Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Carney: I think it was Zeke who tweeted that
maybe we could have the game on here, but I
couldn't make that happen.
So any updates would be appreciated.
Did somebody say, "What?"
They don't know what I'm talking about?
(laughter)
The Press: Hockey.
Mr. Carney: Hockey.
The Press: Did you bet with your counterpart?
Mr. Carney: I let the President do the gambling.
Well, I also had --
The Press: Gamble with Putin?
(laughter)
The Press: Every day.
(laughter)
Mr. Carney: The President and I are both
hopeful that Team USA will prevail --
the game is not over -- and that he'll break even.
I was very disappointed, we all were,
by the heartbreaking loss suffered yesterday
by USA Women in hockey.
It was an amazing game.
I don't have any other things to talk about
at the top --
(laughter) -- so we'll go straight
to your questions.
Nedra.
The Press: Thanks, Jay.
We saw your statement on welcoming
the agreement in Ukraine.
What's the President's message
for President Putin today in that phone call?
Mr. Carney: The President either is right
now or is about to speak with President Putin,
and obviously they will talk about Ukraine.
And we'll have a fuller readout of that
conversation after it's been completed.
The fact of the matter is it is in Russia's interest
for the violence to end in Ukraine,
as it is in the interest of the United States
and our European friends, and of course, most importantly,
the Ukrainian people.
And we welcome the cessation of violence and
we welcome the agreements that have been reached.
And the measures that have been passed through
the Parliament are still at an implementation stage
and we monitor this very closely.
I'm sure these issues will all be discussed
in that conversation.
And I think as my colleague, Tony Blinken,
noted not long ago, our European friends, foreign
ministers from Germany, Poland and -- sorry --
were very much engaged, as were the Russians,
in -- and France -- sorry -- France, Poland and Germany
were very much engaged,
and Russia observed the agreement.
And Russia's efforts on behalf of creating the
ceasefire and these agreements
were obviously welcome.
The Press: China said that the meeting that the
President had with the Dalai Lama would damage
relations.
Is the President concerned about that?
Mr. Carney: The President,
as he has in the past on several occasions,
and as Presidents of both parties have done
dating back to 1991, met today, as we said in the readout,
with His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his capacity
as an internationally respected religious
and cultural leader.
When it comes to the relationship
the United States has with China, the President
and the Dalai Lama agreed on the importance
of a positive and constructive U.S.-China relationship.
And of course, we are committed
to a constructive relationship with China
in which we work together to solve regional
and global problems.
So, again, this is in keeping with past
practice, the meeting the President had
today with His Holiness in his capacity
as a respected religious and cultural leader.
The Press: Does China's objection to that meeting
have any role to play in why there wasn't
any media access allowed for the visit today?
Mr. Carney: I certainly understand
the interest in having media access.
The meeting the President had today
in the Dalai Lama's capacity as a religious and cultural
leader was in keeping with past practice.
And we have been working, as you know,
to provide more access to photographers
as well as to all of you, and in this case we weren't able
to do that, but we have been working on that effort.
The Press: Why weren't you able to do that?
Mr. Carney: Well, April, I would simply say
that there will never
be a day for me or my successors in administrations well
into the future where those who occupy the seats in front
of me are satisfied with the level of access,
which is not to dismiss the interest in, which I think
are is legitimate, access to the President,
but only to say that we -- I know that we won't succeed
even as we make efforts to expand access
to get you access to everything you'd like to have access to.
The Press: But as you say, in past practice,
the Dalai Lama has even come out to stakeout during the
Clinton years and the Bush years.
Mr. Carney: Well, we don't -- obviously anybody
who leaves the building is free to talk to the press.
The Press: What diplomatic efforts were
made ahead of the meeting to tell China that
it was going to happen?
And specifically, did Secretary Kerry mention
that the meeting would be happening during
his recent visit to China?
Mr. Carney: I don't have specific
readouts, specific conversations.
We are in contact with our Chinese counterparts
on a regular basis at a variety of levels,
so -- I don't have anything specific
on a conversation around this particular visit.
We're in regular contact with the Chinese.
The Press: So did the White House
give advance notice?
Mr. Carney: Again, I just don't have a specific
readout on that.
I can tell you that we're in conversations with the
Chinese at a variety of levels
on a whole panoply of subjects.
The Press: And I understand that he was
here in D.C. doing other things,
meeting with other people.
But do you have any information about how this
meeting at the White House came about,
whether it was something the White House
asked for or whether he asked for it?
Mr. Carney: Beyond what you just said,
which is that he was here on other business and that this
is similar to the meetings that this President
and other Presidents have had with His Holiness
the Dalai Lama in the past, I don't have any background
on how this particular meeting came about.
But I would point to the similarity between this
meeting and past meetings between His Holiness and
President Obama and previous Presidents.
The Press: Lastly, does the agreement
in Ukraine basically mean that the U.S.
no longer needs to apply further sanctions and can
put the so-called toolkit back on the shelf?
Mr. Carney: Well, I think it's a great
question and what I would say is that our focus
today is on working with our European partners
as well as the government and opposition
in Ukraine to ensure the agreement's implementation.
And we are not ruling out sanctions to hold those
responsible for the violence accountable,
especially should there be further
violence or violation of the agreement.
Right now we're focused on the implementation
of the agreement.
We obviously welcome the steps
that have been taken.
The steps that have been taken are entirely
consistent with what the President advocated,
including calling for a de-escalation
of the violence, constitutional change, a coalition
government, and early elections.
All of that has either happened in terms
of the de-escalation of violence thus far,
or is included in the agreement that has been reached.
So we consider this a positive development --
mindful of the fact that the agreement is one
thing, implementation is another, and we're going
to be closely monitoring that with our European
friends as well as working with the Ukrainians.
Jim.
The Press: I wanted to ask you about the
President's warning to the Ukrainians.
On Wednesday, he warned there would be
consequences if people stepped over the line.
Then that truce broke apart on Thursday.
But then the Vice President called again
over to Ukraine and warned the Ukrainian President
to pull back his forces, talked about sanctions.
You think the President's warnings had an impact?
Mr. Carney: I think that there has been
a concerted and fairly uniform reaction around
the world to what happened in Ukraine.
And you've see our European partners act
and express their extreme concern.
You saw the President do so, and you saw Prime
Minister Harper, obviously,
together with the President, in Mexico.
And as you noted, the Vice President has been clear
with President Yanukovych what our position
is and what actions we were prepared to take and what
actions we already have taken -- as you know,
the visa bans that apply to those responsible
for the violence.
So I think that, as a general matter,
it was fairly clear how the world viewed what was happening
in Ukraine, and in particular,
how the United States and France and Germany and Poland
and other countries viewed what was happening.
The Press: And the President --
with respect to his phone call with President Putin,
which may be happening now -- the President said
on Wednesday this is not an international chess
game that he's having with President Putin.
But there is, wouldn't you agree,
a tug of war between the West and Russia over Ukraine?
Isn't that sort of what's playing out?
Mr. Carney: No.
And I think I have a little deeper expertise
in this matter than perhaps some others and I would
say that it is profoundly different from the Cold
War era in that what we've seen in recent weeks and
months is the expressed desire of the Ukrainian
people for a future that they decide on their own
for themselves, for their nation,
and that desire expressed by Ukrainians
on the street through peaceful protests.
And it was the reaction to that -- the unacceptable
reaction to that, that led to the violence
that we saw.
So the President is correct when he says that
this is not about the United States and Russia,
or the West and Russia.
This is about Ukraine and the Ukrainian people
and their desire for the right to choose their
own destiny, the right to a government that represents
them and their interests.
And what we have seen at least the potential
for in the last 24 hours is an agreement that reflects
and responds to the desires expressed
by the Ukrainian people.
The Press: And just to get to the President's
remarks to the DGA last night, he said that
perhaps Democrats don't view midterms
as sexy enough.
Is he worried that his party
is getting complacent?
Mr. Carney: No, I think the President
was reflecting pretty established information
when it comes to turnout in midterm elections.
I'm confident that in individual races
in districts and states, as well as at the national
level, that the Democratic Party and its candidates
will make every effort to turn out voters because
every election matters, and participation
in our democracy is what makes it work and what makes
it function and what makes it responsive
to the American people.
But I think that, for as long as I've been around,
that reflects a fact about at least patterns of
turnout when it comes to midterms
versus Presidential years.
The Press: He referred to the 2010 midterms
as a shellacking.
Is he worried about another shellacking
that's on the horizon here?
Mr. Carney: No.
In fact, the President is confident
that Democrats are unified behind an agenda that
is focused on expanding opportunity and rewarding
hard work and rewarding Americans who
take responsibility for themselves and their families.
It's reflected specifically in policy
proposals that Democrats support and are pushing,
and that the American people support and want
their representatives to take action on.
So I think as I said the other day, we're confident
that that agenda is one that is welcomed
by the American people and that will be reflected
in the election.
Let me move around a little bit, up and back.
Jen.
The Press: Just getting back to the Dalai Lama for
a minute, does the meeting itself with the Dalai Lama
from the White House perspective mean that the
U.S.
supports his call for an autonomous Tibet?
Mr. Carney: Support his call for?
The Press: An autonomous Tibet.
Mr. Carney: The United States supports
the Dalai Lama's "middle way" approach of neither
assimilation, nor independence
for Tibetans in China.
The United States recognizes Tibet
to be a part of the People's Republic of China
and we do not support Tibetan independence.
The U.S. strongly supports human rights and religious
freedom in China.
We are concerned about continuing tensions and
the deteriorating human rights situation in
Tibetan areas of China.
We will continue to urge the Chinese government to
resume dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his
representatives without preconditions as a means
to reduce tensions.
So that's our view, and that view reflects our
concern about continuing tensions and the
deteriorating human rights situation in Tibetan areas
of China.
Jon.
The Press: Just to follow up on Ukraine and
the Russian role.
What is the White House view of how unhelpful
Russia was in what we have seen unfold over the past
several days, weeks?
And were you suggesting now with this agreement
that the Russians have played a constructive role
in the emergence of this agreement?
Mr. Carney: Here is what I would say on the
first part of the question is that the conflict arose
out of the disappointment and dissatisfaction that
the Ukrainian people felt about decisions made by
the government that didn't reflect their will when it
came to their desire to be integrated into Europe.
So that's about the views of the Ukrainian people.
When it comes to the fact that an agreement was
reached, there's no question that the efforts
of the French, Polish and German foreign ministers,
as well as the United States, the President and
the Vice President, Secretary Kerry and our
diplomats, helped precipitate the agreement.
And Russia witnessed the agreement and played an
important role in that respect.
So I think that reflects what the President said
and what others have said, and that is that it is in
Russia's interest that Ukraine not be engulfed in
violence -- Kyiv or other places -- and that it
return to stability and that progress be made
towards a future in Ukraine that reflects the
will of the Ukrainian people.
So it's very important to view this not as a tug of
war between East and West, or the United States and
Russia, but a discussion that led to confrontation
and violence but hopefully now is retreating from
that, but then will result in progress forward on
behalf of the Ukrainian people, a proud people and
a great nation, that desire the right to
determine their own future.
And that's something the United States
unequivocally supports.
The Press: There was some concern that after
the end of the Olympics, once the Olympics are over
that kind of any restraints would be off
and the Russians will be less concerned about the
optics of having this kind of violence at their
doorstep and things could get worse, post Olympics.
Is there any --
Mr. Carney: Well, we're going to constantly
monitor the situation in Ukraine as the agreements
that have been reached are being implemented.
And as I said earlier, we are prepared to take quick
action on other measures including sanctions should
violence return in Ukraine.
And I think you would see similar reaction from
European nations.
I guess in answer to that question, I would simply
note that what we saw happen graphically and
horrifically in Ukraine happened this week, while
the Olympics were ongoing.
The Press: So if I can just ask one of the Dalai
Lama.
Was the White House's decision not to allow
photographers in, in part made not to offend the
Chinese?
Obviously, previous Presidents have met with
the Dalai Lama and done it under very similar
circumstances, but have allowed coverage, photo
coverage.
So was the administration worried about going too
far in upsetting the Chinese and not allowing
photographers in to cover this?
Mr. Carney: Jon, what I can tell you is I'm
absolutely appreciative of the interest in having
access to a meeting like this.
It occurred in much the same way as past meetings
that President Obama has had with His Holiness the
Dalai Lama and in his capacity as an
internationally respected religious and cultural
leader.
The fact is we don't have photographers in every
meeting the President has, but we are mindful of the
interest there is in these kinds of meetings and work
to provide as much access as we can.
The Press: This is somebody who represents,
what, 7 million Tibetans and Buddhists, many
millions elsewhere around the world.
This is not just any old meeting.
I mean, you could see how there would be intense
interest in coverage of this.
And, again, there has been precedent for having some
coverage of this.
The answer -- I don't think you directly
answered my question, which is was this decision
not to allow coverage of this made in part so as
not to further offend the Chinese, who are already
upset this meeting is taking place?
Mr. Carney: The answer I have for you, Jon,
is that the approach we took was similar
to the approach we've taken in the past.
And the fact of the meeting is well known.
Our views on Tibet and the need for respect for
religious freedom are as they were
and I'm expressing them again today.
So that's the context I would view it in.
I don't have a parsing of the decisions we make
about when there is going to be photo access.
Major.
The Press: If you'll come back to me, Jay, I'll
yield to Connie for a question.
Mr. Carney: Connie.
The Press: Thank you so much, Major.
This is about Cuban American prisoners that I
emailed you about.
Our National Press Club group had a session at the
Cuban Interest Section the other night, on the 19th.
I ask the chief or the ambassador, José Cabañas,
what it would take to free Alan Gross
from a Cuban prison.
Whether he is guilty
or innocent, that's irrelevant.
Later he said to me, what about the three remaining
prisoners in U.S. jails?
Now, he said, he'd like to talk to somebody in the
White House about this situation.
He calls it a human rights situation.
He doesn't want to call it a prisoner swap
or a prisoner exchange.
He doesn't appear to want to go through the Swiss.
So my question is, are there any direct
talks going on to try to resolve
this human rights situation?
Would the U.S.
be willing to have --
Mr. Carney: Well, we are very concerned about
Alan Gross.
We've expressed very clearly that he ought to
be released immediately and we've made that view
clear to the Cuban government.
And we work on this issue all the time.
I don't have any conversations to read out
to you, but it remains a concern
of ours that we are focused on.
The Press: But will the U.S.
change policy and talk directly
to Cuba about this?
Mr. Carney: Again, we have conversations all the
time that make very clear our views on this matter
and I don't think it is a mystery
at all to the Cubans that we believe he ought
to be released immediately.
The Press: What about releasing Cuban prisoners?
Mr. Carney: Connie, I'm not going to get involved
in a negotiation with another country
from the podium.
What I can tell you is our view is unequivocal.
Major, yes.
The Press: I don't want to belabor this, but I'm
on the Correspondents Association and I've made
a pledge to all the members to protest or
raise my objections on behalf of everyone when
it's a situation that could be covered and isn't
covered, is labeled to us as closed press
and then almost instantaneously, a White House produced
photograph is released of the very news event that
we have demonstrable interest in.
And we've had a long dialogue -- it's been
cordial, I think it's at times been productive --
but this strikes me, and I believe it strikes other
members of the Association as inconsistent with your
pledge to take our concern about such news events,
and then almost immediate White House production of
coverage of that event, which
cuts us out completely.
Mr. Carney: Major, all I can tell
you is that my pledge was sincere and we
have taken steps that I think have been
acknowledged by photographers and others
to open access and improve access.
We've had circumstances when I've offered access
and it has been declined.
But what I never pledged, and what I can't possibly
pledge, and none of my successors in the history
of this office will pledge, is that we're
going to give access to every meeting the
President has -- even ones that are of profound
interest to the press for understandable reasons.
The Press: And it would just be worth putting on
the record that the Dalai Lama did not
object or raise objections to press coverage,
did he?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a readout from
him. He's available.
The Press: Right, but he was here all week.
The Press: He's gone.
He's gone.
Mr. Carney: But again, April, the suggestion --
I mean, the Dalai Lama speaks with the press, as
I understand it, at least based on my reading
of the press, with some frequency.
So he's free to do that.
The Press: Was he asked not to go to stakeout
as well from this White House?
Mr. Carney: No.
The Press: Okay.
On Ukraine, is there a message
the White House also has for the protestors and the
opposition figures?
Because they must accept some compromise
in this as well.
They've been taking to the streets, they've risked
life and limb to seek the immediate removal of the
Yanukovych government.
This agreement does not set that forth.
It sets elections at some point in the distance.
Is the message from the White House,
you have to respect that as well, and you have to take
some delay and also maybe stop protesting
or pull back in order to let this agreement work?
Mr. Carney: Well, again,
we are at the early stages of implementation.
And so --
The Press: But it seems like both sides have
obligations here.
Mr. Carney: Well, there's no question, and
certainly as we make clear, even though we are
and were of the strong opinion that the Ukrainian
government bore responsibility
for the violence, that it was incumbent
upon everyone to refrain from violence.
And that's point one.
Point two, the agreement sought and reached called
for a coalition government, and I believe
there is a timetable associated with that
that's quite quick -- early elections --
I believe that is explicitly laid out in the agreement,
and they are this year.
And we will see
if implementation is carried out.
But it is certainly the case that, thus far, the
steps that have been taken and agreed to reflect our
view of what -- and I think others' view --
of what the Ukrainian people ought to have as a result
of this dispute and confrontation.
The Press: You invited us to apprise your
expertise, and I want to do that just a bit.
Why do you think it's an oversimplification
or a misreading of the history to place this
in not a contemporaneous Cold War context but even in that
sort of phraseology, that this
is a "sphere of influence" debate as much as anything else?
Mr. Carney: Well, I guess you could certainly
argue, and I wouldn't dispute it,
that Moscow and the Russian government has views about
its interests and where they feel
they ought to be asserted.
And we have profound disagreements with Russia
on some of these matters, most notably Syria.
What I think is wholly distinct is the analogy to
a Cold War conflict where, in many cases, some of
these disagreements were -- they were conflicts
that were simply proxy conflicts.
And that is not the case, because the Ukrainian
people are not substitutes for anyone
in this conflict.
They are representing themselves
and their nation.
They are expressing their desires, not U.S.
desires or European desires.
And our position is only that their desires be
listened to by their government.
And that's what democracy is all about.
And I think what we've seen transpire is wholly
different from the kinds of things that happened
during the height of the Cold War.
The Press: You mentioned Syria.
I've got one more on that.
The Vice President has been on the phone twice
this week with Yanukovych for an hour each time.
Even when you account, as you would inevitably would
have to, for translation time,
that's a lot of time on the phone.
Can you describe his interaction with the
President on these phone calls and how closely the
Vice President's role in talking to Yanukovych,
sensing his willingness or ability to compromise
or move forward?
How did this week play out in this building with this
kind of heavy involvement of the Vice President?
Mr. Carney: I think the number
of and duration of the conversations reflect
the seriousness that we -- with which
we view the circumstance in Ukraine.
And the fact that the Vice President was making these
calls reflects how seriously
the President views this matter.
The Vice President was very blunt in explaining
our views and making clear the violence that was
taking place was unacceptable and that
we were, like others, prepared to take action
and impose sanctions --
The Press: But he also must have said something
that held -- or counseled the President
not to unleash sanctions right away to give this a little
bit more time to play out.
Was there something he was detecting in these
conversations that he conveyed to the President?
Mr. Carney: The circumstances obviously
were very fluid.
And part of the conversations included
urging President Yanukovych
to have a dialogue with the opposition, to agree
to a coalition government, to agree to early elections,
to agree to being responsive to the hopes
and desires of the Ukrainian people that we
were seeing expressed on the streets
in Kyiv and elsewhere.
So I think where there are a lot shared interests
and shared views on this, and I'm not suggesting cause
and effect, but I think that there was a
-- the Vice President was very clear,
as the President was, in expressing our views.
The Press: On Syria, there was a principals
meeting here yesterday, and there is a general
sense that either new options are being
considered or the President has
asked for some brand new -- or at least newly creative
thinking about what to do now that Geneva appears
to be a dead end.
The violence continues; human rights and human
suffering escalates.
Give us the latest thinking,
and what was the either agenda or culmination,
or did anything come out of
that principals meeting yesterday?
Mr. Carney: Well, I'd say a couple of things.
It is simply a fact that the President
has for a long time been tasking his team with coming
up with options available to him on Syria.
So there's not a new review or a new process
that has been started or is being completed.
This is an ongoing assessment of options with
the President urging his team to make
sure that we're exploring all possibilities.
I know there's been a lot of speculation about what
ideas we're considering, but I don't have any
details to read out to you.
I think that, again -- except to rebut the notion
that this is a new review of some sort,
because there has been an ongoing assessment
and reassessment of what is obviously a horrendous
situation in Syria, and an assessment of what steps
we can take in addition to the highest level
of humanitarian assistance, and in addition
to the assistance that we provide to the opposition.
The Press: Is it fair to say this
is an assessment under a different backdrop,
meaning that Geneva now looks less likely
to produce something positive, and new thinking
must be applied because that's a new reality?
Mr. Carney: We've made clear in the run-up to and
in the wake of the first meetings in the Geneva
process that the prospect for success there was far
from guaranteed, that this was going
to be a long and hard road.
We've also made clear that there is no other
alternative -- whether you call
it Geneva or something else --
to a negotiated political settlement.
So the options we look at in terms of U.S.
policy start from the premise that in the end,
Syria's future has to be decided through
a negotiation, and that there's not a military
solution to this conflict.
We are also obviously looking at ways that
we can provide as much help as possible to a Syrian
population that is suffering tremendously.
We are aggressively at work in New York at the
United Nations Security Council on a resolution to
open humanitarian aid corridors.
And that work continues today and this week, and I
think we will see a vote soon on a resolution.
We are also looking at with our partners and
allies how we provide assistance
to the opposition.
And I can tell you that yesterday we completed
delivery of non-lethal assistance
to Supreme Military Council commanders
through the north.
Remember, it had been suspended because of an
issue with custody and making sure that the
assistance we're providing was getting into the right
hands, and we were able to complete
a delivery yesterday of non-lethal assistance.
So that process continues, and we work
not just unilaterally, but with our partners in assessing what
needs are and what assistance
is most helpful, and in assessing
who the aid is going to.
The Press: Two questions
on the Dalai Lama.
First, when did the President decide
to meet the Dalai Lama?
Was this a long-scheduled meeting?
Mr. Carney: I don't have a date on that.
Again, I think the Dalai Lama was here on other
business, and in the way that has taken place
in the past, the President had a meeting
with him while he was here in town.
The Press: Right after the President met with the
Dalai Lama, Vice President Biden is going to swear
in Senator Baucus to be the ambassador to China.
So what's the implication here?
What's the message?
Mr. Carney: There is no connection
between the two.
Senator Baucus was confirmed and the Vice
President looks forward to, I'm sure,
swearing him in, if he hasn't already.
And we look forward, as an administration
and a nation, to having Ambassador Baucus
represent the United States in Beijing.
Wendell.
Wait, I said Steve.
And then Wendell.
The Press: There have been reports
this week that the U.S.
has agreed to a new way, with its Arab allies
particularly, of identifying rebels and
supplying rebels in Syria with weapons
and other aid.
Are they correct?
Mr. Carney: It's correct to say that
we are working with our European and Arab allies to assess
how we provide assistance.
I don't think it's correct to say that
we found a new way.
The fact is we are in close and continuing touch
with our European and Arab allies on the issue of
Syria and on the issue of provision of aid.
And just last week, National Security Advisor
Susan Rice and Assistant to the President for
Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa
Monaco met with Saudi Minister of Interior,
Prime Mohammed bin Nayef Abdul-aziz Al Saud,
and Syria was among the topics discussed.
And I think that reflects the kind of coordination
we have with our partners and allies
on this subject.
In terms of the assessments made about
where aid should go and making sure it goes to the
moderate opposition, we have long said that
we urge the international community to channel its
support for the Syrian people through the
established channels to the moderate armed
and political opposition.
This has been an objective
of ours for quite some time.
It's one that we've talked about explicitly in this
room for a long, long time.
And it is normal that these discussions occur
with our allies on how best
to coordinate our support.
Any move in this direction is welcome,
and we continue to proceed with this in mind.
The Press: It's no secret that the U.S.
and the Saudis have been somewhat differing
in their approach to this.
The President is going to Saudi Arabia next month.
Are you even able to say if the coordination has
tightened on this, if it's in better shape
than it perhaps was before?
Mr. Carney: Look, I think that it is
absolutely correct to say that there are many
in the international community, including obviously the
United States, who are committed to supporting
the Syrian people in the fulfillment of their
aspirations.
And the best chance for us collectively to help the
Syrian opposition to achieve a new Syria is if
we operate together, if we're united
and organized as we pursue our shared aim.
So I think that has long been a goal,
and it is one that we discuss frequently with
our European and Arab allies.
And beyond that sort of general approach that has
been in existence for some time,
I don't have a specific readout of discussions
or how we coordinate with our allies on these issues,
except to confirm that we certainly do, and that it is our
view that coordination is an important component
to making the assistance we provide effective.
Wendell, and then Alexis.
Wendell, then Peter, then Alexis.
The Press: The decision to drop chained CPI from
the 2015 budget proposal, is that as The Washington
Post characterizes it, the President's
way of calling for the "end of austerity?"
Mr. Carney: No.
I thought I saw another Washington Post item that
suggested that the Republicans killed the
effort because, as we've noted --
well, first of all, we don't accept the idea that it's dead,
because the offer remains on the table.
But as we noted, I think with a lot of voices
yesterday, including my colleague Josh Earnest,
the exception to the rule when it comes
to presentation of budgets by Presidents was made last
year when President Obama did something unusual,
which was include basically Republican
demands as part of the negotiations he had had
with Speaker Boehner in his own budget, because we
were hopeful that by doing so we could make some
progress with Republicans in pursuit of a balanced
deal towards further deficit reduction.
As you know and maybe even reported, Republicans
didn't take us up on that offer despite repeated
meetings with the President,
with our Chief of Staff.
And, look, it was noted here that
that was a pretty big deal to put that offer in the budget.
What the budget this year will reflect is the
President's vision on how we can best fund our
government so that it provides expanded
opportunity for all Americans, so that it
rewards hard work and responsibility.
If Republican leaders are interested in accepting
the premise that there's a tax loophole out there for
the wealthy and well-connected that ought
to be closed as part of a balanced package towards
a deficit reduction, then, yes, the offer remains
on the table and the President would be willing
to have that provision included in a balanced
package -- that provision, which Republicans made
clear was one of their number-one priorities
when it came to deficit reduction.
So what you'll see when the budget comes
out is an approach that the President believes
is the best way forward.
But he remains interested in, if the Republicans
would show some desire for or willingness for
compromise, in a balanced
package towards deficit reduction.
The Press: And you will deny then the suggestion
this was made to rally progressives
who very strongly oppose the chained CPI proposal?
Mr. Carney: Well, I guess, Wendell,
what I would say is the offer is still on the table.
What we've all seen is a profound unwillingness
of Republicans to make the same kind of move, which
is putting on the table their own --
a democratic condition to a balanced
deficit reduction package.
Remember, this is -- chained CPI was something
Republicans identified as one
of their top priorities.
The President put it on the table as part of an
offer towards the Speaker to try
to find some common ground on reducing the deficit further.
I would note contextually two things.
First of all, under this President, the deficit has
come down faster than at any time since
World War II.
The deficit is meeting the target
of being cut by half, and then some.
The deficit as a share of GDP and
within the 10-year window will be below 2 percent --
not 3 percent, as identified by Simpson-Bowles --
but 2 percent.
So these are not insignificant accomplishments.
I would also note that when the President took
office, he was handed the largest deficit
in history at that time.
Some might say that was a result in part
of policies that Republicans supported, having been
delivered the first surpluses in a long,
long time eight years prior.
The Press: On a different subject --
Mr. Carney: Shockingly.
The Press: Can I get clarification?
You just said that Republicans said chained
CPI was one of their top priorities.
When did they say that?
Mr. Carney: In our negotiations.
The Press: Oh, in your -- okay, so no public --
Mr. Carney: I think that there's ample
evidence that they were very interested in having
this generally.
But there's no question that this is --
this is not something -- I think as demonstrated
by Wendell's question, this was a give as part
of a give-and-take.
The Press: Because I've never seen them propose
it up on the Hill.
Mr. Carney: That's shocking, too, right?
Wendell, did you have a second one?
The Press: Yes, I did.
It involves the FCC's newsroom proposal --
something it calls a multimarket study of
critical information needs, which involves
interviewing people like us, our editors,
our producers about how we choose what
to put on the air, what's important to us.
Does the White House have a reaction to the FCC's
decision to study this?
Are you in favor of it?
Do you believe that the FCC should
be interviewing people involved in this process?
Mr. Carney: I think you're slightly
behind the news.
The FCC is an independent agency, A, so you'd have
to talk to them for details,
but I've seen these reports and I understand
the FCC Chairman has taken steps to address the concerns
that have been expressed, including
the ones that you just laid out.
But for details, I'd urge you to talk
to the FCC about their decisions.
The Press: You don't want
to talk about the FCC's --
Mr. Carney: It's an independent agency so
we're not going to weigh in on that, but I would
note what the Chairman has said
and the actions that he's taken.
Peter.
The Press: At least leading up to today, the
message to Yanukovych from the Russians has basically
been, do not compromise.
Putin's Prime Minister Medvedev even urged
Ukraine to tough on the language and translation
"so that people don't wipe their
feet on the authorities like a doormat."
I'm curious of your reaction to that.
Mr. Carney: You're going to have
to repeat the question, Peter.
The Press: There had been a comment just
recently, in the recent days, by Dmitry Medvedev,
the Prime Minister of Russia, who had
effectively said to the Russians
that this was important -- to Ukraine, excuse me,
to Yanukovych, that this was important to,
and the translation was, "so that people don't wipe their
feet on the authorities like a doormat."
I'm just curious what your --
Mr. Carney: Well, I didn't see that comment.
Obviously, there have been a number of words and,
more importantly, actions that we've disagreed with
when it comes to the situation in Ukraine,
not least the violence perpetrated upon peaceful
protestors, and then the overall violence
that we saw.
So I don't have a specific reaction to that.
I would point you to the fact that, at this stage
anyway, we welcome the agreement signed today
between Ukrainian President Yanukovych
and opposition leaders -- an agreement that,
if implemented, reflects a path forward
that is in keeping with what we have advocated,
which is early elections, a change to the constitution
and a coalition government.
So we will be very closely monitoring how this
process moves forward.
But it is certainly a significant step in the
right direction compared to where
we were 24 hours ago.
The Press: What is the U.S.
national security interest?
I understand the desire for democracy there and
early elections and the
right of constitutional reform.
What is the national security interest
for the U.S.
in Ukraine?
Mr. Carney: I'd say two things.
One, supporting the Ukrainian people in the
achievement of their aspirations which
is a democratic government that reflects their will
is important in and of itself.
Ukraine is a large nation in Europe --
a nation of 46 million people, an important country,
and it is certainly our view that Ukrainians ought
to be able to choose their future.
But that would hold true
if they were a much smaller nation.
The Press: And former Ukrainian
Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko
was -- or is to be freed,
if she hasn't already, after two and a half years behind
bars, a conviction that was largely
viewed as political.
White House's thought on that?
Mr. Carney: We have repeatedly called
on the government of Ukraine to end its use of selective
prosecutions, and that includes the prosecution
of former Prime Minister Tymoshenko.
And we are hopeful that she will be released from
prison so she can receive the medical
treatment that she needs.
The Press: Quickly -- I know the President
is going to speak to Russia, to Vladimir Putin today,
if he hasn't already, and then yesterday
I know he spoke to Angela Merkel.
Can you give us a sense of what his engagement has
been on this directly, either with the Russians
or with others in the days leading up to this?
Mr. Carney: He's been deeply engaged and briefed
regularly on developments there and has had,
as we've read out, conversations with
Chancellor Merkel, with Prime Minister Harper
and President Peña Nieto when he was in Mexico.
And obviously, as you know, the Vice President
has been, as well as Secretary Kerry and
others, having direct discussions with President
Yushchenko Yanukovych, and then others have been
having conversations with opposition leaders.
So the President has been very directly engaged.
The President has tasked senior members of his team
to be directly engaged.
This is obviously a significant issue,
and it is the primary subject of the conversation the
President is having,
or has had with President Putin.
The Press: And briefly -- because I think he's
probably affected the lives of a lot of people
that sit in this room, and perhaps yours as well --
but today, Garrick Utley passed away,
a longtime -- a Chicagoan -- the President is certainly
familiar with him.
I'm just curious if the President had heard of his
passing or had any thoughts on his loss.
Mr. Carney: I confess I haven't had that
conversation with the President.
He's had a lot on his plate today.
But I know it's a sad day when someone of
Mr. Utley's stature passes from my former profession,
your current.
And our hearts -- our condolences go out and our
thoughts and prayers go out to his family.
Mark.
Alexis and then Mark.
Sorry.
The Press: So the President is spending time
with governors, obviously, in the
next couple days and today.
Can you remind us in a concrete way what the
President hopes to do to see more Democrats
win in elections as governors?
Mr. Carney: The President is going to be
talking about policy with governors, and he believes
that good policy is good politics.
He's talking about raising the minimum wage.
He is commending governors who have taken action or
expressed a desire to take action at the state level
to raise the minimum age, because no American,
no matter what state they live in,
ought to work 40 hours a week and live in poverty.
So that's going to be the focus of his conversation.
And there's a host of agenda items that he looks
forward to discussing with Democratic governors but
also with governors of both parties that he
believes will help our recovery continue, will
help expand opportunity, and reward hard work.
That's what he's focused on.
He obviously has a role to play,
and will play it very vigorously, when it comes
to the midterm elections.
But he believes we have a lot of business we can get
done as a nation and that, as we've been pretty clear
about, not everything that we can get done
as a nation has to pass through Congress.
It can happen in statehouses; it can happen
in city councils; and it can happen through
public-private partnerships and through
simply convening people to come together to take
action to move forward on an agenda.
And that's what the President has been doing
all year, and that reflects
the kind of conversations he's going
to be having with governors.
The Press: One other quick follow-up.
David Plouffe and Mr. Messina and Bob Bauer
came into the West Wing lobby
midday for a meeting.
Were they meeting with the President?
Could you tell us what they were doing?
Mr. Carney: I don't think they were, but --
obviously they come by every once in a while, but
I don't have any specifics on their meeting.
Who did I just promise.
Mark.
The Press: Jay, what is the reason that today's
meeting with the Dalai Lama, like President
Obama's two previous meetings, took place in
the Map Room and not in the Oval Office.
Mr. Carney: The President, as we read out,
met with His Holiness in the Dalai Lama's capacity
as a religious and cultural leader.
And I think I made clear what our position is when
asked about Tibet.
And so he had the meeting in the Map Room.
But, again, this reflects the kinds of meetings that
this President has had with the Dalai Lama
in the past and past Presidents
have had with the Dalai Lama.
The Press: Is a Map Room meeting a degree
lower than an Oval Office meeting?
Mr. Carney: I think when you meet with the
President, you're always meeting
with the President.
Carol.
Carol and then I did say Dan.
The Press: Who initiated the call with
President Putin?
Mr. Carney: I actually don't know the answer
to that question.
I suspect it was us, but we'll get back to you.
The Press: And can you just give a sense of --
the President is doing an economic event in
Minneapolis next week.
What is the focus of that?
Mr. Carney: Expanding opportunity.
The Press: Beyond expanding opportunity.
Mr. Carney: Rewarding hard work.
The Press: And in what way?
Mr. Carney: We'll have more details on it.
In fact, I have a week ahead and maybe -- well,
you're not going to get a lot of joy out of that.
(laughter) But we will certainly have
more detail for you in coming days.
Dan.
The Press: Let me just ask you about the attack
by Al-Shabaab, at least they claim responsibility,
in Somalia -- 17 people dead, apparently 15
separate attackers -- and what this says about not
only security in Somalia but the threat from
Al-Shabaab more generally.
I think we heard about a threat in Kampala in the
last week or so -- what that says about the threat
that that group still poses,
what the U.S. is --
Mr. Carney: Well, I think as -- I don't have
a specific reaction to that report but I can tell you
that we have been as a general matter focused
on and concerned about Al-Shabaab, as well
as other extremist groups affiliated with al Qaeda,
and especially as it relates to our concerns
that these groups might have designs
on the United States or our allies.
But I don't have anything specific on this attack.
I can take the question and see
if we can get anything for you.
I'm not sure if State has put anything out.
Scott.
Well, you're reading from your Blackberry.
Is that breaking news?
The Press: It looks as if two cases of White
House beer will be going north.
The Press: We lost 1-0.
Mr. Carney: That is a shame.
The Press: And Harper said you can
keep the beer for Keystone.
Does the President have any thoughts?
(laughter)
Mr. Carney: That process is housed
over at the State Department.
(laughter)
It's entirely unfermented.
It sounds like -- I didn't obviously see it.
I did watch yesterday's game, which was just
exhilarating and heartbreaking.
But what I caught of this game seemed just
as stressful for fans to watch.
But, congratulations to Canada.
They certainly know their way around a hockey rink.
The Press: Week ahead?
Mr. Carney: The week ahead, yes.
On Sunday evening, the President and First Lady
will host the governors in town for the winter
meeting for dinner at the White House.
On Monday, the President will meet with the
National Governors Association.
On Tuesday, the President will hold an event on the
economy at the White House.
In the eveningTuesday, he will attend an Organizing
For Action event in Washington, D.C.
On Wednesday, the President will travel to
the Minneapolis, St. Paul area
for an event on the economy.
On Thursday, the President will host an event,
as I noted the other day, on his
"My Brother's Keeper" initiative.
And on Friday, the President will attend a
DNC event here in Washington, D.C.
I hope you all have a splendid weekend.
Thanks very much.