Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:
I'm sorry if we've
kept you waiting.
Let me just begin by
saying what a great
pleasure it is for me
to welcome President Obama
again to my house
and to be able
to meet all of you.
I would just like to say that
there have been those
who have been saying
that there is tension between
the United States and
the National League
for Democracy or
perhaps with me.
I would like to make it quite
clear that the friendship
between the United States and
those who have been struggling
for democracy in Burma
is a very strong one.
We may view things
differently from time to time
but it will in no way
affect our friendship.
And I have absolute confidence
that the United States will
continue to support us with
regard to the democratic
transformation and that
when Burma becomes a fully
functioning democracy in
accordance with the will
of the people, we
will be able to say
that among those friends who enabled us to get there,
the United States
was among the first.
So please don't think
-- please don't worry
that there will be any problems
between the United States
and those working
for democracy in Burma.
We all believe in
the same values.
We all believe in
the same principles.
We may sometimes think that
there are different ways
of getting to the goal
that we wish to achieve,
but these differences are part
of the democratic tradition.
Democracy allows people
to have different views,
and democracy makes it also --
makes us also responsible
for negotiating an answer
for those views.
I would like all of you to
feel welcome in this country,
and I would like all of you to
feel that you can join us
in hoping for
better days.
But at the same time, I always
warn against over-optimism
because that could
lead to complacency.
Our reform process
is going through,
let's just say,
a bumpy patch.
But this bumpy patch
is something that
we can negotiate
with commitment and with
the help and
understanding of our
friends from all
over the world.
So let us not exaggerate
the differences
and the
difficulties.
But at the same
time, let us not
exaggerate the rosy
picture either.
What we need
is a healthy balance
between optimism
and pessimism.
We need to view the
situation for what it was.
But at the same time, we all
have to be confident that
we will get there -- we will
get where we want to get to,
because that's what
our people want.
In the end, it's
the people of Burma who
will decide where this
country is going
to and which
way and how and when.
So we accept responsibility
for the state of our country,
but at the same time
we welcome the support
and the help
of our friends.
And we always appreciate
them very greatly.
Thank you.
President Obama: Well,
good afternoon, everybody.
Mingalaba.
It is wonderful to be back in
Rangoon and to once more
have the opportunity to spend
time with Aung San Suu Kyi.
As we know, it was in this
house that she endured years
of confinement -- never
giving up hope,
never wavering in her
determination to build
a free and
democratic Burma.
Daw Suu, you helped set this
country on a better path.
I'm grateful for
your friendship and for
the hospitality that you've
shown in opening your home
up not only to me, but
to all these people.
When I made my first
historic visit to Burma,
this country was just
taking preliminary
steps towards
democracy.
And in the past two
years, important changes
have been made.
The economy has begun to grow.
Political prisoners
have been set free.
There are more newspapers
and media outlets.
Children have been
released from the military.
And these are all important
changes that have opened up
greater opportunity for
the people of Burma.
At the same time, as Aung
San Suu Kyi just said,
it's clear how much
hard work remains to be done
and that many difficult
choices still lie ahead.
The process for reform is by no
means complete or irreversible.
For many, progress has not
come fast enough
or spread
far enough.
People need to feel safe in
their homes and not be subject
to arbitrary harassment
by authorities
or individuals
acting with impunity.
People need to be empowered
to pursue their dreams.
And as Burma approaches
important national elections
next year, it will
be critical to ensure
that all of Burma's
people can participate
in shaping the future
of their country.
As a member of parliament and
the head of the rule of law
committee, Aung San Suu
Kyi is working hard to make
government more transparent,
more accountable,
to protect the rights of
all the Burmese people,
to promote reforms that would
expand the political space
for more people to
contribute their voices.
But implementing the major
political and economic reforms
that are necessary to keep Burma
advancing toward democracy
is going to take a great
deal of political will
and no small amount
of determination.
And we, as friends of
the Burmese people,
are clear-eyed about the scale
of the challenges that remain,
and recognize that we
cannot remain complacent.
Today, Daw Suu and I had a
wide-ranging discussion about
how the United States
can help facilitate
and bolster Burma's
democratic transition.
We talked about the need
for stronger rule of law,
for elections that are
free, fair and inclusive,
and for continued constitutional
changes that will move Burma
more fully towards a
civilian government.
We spoke about how we can
work together to promote
national reconciliation
and defuse
sectarian tensions among
Burma's diverse ethnic groups.
Specifically, I stressed
the need to find durable
and effective solutions
for the terrible violence
in Rakhine state -- solutions
that end discrimination,
provide greater security
and economic opportunities,
protect all
citizens, and promote
greater tolerance
and understanding.
Strengthening human rights
protections for all of Burma's
people is an essential step to
realizing the vision we share
for the future of this
beautiful country.
The last time I stood here, I
made a pledge to the people of
Burma -- that if we continued
to see progress toward reform,
the ties between our
countries would grow stronger,
and the United States would
continue to do whatever it could
to help ensure
Burma's success.
Over the last two years, I think
we've made good on that pledge,
and I want to reiterate the
commitment to match continued
reforms with greater support
and friendships in the future.
We're committed to
working directly with
the people of Burma, and
not just the government.
So later today, I'm looking
forward to speaking
with representatives of Burma's
civil society groups and
with young leaders from Burma
and all across Southeast Asia
who are working to create
greater opportunities
for themselves and for
future generations.
I think these new voices are
going to be critical to making
sure that reforms are
sustainable and meaningful to
people across the country
and across the region.
So, Daw Suu, thank you again
for welcoming us here today.
We continue to look to you for
inspiration as well as resolve,
and I know that you will
continue to be a fierce advocate
on behalf of the people
of Burma, a future
of democracy,
and I know that you will
be a strong partner with
the United States.
Thank you.
Questions?
Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi: Who's speaking?
President Obama:
I'll go first.
Christi Parsons.
The Press:
You have been traveling
in countries
with long And it
was interesting yesterday that President Xi seemed to be saying
that reporters who have problems have themselves to blame.
And so I wonder to
what extent you feel
the need to contend
with these ideas with
leaders in this region
as you travel.
And what do
you say to them?
And by way of example,
I might ask you --
(inaudible)
Attorney General
Eric Holder says --
no journalist will
go to jail on his watch.
And I just wonder if
that's -- are you speaking
specifically about
this case, and is that
your position as well?
And if I may,
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
ask you -- how concerned are
you about the violence
against ethnic minorities
in your country,
and specifically
the Rohingya people?
And what do
you believe
is your responsibility
to speak out about it?
Thank you very much.
President Obama:
The issue of press freedom
is a constant concern in my interactions
with the
Chinese government.
It's an issue
that I've raised
with the President
here in Burma.
I'm pretty blunt and pretty
frank about the fact
that societies that repress
journalists ultimately oppress
people as well, and that if you
want a society that is free
and vibrant and successful, part
of that formula is the free flow
of information, of ideas, and
that requires a free press.
That is part
of our tradition.
As I explained to President
Xi in China, it's in our DNA.
We believe in the primacy
individuals being able
to pursue their dreams, endowed
with certain inalienable rights.
And we believe that when
governments censor
or control information, that
ultimately that undermines
not only the society,
but it leads to
eventual encroachments on individual rights as well.
I can't comment, Christi, on
any particular pending case,
as you know -- that's sort
of an iron-clad rule --
203
00:11:13,039 --> 00:11:12,071
or any particular
prosecution.
I can read back to you what
Attorney General Holder
has said, which is
no journalist is going
to go to jail
for doing their job.
And I don't think you're
suggesting that there's
-- that the two cases
are comparable.
But I recognize that in our own
society we have to constantly
balance the need for certain
national security issues
to remain secret with
journalists pursuing leads
wherever they can.
And the good news is,
is that we've got courts
and we've got
a First Amendment.
And we got a whole bunch of
tools to ensure that
that balance is properly
debated and adjudicated.
But I think that
when I am traveling,
it is important as the President
of the United States to not just
talk about our interests, but
also to talk about our values.
Sometimes it has an impact;
sometimes it doesn't.
Although I was impressed that
Mark Landler got an answer to
his question from
President Xi.
It might not have been
the one he was expecting,
but he did end up
taking the question.
So you just keep
on chipping away
and seeing if we
can make progress.
The Press:
(Off-mic.)
President Obama:
Hold on a second, Christi.
Don't try to segue
into a second question.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:
I think I better take over
(inaudible) my time as well.
President Obama:
There you go.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:
The National League
for Democracy always
has been against violence
of any kind, either
on the racial grounds,
or religious grounds, or ideological grounds.
We do not believe that violence
really results in (inaudible).
Our struggle for democracy
has been carried out with
a strong grasp on the
principle of nonviolence.
And also, we believe
in the rule of law.
So if you ask how do we propose
to resolve all of these problems
of violence between communities,
between different ethnic groups,
we've got to start
with rule of law.
People have to feel secure
before they can start
talking to
one another.
We cannot achieve
harmony without security.
People who feel threatened
are not going to sit down
and sort out
their problems.
So I would like to recommend, as
the chair of the Rule of Law
and Tranquility Committee
-- don't forget that tranquility
is also included --
that the government
should look to
rule of law.
It is the duty of the government
to make all our people feel
secure, and it is the duty of
our people to learn to live
in harmony with
one another.
If we want democracy,
we have to be prepared
to live by the
principles of democracy.
We have to dare
to live according
to the principles
of democracy.
I think we'll get there, but
it will take us some time.
But we will remain
fully committed
to the principle
of nonviolence.
The Press: Mr. President,
I'd like to know
about the
Myanmar reforms.
You've been talking
with the President
and parliament speakers,
and also you're going to talk
with the civil societies
group, and then youth.
So my question to you is that:
Have you got any specific
agreement with
the Myanmar government
or President Thein Sein
about Myanmar reforms
such as constitutional change, and peace negotiation,
peace process, and also
2015 general election?
And also to
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
you've got a one-hour
discussion with the President,
and at the current
(inaudible), as you said,
it's a bumpy
situation.
So if you didn't make
amendment, or you didn't change
constitution, the NLD
and you, yourself,
is going to be very difficult
after 2015 elections.
So have you talked about those
issues with the President?
Or the President
talk to you
about U.S.
support for you?
Thank you.
President Obama:
Well, the issue
of making sure that
reforms and the transition
is fully realized was
the main topic of our
conversation and
the main topic of
my conversation with the President last night.
As I indicated before,
there are signs of progress.
We shouldn't deny that Burma
today is not the same
as Burma five
years ago.
But the process is
still incomplete.
And I was very specific
with the President
in terms of how we will
measure whether or not
the transition has
been fully realized.
Number one, we expect elections
to take place on time.
We do not want to see delays,
because it's time
for the voice of the people
of Burma to be heard
in a fair, free,
transparent election.
Number two, I indicated to the
President that the constitution
amendment process needs to
reflect inclusion rather
than exclusion, that there are
certain provisions
in the Burmese
constitution
that objectively
don't make much sense.
Ultimately, what
changes are made
are up to the
people of Burma.
But, for example, I don't
understand a provision that
would bar somebody from
running for President
because of who
their children are.
That doesn't make
much sense to me.
Number three, we
are very much in favor
of the peace process, and
I encourage the President
to move forward in
the negotiations.
He expressed some
optimism about the ability
to bring a deal
to a conclusion.
But as Daw Suu has indicated,
you have to be skeptical
until it's
actually done.
Number four, I indicated that
we are paying attention
to how religious minorities
are treated in this country.
Now, I recognize the
complexities of the situation
in Rakhine state.
On the other hand, consistent
with what Daw Suu just said,
I am a firm believer that any
legitimate government
has to be based on rule
of law and a recognition
that all people are
equal under the law.
And discrimination against the
Rohingya or any other religious
minority I think does not
express the kind of country that
Burma over the long
term wants to be.
And I know of no successful
democracy in which sectarian
or religious divisions
are allowed to fester,
or the people of different
faiths are treated
as second-class
citizens.
Ultimately, that is
destabilizing to a democracy.
And finally, I expressed to the
President the need to continue
to make additional progress
on basic issues of freedom and
personal security, that
journalists can't be jailed
simply because they were
critical of the government;
that arbitrary arrests or
individuals being
in some fashion abused by
government with impunity rather
than being respected and treated
in accordance with law,
that that's a test of
whether or not a society
is moving towards a genuine democratic process.
And the President yesterday
acknowledged that some progress
has been made, and
there was more to do.
And our position will be to
continue to measure what's
happening on the
ground, to consult
with a wide range of
groups here in Burma.
We will strengthen our
relationship
where we see
progress.
Where we don't see
progress, then we will
continue to express our
concerns, and we will
not be able to fully
realize the kind
of bilateral relationship
that we want to have
with Burma, the
Burmese government,
until we've seen some
of these reforms completed.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:
You asked whether
(inaudible) NLD to win the elections if the amendments
to the constitution
are not pushed through.
I think it's too early
to ask this question.
We've just spent one
afternoon debating
the question of
constitutional amendment.
I think perhaps some of you may
have heard that proportional
representation is not
going to be instituted.
So when we started defending
first past the post against
proportional representation,
there were many who said
to us, you are a very small
minority in the legislature;
how can you hope
to win this case?
It's not a matter of
wanting to win a case,
it's a matter of standing
up for what you believe in,
for what you
believe is necessary
for the future
of our country.
Now we are asking for a
constitutional amendment
not because we're trying
to win a case,
but because we think that
certain amendments are
necessary if this country
is to be a truly functioning
democracy in line with the
will of the people.
Because of that, we will
persist in our efforts
to have the constitution
amended in the right way
and within the
framework of the law.
I've always put great emphasis
on this because I want peace
and tranquility
in our country.
I want our people to learn to
live under the rule of law,
and to support and uphold the
importance of the rule of law.
So with regard to
the constitution,
we know that the people support
our wish to amend it in certain
ways, and we are prepared to
negotiate with those
who do not wish to
amend the constitution.
I think that's what
democracy is all about.
We need a culture of negotiated
compromise as the foundation
for our
democratic union.
So we would like to -- it's not
just a matter of debating the
case in parliament and
winning Brownie points
or Boy Scout points, or
whatever they're called.
But it's just a case
of standing up for
what we think our
country needs.
And we would like to talk to
those who disagree with us.
That, again, is what
democracy is about.
You talk to those who
disagree with you;
you don't beat
them down.
You exchange
views.
And you come to a
compromise, a settlement
that would be best
for the country.
I've always said that dialogues
and debates are not aimed
at achieving victory for one
particular party or the other,
but victory for our
people as a whole.
Whatever we decide on should
be seen as a victory for our
nation, for the kind of
democratic union that we have
been trying to build
up for decades.
So please don't worry about
whether or not we will win the
elections in 2015.
Of course, any party wants
to win the elections.
I'm sure the President
will tell you that.
(laughter)
But winning is not everything
-- it's how you win.
I'd rather lose than
win in the wrong way.
And that is the way I want
our party and our people
to approach the problems
that we have to tackle
-- that we want to
win in the right way.
We want to bring
the changes of
the constitution
about in the right way.
We want to build up a strong
foundation for national
reconciliation, which means
reconciliation not just between
the different ethnic groups
and between different religious
groups, but between different
ideas -- for example,
between the idea of military
supremacy and the idea
of civilian authority
over the military,
which is the foundation
of democracy.
So we want to exchange
views and to come
to an understanding with
all those who at this
moment do not yet
agree with us.
And we are confident that we
can come to such a settlement,
come to such an agreement
because, after all,
I do believe that
what all of us want
is what is best for the country as a whole -- not just
for particular individuals or groups or organizations.
So while I tell you that you
need not worry about what
affects amendment or
non-amendment to the
constitution might
have on the elections,
I might as well ask you to vote
for us when we do get there.
President Obama:
Pete Maer.
The Press:
Mr. President, it seems
the stage is set for even more
confrontations between you
and Republicans when you get home, if that's possible.
We're told that you're
soon going to sign
the immigration reform
executive order.
To what extent are you concerned
about a Republican backlash
from an action
of that magnitude?
And on two other issues, I'm
wondering what your take is
on the plan to pass a bill
to build the Keystone pipeline
that's in the
works now, before the
State Department's review process is over.
And Senator McConnell is angry
over the climate deal
that you had
made with China.
How does all of this square with
your post-election assessment
that people want to, as
you put it, get stuff done?
And if I may also pose
a question to you,
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
Thank you for hosting
all of us here
from the White
House media corps.
As the President mentioned of
the constitutional barring of
you running in your
country's election,
what do you think the impact
will be from the President's
statement that was made here
today on his strong opposition
to that
constitutional wording?
And what impact do you think
it will have
on the
government here?
And is there anything more
that you'd like to see him do?
Thank you.
President Obama: Pete, the
day after the election I said
that there are of agreement
between me and Republicans,
and there are going to
be areas of disagreement.
There are going to be actions
I take they don't like,
and there are going to be bills
they pass that I don't like.
And I think, moving forward,
that's exactly
what's going to happen.
You've mentioned areas
where we disagree.
I believe that America is
a nation of immigrants.
Everybody agrees that
the system is broken.
There has been ample opportunity
for Congress to pass a
bipartisan immigration bill that
would strengthen our borders,
improve the legal
immigration system,
lift millions of people
out of the shadows so they
are paying taxes and
getting right by the law.
It passed out
of the Senate.
I gave the House
over a year
to go ahead and at least
give a vote to the Senate
bilaterally; they
failed to do so.
And I indicated to Speaker
Boehner several months ago
that if, in fact, Congress
failed to act,
I would use all the lawful
authority that I possess
to try to make the
system work better.
And that's
going to happen.
That's going to happen
before the end of the year.
But what I've also said to them
-- and I said this during the
lunch with the Speaker and
Leader McConnell -- is that I am
always interested in negotiating
a legislative solution
to the immigration problem, and
that the minute they pass a bill
that I can sign that fixes
our immigration system,
then any executive actions
I take are replaced.
So they have the ability
to fix the system.
What they don't have the ability
to do is to expect me to stand
by with a broken
system in perpetuity.
And I would advise
that if, in fact,
they want to take a
different approach,
rather than devote a lot
of time trying to constrain
my lawful actions as the
Chief Executive of the U.S.
government in charge of our
enforcing our immigration laws,
that they spend some time
passing a bill and engaging
with all the stakeholders, the
immigrant rights groups,
the law enforcement
groups, the evangelicals,
the business community,
all of whom have said
this is something that needs
to be done, is way overdue.
And we've been talking
about it for 10 years now,
and it's been
consistently stalled.
So with respect to Keystone,
I've been clear in the past,
Pete, my position
hasn't changed,
that this is a process that
is supposed to be followed.
Right now you have a
case pending in Nebraska,
where the pipeline
would run through,
in which a state court judge
has questioned the plan.
And until we know
what the route is,
it's very hard to
finish that evaluation.
And I don't think we should
short-circuit that process.
I have also noted
that, as policy matter,
my government believes that we
should judge this pipeline based
on whether or not it
accelerates climate change
or whether it helps the
American people with
their energy costs
and their gas prices.
And I have to constantly push
back against this idea
that somehow
the Keystone pipeline
is either this massive
jobs bill for the
United States,
or is somehow
lowering gas prices.
Understand what
this project is.
It is providing the ability
of Canada to pump their oil,
send it through our
land, down to the Gulf,
where it will be
sold everywhere else.
That doesn't
have an impact
on U.S.
gas prices.
You know what does
have an impact on U.S.
gas prices is the
incredible boom in U.S.
oil production and
natural gas production
that's taken place
under my administration.
And if my Republican friends
really want to focus on
what's good for the American people in
terms of job creation
and lower energy costs,
we should be engaging
in a conversation
about what are we doing
to produce even more
homegrown energy.
I'm happy to have
that conversation.
With respect to the
climate change deal,
I have been very clear that
I have responsibilities
as President not just
to current generations,
but to future
generations.
The science is
indisputable.
The planet is getting warm, and
it is getting warmer in part
because of
man-made activity.
And the release of carbon gases
-- carbon dioxide and greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere
can have a potentially
devastating effect
that will cost our country,
could devastate communities,
could increase
the impact of natural disasters,
and will have an impact
worldwide that is
destabilizing and could affect
our national
security.
That's not my
opinion, by the way,
that is the opinion of
our Joint Chiefs of Staff,
that climate change is a direct
national security threat.
Now the argument that I've
received in the past
has been either denial of the
science or, alternatively,
there's no point in us doing
something about it despite us
being one of the two largest
emitters in the world,
because if we do something
and China doesn't do anything,
we'll just put ourselves at
a competitive disadvantage,
we'll lose
jobs to China,
and the problem won't
be solved anyway.
I'm not going deny the
science, but I took
seriously the notion that
we want all countries
to participate in
solving a global problem.
And so I engaged with China over
a lengthy set of negotiations.
And by all independent
accounts, for the first time,
we got China to make a very
serious commitment
to constrain its
greenhouse gases.
Why would anybody
be against that?
That sounds like the
right thing to do to me.
So that's a response to
those specific ideas.
But let me reiterate
what I said at the top.
The fact that I disagree or
Republicans disagree with me on
a certain set of issues doesn't
exclude us working together
on a whole range of issues
where we do agree.
They're interested in
tax reform -- so am I.
Let's get to work.
They're interested in promoting
trade that will create jobs
and opportunity for U.S.
workers and U.S. businesses -- all over it.
It's part of what this Asia
trip has been all about.
They're interested in
rebuilding our roads,
our bridges, our ports, our
airports, putting people back
to work, making sure we're
competitive -- I'm game.
So the one thing that I think is
going to be important for us to
have a successful partnership
over the next couple of years is
not making disagreements on
a single issue suddenly a
deal-breaker on every issue.
Democracy can never work that
way because there are always
going to be
some differences.
And when there are differences
you can't elevate
those differences above
the commonalities.
I'm sorry that
was a long answer,
but it was a lot of questions.
Do you want to --
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:
I'm sorry the President
can't get away
from all those.
President Obama: I know.
But before Daw Suu
responds to the point about
the constitutional amendment,
I just want to emphasize,
ultimately it's up to the people
of Burma to make a decision
about all these
provisions.
I expressed an objective view
that some of current provisions
don't seem to have
much grounding
in common sense or precedent when you look at other
618
00:35:30,661 --> 00:35:30,628
constitutions around the world, and seem more focused on
advantaging or disadvantaging certain players.
And one of the basic concepts
of a constitution is that
it creates a level playing
field for all people,
and then so I use that as an
example not because I think
my voice is the one that's most
relevant in terms of the
constitutional
amendment process,
but ultimately it's up
to the people of Burma.
The Press:
(Off-mic.)
President Obama: I did?
It doesn't make
much sense to me.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:
I believe democracy
should stand up
for that principle.
President Obama:
Absolutely.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi:
Well, I've always said
that it's somewhat
flattering
to have a constitution
written with me in mind.
But it shouldn't
be done that way.
That's not how a democratic
constitution should be written.
And we object to that clause not
because -- not because it debars
me from the presidency as such,
but because it is against
the principle of democracy
and also unconstitutional.
The constitution says that all
citizens should be treated
as equals, and this is
discrimination on the grounds
of my children, my children's
spouses, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, this is not acceptable.
And our people are
firmly behind us
in our desire to
change this clause.
And if President Obama said
anything about the necessity
to change a
clause like that,
they will love him
very much for it.
(laughter)
So he will be very
popular among our people.
And as he said, in the end, it
is up to our people to shape
the destiny of our country,
including the way the
constitution is going
to be rewritten.
And I think the majority of
our people understand that this
constitution cannot stand as it
is if we want to make the full
transition to democracy;
59(f), as you know,
debars anybody who is children
of -- the spouses of the
children belong to -- are
citizens of another country.
And according to the law -- and
I think the President will know
the law better than I do because
I'm not a lawyer -- according to
the law, anybody who
is over the age of 18,
or whatever legal adult age
may be in his or her country,
is responsible for
himself or herself.
Nobody else is responsible
for that person.
So from that point of view also,
you cannot penalize anybody for
what his or her
adult children do.
From that point of
view, it's illegal,
it's against all
norms of justice.
And from the point
of view of democracy,
it is not right to discriminate
against one particular citizen.
You wouldn't like to be discriminated against,
would you?
So I think our people support
the idea of amending this clause
because -- not particularly
because they want me
to be president, perhaps
because they do.
But I don't think it is
so much because of that,
but because they
realize that
this is unfair,
unjust and undemocratic.
The Press:
Thank you.
I would like to ask the
question to Mr. President.
The question is, have
you discussed about the
(inaudible) situation in
Myanmar (inaudible)?
Because more journalists and
politicians have been arrested,
particularly (inaudible) under
the present administration.
(inaudible) how he responds
to this (inaudible)?
Thank you.
President Obama:
I didn't bring up
specific cases
with him.
I brought up a basic principle
that I stated earlier,
which is that a free press is
a foundation for any democracy.
We rely on
journalists to explain
and describe the actions
of our government.
If the government
controls the journalists,
then it's very
difficult for citizens
to hold that
government accountable.
It's a fairly
straightforward proposition.
And I recognize that there is a
transition process
that's taking place, that there
is a more robust debate today
than there was the
last time I visited.
But to go back to what we said
earlier, we can't be complacent.
And we, as a government, are
going to be troubled when we
hear reports of journalists
being imprisoned,
being killed, being intimidated,
or being censored.
And when we engage with
this government -- or any
government -- and we
have evidence that that's
taking place, then
we're going to raise it.
Thank you very much.
