Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Syria

East Room

9:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war.  Over 100,000 people have been killed.  Millions have fled the country.  In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement.  But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children.  The images from this massacre are sickening:  Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas.  Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath.  A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.  On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.

This was not always the case.  In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe.  In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust.  Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them.  And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity.  No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria.  The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.

Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible.  In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas.  They distributed gasmasks to their troops.  Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.  Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded.  We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed.  We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.  But these things happened.  The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it.  Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.

Let me explain why.  If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.  As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.  Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.  And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. 

If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.  And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.

This is not a world we should accept.  This is what’s at stake.  And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.  The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. 

That's my judgment as Commander-in-Chief.  But I’m also the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.  So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.  I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress.  And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. 

This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular.  After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them.  Our troops are out of Iraq.  Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan.  And I know Americans want all of us in Washington

-- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home:  putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class.

It’s no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions.  So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress, and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me.

First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war?  One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.”  A veteran put it more bluntly:  “This nation is sick and tired of war.”

My answer is simple:  I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.  I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan.  I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.  This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective:  deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don’t take out Assad.  As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.

Let me make something clear:  The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.  Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.  I don't think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next.  But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.

Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation.  We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.  Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day.  Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise.  And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America.

Many of you have asked a broader question:  Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated, and where  -- as one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?”

It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists.  But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.  The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom.  And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Finally, many of you have asked:  Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force?  As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”

I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions.  Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs.  In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.  The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. 

It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments.  But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path.  I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin.  I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control.  We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st.  And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action. 

Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.  And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security.  This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them.  The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them. 

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.  To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor.  For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask:  What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”  Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.

America is not the world’s policeman.  Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong.  But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act.  That’s what makes America different.  That’s what makes us exceptional.  With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth. 

Thank you.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.

END                    9:17 P.M. EDT

Remarks by the First Lady at Let's Move! Back-to-school Event and Let's Move! Active Schools Announcement

Orr Elementary School
Washington, D.C.

1:05 P.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA:  Well, hello.  How's everyone doing?  It is a pleasure and an honor to be with all of you here today at Orr Elementary School!  Yay, Orr!  (Applause.)  We have a few Orr fans in the house.  (Laughter.)  Thank you all for hosting us today.

I want to start by, of course, thanking Shaq for that very kind introduction, but for also being one of the few people on Earth who can make me feel small.  (Laughter.)  I know I can always wear my heels when Shaq is around, so I appreciate that.

I also want to thank Dominique Dawes, who is here joining us.  And I want to thank her, as well as Allison for their passionate commitment to inspiring our young people.  Hi. 

And of course, I want to give a huge thank you to Uli and to Reebok and the BOKS program.  Along with Nike and nine other organizations, they are truly the driving force behind Let’s Move Active Schools.  And I have to say that it is really inspiring to see two big competitors like Nike and Reebok coming together on behalf of our kids.  And I truly look forward to seeing more companies join our efforts to get our kids moving.

I also want to thank Chancellor Henderson for her leadership in signing up the entire D.C. Public School District for Let’s Move Active Schools.  And I hope that every school district in America will follow D.C.’s lead.

And finally, I want to thank all of you who have come here today.  You all have devoted your lives to educating our children.  And as we begin this new school year, I know that, as always, you're going to be working hard to engage and inspire your students and prepare them to succeed in school and in life. 

And that’s really why I wanted to be here with you today, because more than anything else, that’s what Let’s Move is all about.  That has been our goal right from the very beginning:  To ensure that all of our children grow up healthy and have the bright futures we all know they deserve. 

Now, back when we first started Let’s Move, I have to be honest with you, I had a few doubts about how much we could actually accomplish.  The problem of childhood obesity was so complex.  The statistics were staggering, and so many people were skeptical about our chances to make a real difference. 

We were told that people wouldn’t change because they're to set in their ways.  We were told that companies wouldn’t change because selling bad food is good business.  We were told that kids wouldn’t change because they would never eat healthy food, so why bother?

But let me tell you, there were plenty of times with all that drumming around that I had to ask myself, can we really make a difference here?  Well today, just three-and-a-half years later, we now have an answer to that question, and the answer is yes.  Yes we can.

Just look at the numbers:  Between 2008 and 2011, for the first time in decades -- you hear me -- for the first time in decades, obesity rates among low-income preschoolers dropped in 19 states and territories across this country.  (Applause.)  And child obesity rates are falling in cities like New York and Philadelphia; in states like California and Mississippi.  In fact, back when we started Lets Move, Mississippi was known as one of least healthy states in America.  But today, they’re reporting a 13 percent drop in obesity rates in elementary school kids in that state. 

So the statistics clearly show that with all of the work that people are doing to address this epidemic, we're actually starting to move the needle on this issue.  And this isn’t just some blip or fluke.  And it didn’t just happen on its own.  It happened because people across this country decided that they wanted something better for our kids, so they started making some changes. 

They started making changes in their homes, schools, in their businesses and communities.  They started making changes in laws and policies.  And today, we’re seeing the results -- the kind of results that we could never have imagined when we first started out.

For example, turn on the TV, and instead of seeing nothing but ads for greasy, fried foods, you’ll see fast food ads for egg white breakfast sandwiches and chicken wraps bursting with lettuce.  Sit down for a meal at Red Lobster or Olive Garden and you’ll find kids’ menus filled not just with nuggets and fries and soda, but with veggies and fruits and whole grains and low-fat milk.  Stop by your local Walmart and you'll no longer have to search for healthy options, but you can find aisles packed with affordable fresh produce, with prominently placed products with reduced sugar, fat and salt. 

We’re seeing changes in our cities as mayors are building grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods, refurbishing playgrounds and bike paths so that kids have safe places to play.  We’re seeing changes in our armed forces as military leaders have grown tired of dealing with skyrocketing costs associated with training overweight and out-of-shape recruits.  So they’re starting to serve healthier food on their bases.  They're educating their troops about nutrition because they’ve realized that this issue doesn’t just affect our health, it affects our national security too. 

And as all of you know, our schools are stepping up too.  You all are growing gardens, installing salad bars, replacing fryers with steamers.  And parents are leading the way at home -- adjusting those portion sizes, reading those food labels and thinking really hard about the foods they cook and order and buy for their families.

And because we as adults have started to act, because we as adults have started to invest our time and energy and resources into solving this problem, our kids are starting to get it too.  I can’t tell you how many stories we’ve heard about kids who worked in a garden at their school or church and then ran home and requested vegetables for a snack.  Or they saw a cooking demonstration in the cafeteria, and that night they asked their parents to bake their dinner instead of frying it.

I even visited a childcare center right here in D.C. where I watched toddlers happily devour a meal of grilled tilapia, mixed salad, green beans and skim milk.  These were kids two, three years old.  The center was located in a struggling community right here, but the staff made serving healthy food a top priority.  They even employed a local chef. 

Let me tell you, those kids cleaned their plates.  They did it because they were used to getting nutritious food every day.  It was all they ever knew.  So they were happy and satisfied.  And since we started Let’s Move, 10,000 childcare centers across America have committed to serving healthier food like this to our youngest children so that they get off to the right start.

So make no mistake about it, we are changing the conversation in this country.  We are creating a cultural shift in how we live and eat.  And our efforts are beginning to have a real impact on our children’s lives. 

But I want to be very clear that while we’re finally beginning to make some progress, we still have a very long way to go before we solve this problem.  But right now, we are truly at a pivotal moment, do you hear me?  A tipping point when the message is just starting to break through, when new habits are just beginning to take hold and we’re seeing the very first glimmer of the kind of transformational change that we are capable of making in this country -- us. 

And if we keep pushing forward, we have the potential to transform the health of an entire generation of young people.  We can do that.  And that’s where you all come in, because as educators, you all play such a pivotal role in this effort. 

I mean, our kids spend more than half their waking hours each day with you in your schools -- thank you.  (Laughter.)  And many of them eat two meals a day at school, which means they get more than half their daily calories from those meals.  And while we as parents are the first and most important role models for our kids, educators are not far behind. 

That was certainly true for me back when I was growing up.  Let me tell you, I vividly remember the words of some of my earliest teachers –- as far back as first and second grade.  What they taught me often meant as much as what I was learning from my parents at home.  And many of those lessons are still ringing in my head today.

You all have so much influence over our kids.  And you aren’t just teaching our kids important lessons in the classroom, but you're teaching them important lessons in the gymnasium, in the cafeteria as well.  Because with every meal you serve here in these schools, with every moment of physical activity you work into their day, you are teaching our kids habits and preferences that will them last a lifetime.

And I know it’s not always easy to get your students to do the right thing.  I know that kids occasionally grumble about eating healthier food.  But look, that is to be expected.  Because frankly, that’s what kids do -- (laughter) -- including my own kids.  They want what they want when they want it, regardless of whether it’s good for them or not.  And when they don’t get what they want, they complain.  That’s their job.  (Laughter.)

But we have to remember that it’s our job as responsible adults in their lives to make the hard decisions to keep them healthy.  It’s our job to say, no, you cannot have a candy bar for breakfast; and yes, you have to eat some vegetables every day; and no, you can’t sit around playing video games all day
-- go outside and run.  That’s our job.  That’s on us.

Kids complain about everything.  Many kids complain about having to learn math or science, right?  They complain about having to read a book or write a paper on a topic they don’t like.  But as educators and parents, we don’t just give in and say, well, okay, no more homework, no test tomorrow; you’re off the hook because you’re sad about it.  (Laughter.)  

We wouldn’t dream of doing that, because we know that learning how to add and subtract and read and write -- these things aren’t negotiable.  We know that they need those skills in order to succeed in life. 

Well, the same thing is true for good nutrition, physical activity –- because those tools are the foundation that they need to grow up healthy, and to do well in school, and to build families and careers of their own one day. 

So it should come as no surprise that, as schools implement the new school lunch standards, there will be some kids who will moan and groan.  But we can’t lose sight of the fact that across the country, these new standards are having a resounding effect.  We’re seeing success.  And every day, we’re hearing that kids are actually enjoying the healthier food in their lunches, not just because it makes them feel good but because they also taste good too. 

So as you approach this new school year, and you’re out there working hard and doing your best to implement these new changes, don’t ever forget that what we’re doing is working, and what we’re doing is good for our kids.  Don't lose sight of that.

So I want you guys to keep pushing forward.  If we do that, then I know that all those kids that you are dealing with will one day thank you for sticking with it and fighting for them.  One day when they are happy and healthy and successful, they’re going to look back and be grateful that you stood strong for their best interests.  That’s the kind of difference you all can make.

And just imagine what’s going to happen when every school across this country is fully engaged and committed to the kinds of changes you all are making here at Orr.  Think about what it will mean for every child in this country to get nutritious food and physical activity every day.  Think about how much healthier they’re going to be.  Think about how much more energy they’re going to have.  Think about how much more focus they’ll have in classroom. 

And this isn’t some pie-in-the-sky proposition.  We have everything we need, right now, to get this done.  But it’s going to take educators and parents and community leaders like all of you leading the way. 

So we need each of you to do your part.  And we need you to embrace this mission with enthusiasm and with confidence.  Because make no mistake about it, your level of commitment here will determine how successful we are.  If you’re not bought in, trust me, your students won’t be either.  But if you’re excited about this process, your kids will be too.  Because our children follow our lead, and right now, they need us to be leaders on this issue. 

They need us to guide them just as we do in so many other aspects of their life, because all signs show that what we’re doing is working.  And we’re right on the cusp of something big and lasting.  So we cannot allow ourselves to get tired or distracted, or to feel inconvenienced.  We cannot pull back just as we’re starting to make headway.  Because if we do that, if we take our foot off the gas pedal for one second, we will slip right back to where we started.

Instead, we need to double down.  We need to be energized and inspired on behalf of our kids.  We need each of you to go back to your principals and your superintendents, to your teachers and your schools today, and keep pushing them to implement those new lunch standards. 

We need you to get your kids excited about having better food in their schools, engage them in creating the menus that they like and learning about what’s on their plates and what they enjoy eating.  Start getting them pumped up now for the new healthy snacks that are going to be in their school vending machines next year. 

And finally, we need you -- every single one of you -- to go to your school districts to ask them to follow D.C.’s lead and sign up for Let’s Move Active Schools.  Because we’re currently on track to raising the most inactive generation in our nation’s history.  And it’s time for us to do something about it, starting right now.  We need to get our kids moving before, during and after school.

We need to ensure that they have positive early experiences with being active so that they make it a lifelong habit.  Because being active doesn’t just improve their physical health, as Uli said, it improves their emotional health, their academic performance.  In fact, kids who are active may perform up to 40 percent better on tests, and they are 50 [15] percent more likely to go to college.  That's the difference that we’re talking about here, and that’s why we started Let’s Move Active Schools. 

This program provides everything our schools need to get our kids moving -– free training and resources, technical support call centers staffed with experts, and so much more.  So let’s get every school in America on board as soon as possible, because we don’t have time to waste.  Right now, our generation is facing so many devastating health problems because of how we live and how we eat –- illnesses like diabetes and heart disease and cancer that cause so much suffering and cost our economy billions every day -- every year.

And today, we need to ask ourselves:  Are we going to hand down these problems to our next generation, or are we going to do what we’ve always done in this country and leave something better for our children and our grandchildren?  I think we all know the answer to that question, because in the end, that’s who we are as Americans.  That’s what we do.  We work and we struggle and we sacrifice so that our next generation can have opportunities we never dreamed of.

And in the end, we are counting on all of you to carry on this proud legacy.  And please know that I’m going to be right there with you every step of the way, pushing, prodding, hula-hooping, jumping rope.  I am going to do everything in my power to help get this done, because the health of our children is my greatest priority.  Believe me.

And if we keep on coming together and working together, then I am confident that we can give our children futures worthy of their boundless promise.

So I want to thank you all again for everything you’ve done and everything you will continue to do.  And congratulations, again, on all your successes here at Orr Elementary School.  And I look forward to working with all of you in the months and years ahead. 

So now we’re going to get busy and have some fun with kids.  Thank you all.  God bless.

END
1:24 P.M. EDT

Remarks by President Obama in a Press Conference at the G20

G20 Summit Site
St. Petersburg, Russia

5:55 P.M. MSK
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good evening.  Let me begin by thanking President Putin and the people of St. Petersburg and the people of Russia for hosting this G20.  This city has a long and storied history, including its heroic resistance and extraordinary sacrifices during the Second World War.  So I want to take this opportunity to salute the people of St. Petersburg and express our gratitude for their outstanding hospitality.
 
This summit marks another milestone in the world’s recovery from the financial crisis that erupted five years ago this month.  Instead of the looming threat of another financial meltdown, we’re focused for the first time in many years on building upon the gains that we’ve made.  For the first time in three years, instead of an urgent discussion to address the European financial crisis, we see a Europe that has emerged from recession. 
 
Moreover, the United States is a source of strength in the global economy.  Our manufacturing sector is rebounding.  New rules have strengthened our banks and reduced the chance of another crisis.  We’re reducing our addiction to foreign oil and producing more clean energy.  And as we learned today, over the past three and a half years, our businesses have created seven and a half million new jobs -- a pace of more than 2 million jobs each year.  We’ve put more people back to work, but we’ve also cleared away the rubble of crisis and laid the foundation for stronger and more durable economic growth.
 
We’re also making progress in putting our fiscal house in order.  Our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.  And as Congress takes up important decisions in the coming months, I’m going to keep making the case for the smart investments and fiscal responsibility that keep our economy growing, creates jobs and keeps the U.S. competitive.  That includes making sure we don’t risk a U.S. default over paying bills we’ve already racked up.  I'm determined that the world has confidence in the full faith and credit of the United States.
 
As the world’s largest economy, our recovery is helping to drive global growth.  And in the emerging markets in particular, there’s a recognition that a strong U.S. economy is good for their economies, too. 
 
Yet we came to St. Petersburg mindful of the challenges that remain.  As it emerges from recession, Europe has an opportunity to focus on boosting demand and reducing unemployment, as well as making some of the structural changes that can increase long-term growth.  Growth in emerging economies has slowed, so we need to make sure that we are working with them in managing this process. And I’m pleased that over the past two days we reached a consensus on how to proceed.
 
We agreed that our focus needs to be on creating jobs and growth that put people back to work.  We agreed on ways to encourage the investments in infrastructure that keep economies competitive.  Nations agreed to continue pursuing financial reforms and to address tax evasion and tax avoidance, which undermines budgets and unfairly shifts the tax burden to other taxpayers. 
 
We’re moving ahead with our development agenda, with a focus on issues like food security and combating corruption.  And I’m very pleased that the G20 nations agreed to make faster progress on phasing down certain greenhouse gases a priority.  That's an important step in our fight against climate change. 
 
During my trip, we also continued our efforts to advance two key trade initiatives:  the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  And I believe that if we continue to move forward on all the fronts that I’ve described, we can keep the global economy growing and keep creating jobs for our people.
 
Of course, even as we’ve focused on our shared prosperity, and although the primary task of the G20 is to focus on our joint efforts to boost the global economy, we did also discuss a grave threat to our shared security and that’s the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons.  And what I’ve been emphasizing and will continue to stress is that the Assad regime’s brazen use of chemical weapons isn’t just a Syrian tragedy.  It’s a threat to global peace and security.
 
Syria’s escalating use of chemical weapons threatens its neighbors -- Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel.  It threatens to further destabilize the Middle East.  It increases the risk that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorist groups. But, more broadly, it threatens to unravel the international norm against chemical weapons embraced by 189 nations, and those nations represent 98 percent of the world’s people. 
 
Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes, and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence.  And that’s not the world that we want to live in.
 
This is why nations around the world have condemned Syria for this attack and called for action.  I’ve been encouraged by discussions with my fellow leaders this week; there is a growing recognition that the world cannot stand idly by.  Here in St. Petersburg, leaders from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have come together to say that the international norm against the use of chemical weapons must be upheld, and that the Assad regime used these weapons on its own people, and that, as a consequence, there needs to be a strong response. 
 
The Arab League foreign ministers have said the Assad regime is responsible and called for “deterrent and necessary measures against the culprits of this crime.”  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation -- its general secretariat has called the attack a “blatant affront to all religious and moral values and a deliberate disregard of international laws and norms, which requires a decisive action.” 
 
So, in the coming days, I’ll continue to consult with my fellow leaders around the world, and I will continue to consult with Congress.  And I will make the best case that I can to the American people, as well as to the international community, for taking necessary and appropriate action.  And I intend to address the American people from the White House on Tuesday.
 
The kind of world we live in and our ability to deter this kind of outrageous behavior is going to depend on the decisions that we make in the days ahead.  And I’m confident that if we deliberate carefully and we choose wisely, and embrace our responsibilities, we can meet the challenges of this moment as well as those in the days ahead.
 
So with that, let me take some questions.  I’ve got my handy list.  And I will start with Julie Pace from AP.
 
Q:  Thank you, Mr. President.  You mentioned the number of countries that have condemned the use of chemical weapons, but your advisors also say you’re leaving this summit with a strong number of countries backing your call for military action.  President Putin just a short time ago indicated it may only be a handful of countries, including France, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Can you tell us publicly what countries are backing your call for military action?  And did you change any minds here?  President Putin also mentioned your meeting with him earlier today.  Can you tell us how that came about, and did you discuss both Syria and Edward Snowden?  Thank you.
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I believe that there will be a statement issued later this evening -- although hopefully in time for you guys to file back home -- that indicates some of the additional countries that are making public statements.
 
Last night we had a good discussion.  And I want to give President Putin credit that he facilitated I think a full airing of views on the issue.  And here’s how I would describe it -- without giving the details or betraying the confidence of those who were speaking within the confines of the dinner.  It was unanimous that chemical weapons were used -- a unanimous conclusion that chemical weapons were used in Syria.  There was a unanimous view that the norm against using chemical weapons has to be maintained, that these weapons were banned for a reason and that the international community has to take those norms seriously.
 
I would say that the majority of the room is comfortable with our conclusion that Assad -- the Assad government was responsible for their use.  Obviously this is disputed by President Putin.  But if you polled the leaders last night, I am confident that you’d get a majority who said it is most likely, we are pretty confident that the Assad regime used them.
 
Where there is a division has to do with the United Nations.  There are a number of countries that, just as a matter of principle, believe that if military action is to be taken it needs to go through the U.N. Security Council.  There are others -- and I put myself in this camp, as somebody who’s a strong supporter of the United Nations, who very much appreciates the courage of the investigators who had gone in and looks forward to seeing the U.N. report, because I think we should try to get more information, not less in this situation -- it is my view and a view that was shared by a number of people in the room that given Security Council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through Security Council action. 
 
And that's where I think the division comes from.  And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedence of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution.  I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.  But ultimately, what I believe in even more deeply, because I think that the security of the world and -- my particular task -- looking out for the national security of the United States, requires that when there’s a breech this brazen of a norm this important, and the international community is paralyzed and frozen and doesn't act, then that norm begins to unravel. 
 
And if that norm unravels, then other norms and prohibitions start unraveling.  And that makes for a more dangerous world.  And that, then, requires even more difficult choices and more difficult responses in the future. 
 
Over 1,400 people were gassed.  Over 400 of them were children.  This is not something we’ve fabricated.  This is not something that we are using as an excuse for military action.  As I said last night, I was elected to end wars, not start them.  I've spent the last four and a half years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people.  But what I also know is, is that there are times where we have to make hard choices if we’re going to stand up for the things that we care about.  And I believe that this is one of those times. 
 
And if we end up using the U.N. Security Council not as a means of enforcing international norms and international law, but rather as a barrier to acting on behalf of international norms and international law, then I think people, rightly, are going to be pretty skeptical about the system and whether it can work to protect those children that we saw in those videos.
 
And sometimes the further we get from the horrors of that, the easier it is to rationalize not making tough choices.  And I understand that.  This is not convenient.  This is not something that I think a lot of folks around the world find an appetizing set of choices.  But the question is, do these norms mean something?  And if we’re not acting, what does that say? 
 
If we’re just issuing another statement of condemnation, or passing resolutions saying “wasn't that terrible,” if people who decry international inaction in Rwanda and say how terrible it is that there are these human rights violations that take place around the world and why aren’t we doing something about it -- and they always look to the United States -- why isn’t the United States doing something about this, the most powerful nation on Earth?  Why are you allowing these terrible things to happen?  And then, if the international community turns around when we’re saying it’s time to take some responsibility and says, well, hold on a second, we’re not sure -- that erodes our ability to maintain the kind of norms that we're looking at. 
 
Now, I know that was a lengthy answer and you had a second part to your question. 
 
The conversation I had with President Putin was on the margins of the plenary session and it was a candid and constructive conversation, which characterizes my relationship with him.  I know, as I’ve said before, everybody is always trying to look for body language and all that.  But the truth of the matter is that my interactions with him tend to be very straightforward.  We discussed Syria, and that was primarily the topic of conversation.  Mr. Snowden did not come up beyond me saying that -- reemphasizing that where we have common interests I think it’s important for the two of us to work together.
 
And on Syria, I said -- listen, I don’t expect us to agree on this issue of chemical weapons use, although it is possible that after the U.N. inspectors’ report, it may be more difficult for Mr. Putin to maintain his current position about the evidence.  But what I did say is that we both agree that the underlying conflict can only be resolved through a political transition as envisioned by the Geneva I and Geneva II process.  And so we need to move forward together.  Even if the U.S. and Russia and other countries disagree on this specific issue of how to respond to chemical weapons use, it remains important for us to work together to try to urge all parties in the conflict to try to resolve it.
 
Because we’ve got 4 million people internally displaced.  We’ve got millions of people in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon who are desperate, and the situation is only getting worse.  And that’s not in anybody’s interest.  It’s not in America’s interest.  It’s not in Russia’s interest.  It’s not in the interest of the people in the region, and obviously it’s not in the interest of Syrians who’ve seen their lives completely disrupted and their country shattered.
 
So that is going to continue to be a project of ours.  And that does speak to an issue that has been raised back home around this whole issue.  You’ve heard some people say, well, we think if you’re going to do something, you got to do something big, and maybe this isn’t big enough or maybe it’s too late -- or other responses like that.  And what I’ve tried to explain is we may not solve the whole problem, but this particular problem of using chemical weapons on children, this one we might have an impact on, and that’s worth acting on.  That’s important to us.
 
And what I’ve also said is, is that as far as the underlying conflict is concerned, unless the international community is willing to put massive numbers of troops on the ground -- and I know nobody is signing up for that -- we’re not going to get a long-term military solution for the country.  And that is something that can only come about I think if -- as different as our perspectives may be -- myself, Mr. Putin and others are willing to set aside those differences and put some pressure on the parties on the ground.
 
Brianna.
 
Q:  On the resolution to authorize the use of force, one of the big challenges right now isn’t just Republicans, but it’s from some of your loyal Democrats.  It seems that the more they hear from classified briefings that the less likely they are to support you.  If the full Congress doesn’t pass this, will you go ahead with the strike?  And also, Senator Susan Collins, one of the few Republicans who breaks through her party to give you support at times -- she says, “What if we execute the strike and then Assad decides to use chemical weapons again?  Do we strike again?”  And many Democrats are asking that as well.  How do you answer the question?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, first of all, in terms of the votes and the process in Congress, I knew this was going to be a heavy lift.  I said that on Saturday when I said we’re going to take it to Congress.  Our polling operations are pretty good -- I tend to have a pretty good sense of what current popular opinion is.  And for the American people, who have been through over a decade of war now, with enormous sacrifice in blood and treasure, any hint of further military entanglements in the Middle East are going to be viewed with suspicion.  And that suspicion will probably be even stronger in my party than in the Republican Party, since a lot of the people who supported me remember that I opposed the war in Iraq. 
 
And what’s also true is, is that that experience with the war in Iraq colors how people view this situation not just back home in America, but also here in Europe and around the world.  That's the prism through which a lot of people are analyzing the situation.
 
So I understand the skepticism.  I think it is very important, therefore, for us to work through systematically making the case to every senator and every member of Congress.  And that’s what we’re doing.
 
I dispute a little bit, Brianna, the notion that people come out of classified briefings and they’re less in favor of it.  I think that when they go through the classified briefings, they feel pretty confident that, in fact, chemical weapons were used and that the Assad regime used them. 
 
Where you will see resistance is people being worried about a slippery slope and how effective a limited action might be.  And our response, based on my discussions with our military, is that we can have a response that is limited, that is proportional -- that when I say "limited," it’s both in time and in scope -- but that is meaningful and that degrades Assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons not just this time, but also in the future, and serves as a strong deterrent.
 
Now, is it possible that Assad doubles down in the face of our action and uses chemical weapons more widely?  I suppose anything is possible, but it wouldn’t be wise.  I think at that point, mobilizing the international community would be easier, not harder.  I think it would be pretty hard for the U.N. Security Council at that point to continue to resist the requirement for action, and we would gladly join with an international coalition to make sure that it stops. 
 
So one of the biggest concerns of the American people -- certain members of Congress may have different concerns; there may be certain members of Congress who say we’ve got to do even more, or claim to have previously criticized me for not hitting Assad and now are saying they’re going to vote no, and you’ll have to ask them exactly how they square that circle.  But for the American people at least, the concern really has to do with understanding that what we're describing here would be limited and proportional and designed to address this problem of chemical weapons use and upholding a norm that helps keep all of us safe.
 
And that is going to be the case that I try to make not just to Congress, but to the American people over the coming days.
 
Q:  Just a follow-up -- must you have full cooperation from Congress?  What if the Senate votes yes and the House votes no -- it’s go ahead with the strike?   
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Brianna, I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate, because right now I’m working to get as much support as possible out of Congress.  But I’ll repeat something that I said in Sweden when I was asked a similar question.  I did not put this before Congress just as a political ploy or as symbolism.  I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed a imminent, direct threat to the United States.  In that situation, obviously, I don’t worry about Congress.  We do what we have to do to keep the American people safe.  I could not say that it was immediately, directly going to have an impact on our allies.  Again, in those situations I would act right away.  This wasn’t even a situation like Libya, where you've got troops rolling towards Benghazi and you have a concern about time in terms of saving somebody right away. 
 
This was an event that happened.  My military assured me that we could act today, tomorrow, a month from now; that we could do so proportionately, but meaningfully.  And in that situation, I think it is important for us to have a serious debate in the United States about these issues. 
 
Because these are going to be the kinds of national security threats that are most likely to occur over the next five, 10 years.  They’re very few countries who are going to go at us directly.  We have to be vigilant, but our military is unmatched. Those countries that are large and powerful like Russia or China, we have the kind of relationship with them where we're not getting in conflicts of that sort.  At least over the last several decades, there’s been a recognition that neither country benefits from that kind of great power conflict. 
 
So the kinds of national security threats that we’re going to conflict -- they’re terrorist threats; they’re failed states; they are the proliferation of deadly weapons.  And in those circumstances, a President is going to have to make a series of decisions about which one of these threats over the long term starts making us less and less safe.  And where we can work internationally, we should. 
 
There are going to be times, though, where, as is true here, the international community is stuck for a whole variety of political reasons.  And if that’s the case, people are going to look to the United States and say, what are you going to do about it? 
 
And that’s not a responsibility that we always enjoy.  There was a leader of a smaller country who I’ve spoken to over the last several days who said, I know don’t envy you because I’m a small country and nobody expects me to do anything about chemical weapons around the world.  They know I have no capacity to do something. 
 
And it’s tough because people do look to the United States. And the question for the American people is, is that a responsibility that we’re willing to bear.  And I believe that when you a limited, proportional strike like this -- not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks -- that we should be willing to bear that responsibility.
 
Chuck Todd.
 
Q:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good morning -- or good evening.  I think it’s still “good morning” back home.
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  By tonight it will be tonight when we get back home.  (Laughter.) 
 
Q:  I think we’re all relieved.  I want to follow up on Brianna’s question, because it seems these members of Congress are simply responding to their constituents and you’re seeing a lot these town halls, and it seems as if the more you pressure your case, the more John Kerry presses the case on your behalf, the more the opposition grows.  And maybe it’s just -- or the more the opposition becomes vocal.  Why do you think you’ve struggled with that?  And you keep talking about a limited mission.  We have a report that indicates you’ve actually asked for an expanded list of targets in Syria, and one military official told NBC News -- he characterized it as “mission creep.” Can you respond to that report?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  That report is inaccurate.  I’m not going to comment on operational issues that are sourced by some military official.  One thing I’ve got a pretty clear idea about is what I talked with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about, and what we have consistently talked about is something limited and proportional that would degrade Mr. Assad’s capabilities.
 
In terms of opposition, Chuck, I expected this.  This is hard, and I was under no illusions when I embarked on this path. But I think it’s the right thing to do.  I think it’s good for our democracy.  We will be more effective if we are unified going forward. 
 
And part of what we knew would be there would be some politics and injecting themselves -- 
 
Q:  You believe it’s all politics?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  No, I said “some.”  But what I have also said is, is that the American people have gone through a lot when it comes to the military over the last decade or so.  And so I understand that.  And when you starting talking about chemical weapons and their proliferation, those images of those bodies could sometimes be forgotten pretty quickly -- the news cycle moves on.
 
Frankly, if we weren’t talking about the need for an international response right now, this wouldn’t be what everybody would be asking about.  There would be some resolutions that were being proffered in the United Nations and the usual hocus-pocus, but the world and the country would have moved on.
 
So trying to impart a sense of urgency about this -- why we can’t have an environment in which over time people start thinking we can get away with chemical weapons use -- it’s a hard sell, but it’s something I believe in.  And as I explained to Brianna, in this context, me making sure that the American people understand it I think is important before I take action.
 
Jon Karl.
 
Q:  Thank you, Mr. President.  One of your closest allies in the House said yesterday, “When you’ve got 97 percent of your constituents saying no, it’s kind of hard to say yes.”  Why should members of Congress go against the will of their constituents and support your decision on this?  And I still haven’t heard a direct response to Brianna’s question -- if Congress fails to authorize this, will you go forward with an attack on Syria?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Right, and you’re not getting a direct response.  Brianna asked the question very well.  Did you think that --
 
Q:  It’s a pretty basic question.
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  -- I was going to give you a different answer?  No.  (Laughter.)  What I have said, and I will repeat, is that I put this before Congress for a reason.  I think we will be more effective and stronger if, in fact, Congress authorizes this action.  I’m not going to engage in parlor games now, Jonathan, about whether or not it’s going to pass when I’m talking substantively to Congress about why this is important, and talking to the American people about why this is important. 
 
Now, with respect to Congress and how they should respond to constituents and concerns, I do consider it part of my job to help make the case and to explain to the American people exactly why I think this is the right thing to do.  And it’s conceivable that at the end of the day I don’t persuade a majority of the American people that it's the right thing to do.  And then, each member of Congress is going to have to decide, if I think it’s the right thing to do for America’s national security and the world’s national security, then how do I vote?  And that’s what you’re supposed to do as a member of Congress.  Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you’ve also got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America. 
 
And that’s the same for me as President of the United States.  There are a whole bunch of decisions that I make that are unpopular, as you well know.  But I do so because I think they’re the right thing to do.  And I trust my constituents want me to offer my best judgment.  That’s why they elected me.  That’s why they reelected me even after there were some decisions I made that they disagreed with.  And I would hope that members of Congress would end up feeling the same way.
 
The last point I would make:  These kinds of interventions, these kinds of actions are always unpopular because they seem distant and removed.  And I want to make sure I’m being clear.  I’m not drawing a analogy to World War II other than to say when London was getting bombed it was profoundly unpopular both in Congress and around the country to help the British.  It doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do.  Just means people are struggling with jobs and bills to pay, and they don’t want their sons or daughters put in harm’s way, and these entanglements far away are dangerous and different.
 
To bring the analogy closer to home, the intervention in Kosovo -- very unpopular; but ultimately I think it was the right thing to do.  And the international community should be glad that it came together to do it. 
 
When people say that it is a terrible stain on all of us that hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Rwanda, well, imagine if Rwanda was going on right now, and we asked should we intervene in Rwanda.  I think it’s fair to say that it probably wouldn’t poll real well. 
 
So, typically, when any kind of military action is popular it’s because either there's been a very clear, direct threat to us -- 9/11 -- or an administration uses various hooks to suggest that American interests were directly threatened -- like in Panama or Grenada.  And sometimes, those hooks are more persuasive than others, but typically, they’re not put before Congress.  And again, we just went through something pretty tough with respect to Iraq.  So all that I guess provides some context for why you might expect people to be resistant.
 
Q:  But your Deputy National Security Advisor said that it is not your intention to attack if Congress doesn’t approve it.  Is he right?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I don’t think that’s exactly what he said.  But I think I’ve answered the question. 
 
Major Garrett.
 
Q:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Those of us who remember covering your campaign remember you saying that militarily when the United States acts, it's not just important what it does but how it goes about doing it, and that even when America sets its course, it’s important to engage the international community and listen to different ideas even as it’s pursuing that action.  I wonder if you leave here and return to Washington, seeing the skepticism there, hearing it here, with any different ideas that might delay military action.  For example, some in Congress have suggested giving the Syrian regime 45 days to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, get rid of its chemical stockpiles -- do something that would enhance international sense of accountability for Syria but delay military action.  Are you, Mr. President, looking at any of these ideas?  Or are we on a fast track to military action as soon as Congress renders its judgment one way or the other? 
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I am listening to all these ideas.  And some of them are constructive.  And I’m listening to ideas in Congress, and I’m listening to ideas here.  But I want to repeat here:  My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons.  I want that enforcement to be real.  I want it to be serious.  I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, delivering chemical weapons against children is not something we do.  It’s prohibited in active wars between countries.  We certainly don’t do it against kids.  And we’ve got to stand up for that principle.
 
If there are tools that we can use to ensure that, obviously my preference would be, again, to act internationally in a serious way and to make sure that Mr. Assad gets the message. 
 
I’m not itching for military action.  Recall, Major, that I have been criticized for the last couple of years by some of the folks who are now saying they would oppose these strikes for not striking.  And I think that I have a well-deserved reputation for taking very seriously and soberly the idea of military engagement. 
 
So we will look at these ideas.  So far, at least, I have not seen ideas presented that as a practical matter I think would do the job.  But this is a situation where part of the reason I wanted to foster debate was to make sure that everybody thought about both the ramifications of action and inaction.
 
Q:  So currently, the only way to enforce this international norm is militarily, and even giving the Assad regime extra time would not achieve your goals?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  What I’m saying, Major, is that so far what we’ve seen is a escalation by the Assad regime of chemical weapons use. 
 
You’ll recall that several months ago I said we now say with some confidence that at a small level Assad has used chemical weapons.  We not only sent warnings to Assad, but we demarched -- meaning we sent a strong message through countries that have relationships with Assad -- that he should not be doing this.  And rather than hold the line, we ended up with what we saw on August 21st.  So this is not as if we haven’t tested the proposition that the guy, or at least generals under his charge, can show restraint when it comes to this stuff.  And they’ve got one of the largest stockpiles in the world.
 
But I want to emphasize that we continue to consult with our international partners.  I’m listening to Congress.  I’m not just doing the talking.  And if there are good ideas that are worth pursuing then I’m going to be open to it.
 
I will take the last question.  Tangi -- AFP.
 
Q:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Yesterday night you had two unscheduled bilateral meetings with your Brazilian and Mexican counterparts after they voiced very strong concerns about being allegedly targeted by the NSA.  What was your message to them?  And do the revelations -- the constant stream of revelations over this summer make it harder for you to build confidence with your partners in international forums such as this one?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I did meet with President Rousseff as well as President Peña Nieto, of Brazil and Mexico, respectively, to discuss these allegations that were made in the press about the NSA.  I won’t share with you all the details of the conversation, but what I said to them is consistent with what I’ve said publicly.  The United States has an intelligence agency, and our intelligence agency’s job is to gather information that’s not available through public sources.  If they were available through public sources then they wouldn’t be an intelligence agency.  In that sense, what we do is similar to what countries around the world do with their intelligence services.
 
But what is true is that we are bigger, we have greater capabilities.  The difference between our capabilities and other countries probably tracks the differences in military capabilities between countries.  And what I’ve said is that because technology is changing so rapidly, because these capabilities are growing, it is important for us to step back and review what it is that we’re doing, because just because we can get information doesn’t necessarily always mean that we should.
 
There may be costs and benefits to doing certain things, and we’ve got to weigh those.  And I think that, traditionally, what’s happened over decades is the general assumption was, well, you just -- whatever you can get you just kind of pull in, and then you kind of sift through later and try to figure out what’s useful.  The nature of technology and the legitimate concerns around privacy and civil liberties means that it’s important for us on the front end to say, all right, are we actually going to get useful information here?  And, if not -- or how useful is it? If it’s not that important, should we be more constrained in how we use certain technical capabilities.
 
Now, just more specifically, then, on Brazil and Mexico.  I said that I would look into the allegations.  I mean, part of the problem here is we get these through the press and then I've got to go back and find out what’s going on with respect to these particular allegations -- I don’t subscribe to all these newspapers, although I think the NSA does -- now at least.  (Laughter.)   
 
And then, what I assured President Rousseff and President Peña Nieto is, is that they should take -- that I take these allegations very seriously.  I understand their concerns; I understand the concerns of the Mexican and Brazilian people, and that we will work with their teams to resolve what is a source of tension. 
 
Now, the last thing I'd say about this, though, is just because there are tensions doesn't mean that it overrides all the incredibly wide-ranging interests that we share with so many of these countries.  And there's a reason why I went to Brazil.  There's a reason why I invited President Rousseff to come to the United States.  Brazil is an incredibly important country.  It is a amazing success story in terms of a transition from authoritarianism to democracy.  It is one of the most dynamic economies in the world.  And, obviously, for the two largest nations in the hemisphere to have a strong relationship, that can only be good for the people of our two countries, as well as the region. 
 
The same is true of Mexico, one of our closest friends, allies, and neighbors. 
 
And so we will work through this particular issue.  It does not detract from the larger concerns that we have and the opportunities that we both want to take advantage of. 
 
All right?  Thank you very much, everybody.  Thank you, St. Petersburg.
 
END   
6:42 P.M. MSK

Remarks by President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China Before Bilateral Meeting

G20 Summit Site
St. Petersburg, Russia

9:46 A.M. MSK
 
PRESIDENT XI:  (As interpreted.)  Honorable President Obama, it’s my great pleasure to meet you again.  Our meeting today reminds me of the meeting we had this past June when we met in the Annenberg Estate.  In that meeting, we reached important consensus of mutual interest in our bilateral relationship.  In particular, we agreed once again to building a new model of major country relationship between China and the United States.  
 
The Annenberg Estate is a beautiful and quiet place, and I still have fresh memories of your warm hospitality.  So I take this opportunity to thank you again for hosting me.
 
Since we met last time, our two teams have worked closely together to implement a consensus we have reached.  The fifth round of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue produced bountiful results.  Our mil-to-mil relationship continues to improve.  We have made solid progress in advancing practical cooperation in many different areas, and we have maintained close communication and coordination of major international and regional issues.
 
In my view, the China-U.S. relationship has maintained a sound momentum of development.
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, Mr. President, thank you for hosting us, and it is a pleasure to see you again. 
 
As President Xi indicated, we had excellent meetings in Sunnylands earlier this year.  And we agreed to continue to build a new model of great power relations based on practical cooperation and constructively managing our differences. 
 
As has been indicated, we’ve made significant progress on a range of issues, whether it’s cooperation on addressing climate change, expanded military-to-military consultations that ensure awareness and avoid potential conflicts or miscommunications.  And we’ve had some extensive discussions through the Strategic and Economic Dialogue about how we can continue to grow the economy and give some momentum to global growth that creates jobs, prosperity, and balanced growth around the world.
 
So this gives us an additional opportunity to discuss some of the topics at issue here at the G20, as well as our mutual interest in addressing some significant global challenges, such as the challenge posed by North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. 
 
And although there will continue to be some significant disagreements and sources of tension, I’m confident that they can be managed.  And I want to reiterate that the United States welcomes the continuing peaceful rise of China and is interested in a China that is playing a stable and prosperous and responsible role, not only in the Asia Pacific but around the world.
 
END
9:52 A.M. MSK