. Rhodes: Look, Jeff, candidly,
obviously the United States in general is far more willing
to move towards the use of aggressive,
punitive actions like sanctions not just with respect
to the situation in Ukraine, but with respect to other
international issues -- precisely because,
by the way, the Chinese have a principle
of respecting the sovereignty of other countries.
So, clearly, we are going to go farther in terms
of the punitive measures that we're going
to impose on Russia.
Where we want to be on the same page
is on this principle that sovereignty and territorial
integrity and the independence of nation states
is the abiding principle of the international system
and needs to be the abiding principle that deescalates
and resolves the situation in Ukraine.
And there we believe the Chinese have been very
clear in their expressions of support for
de-escalation, a political resolution,
and their general commitment to the territorial integrity
and sovereignty of nation states, including Ukraine.
Carol.
The Press: (Inaudible.)
Mr. Rhodes: I don't have any update on that.
You will have to go to State on that.
The Press: Can you talk about how (inaudible)
Russia's ability to veto efforts on other issues
like Iran and Syria?
In the President's interview, he said that
it was Russia's responsibility to
(inaudible) on chemical weapons in Syria.
So you have to acknowledge the power that Russia
has of -- its ability to (inaudible)
transition in Syria.
So do you anticipate or have you seen
any change in their posture (inaudible)
in terms of Iran or Syria?
Mr. Rhodes: Well, if you look at the Syria chemical
weapons issue, that's actually moving in very
good pace, and we're about at the 50-percent
milestone in terms of Syrian chemical weapons
being removed from the country,
taken into the custody of the international community.
So on the chemical weapons issue
we've seen continued cooperation.
Russia has invested a lot in that project.
Frankly, they have nothing to gain from seeing that
project go off the rails, in large part because
there are extremists in Syria that Russia
doesn't want to have -- gain access to chemical weapons
who might pose a risk to them.
So on the chemical weapons issue
we've had good cooperation.
Frankly, more broadly, Russia has not been
cooperative on Syria in general in terms
of the political resolution, in terms of some of the
humanitarian access that we sought.
So we'll continue, again, to try to pursue those
ends, but it's not as if we were dealing from
a position of very strong cooperation
from Russia on non-chemical weapons-related
issues in Syria.
Similarly, on Iran, Russia has no interest
in destabilization or nuclear proliferation
or conflict in the Persian Gulf.
That's why they've been invested
in the P5-plus-1 talks.
To date, we've seen no change in their
posture in those talks.
The political directors just
met last week in Vienna.
So we haven't seen a change.
And, frankly, Russia would only be isolating
themselves from the world further if they were
to walk away from an entity like the P5-plus-1
that they've been a part of for several years now.
And the last thing I'd say on this is that the
Iranians, they have an interest in gaining access
to the global economy, to European
and other markets.
So the incentive for them is to not just
make some agreement with Russia.
The incentive for Iran in these discussions
is to reach a comprehensive resolution with
all of the parties that are at the table.
Ultimately, that's what's going to bring
the sanctions relief that they're seeking.
The Press: Ben, you just mentioned the Russian
interests, and you've been telling us about how this
really upended a lot of the architecture
that's been in place and a lot of assumptions made about
Russia based on their behavior.
Ambassador McFaul argues that Putin pivoted away
from his strategy, becoming more integrated
in the world economy by doing this.
And I'm wondering if you have a clear sense
anymore for what their interests are, and if the interests
are the same of what you thought they'd
be in a place like Iran or anyplace else.
Mr. Rhodes: Well, I think Ambassador McFaul
made a number of good arguments that, frankly, represent
the type of analysis that we've had,
which is that clearly by doing what he's done in Ukraine,
President Putin and the Russian leadership is acting with
the knowledge that they're going to face pressure
from the international community
and the United States.
Frankly, we believe that we can over-perform
in terms of the types of sanctions that
we put on Russia.
We believe that the types of sanctions that we put
in place last week, for instance,
went far beyond anything that Russia has faced
in the post-Cold War era.
So they're in new territory here, too.
The question is, to what lengths
will President Putin and the Russian government
go to, particularly in the countries that
are on their borders, what lengths will
they go to and at what cost to them in terms
of international isolation and economic pressure.
Ultimately, what we've said very clearly
since the Cold War is that we want to integrate Russia
into the global economy, that Russia has a place
in the community of nations and a significant place,
given their role in the world.
However, that's got to be based on them playing by
the rules.
So they can't have one set of rules in the former
Soviet states and another set of rules
in the rest of the world.
And I think that's what's at stake right now --
is that the same rules that apply in any country
in the world have to apply in Ukraine, have to apply
in Moldova; certainly apply in NATO allies
like Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.
And that's really what's at stake in this conflict.
And I think President Putin needs to understand
over time that the costs to him are going
to be extraordinary in terms of Russia's international
standing and its economic position.
So we'll have the G7 meeting this evening.
And then the President has dinner hosted by the King
and with the other leaders here at the summit.
And we'll get you additional readouts
of those meetings to come.
Mr. Carney: Thanks, everybody.
Thanks to everyone in the filing center.