They talk about isil and iran. In britain he made it case for the to stay in the European Union. The matters discussed including some of the things he said in his speech in hanover. Heres that conversation. Good to seeama you. Charlie someone said this is the trip about your three of your favorite ladies. President obama it is a pretty powerful conversation. I have enjoyed spending time with all of them. I would say that this is the most elegant walk and talk i have done in quite some time. Charlie proud to be part of it. President obama absolutely. 250lie you are sending special forces to syria. What did that represent . President obama it represents what i said from the start which dismantlingus isil is a priority us dismantling isil is a priority although we will not be sending Ground Troops into fight. We will try to find out what works and then double that. The own thing that has worked so far is as putting special forces in for training and advising local forces but also intelligence gathering. One of the challenges of mounting a fight against a group thatkiesel that isil embeds itself in civilian forces, they are not isolated, they are not out in remote areas where we can hit them on their own so having people who develop relationships with local tribes, with people who may be going in out of places like rocca we can distinguish between people we can work with and those we cannot. Charlie will they be engaged in search and killed Messenger Missions . President obama i will not going into detail. As a general rule, their role is not to engage strictly with the enemy but rather to work with local forces that is consistent with our overall policy. Charlie a question about the gcc. You have made it clear that you wanted to go there and reassure them and also talk about iran, how you can both be aggressive in monitoring and at the same time open to diplomacy. Did something come out of this meeting on that point . President obama there is no doubt that there is good reasons to be suspicious about iran. They have been a state sponsor of terror. They have tried to destabilize some of their gcc neighbors and they support organizations like has blood that threaten israel and have engaged in terrorist acts against the United States. The argument i have made to them is that within iran, there are forces that recognize the need to engage the world in a more constructive way. They are not liberals, they are not friends of america. Charlie are the moderates . President obama they are practical and more moderate. There are high niners hardliners. What we should be doing is setting up a collective response to any aggression that is generated by the hardliners. While at the same time being in a dialogue with those who understand the need for change and i think that if we are going to solve columns like syria, if we are going to make problems like syria and make progress in yemen where we have a cessation of hostilities, it makes sense for those gcc countries to not necessarily trust irans that at a dialogue and a channel where interests of both sides can be met and we can thate the sectarianism unfortunately has feeding a lot of the violence in the middle east. Charlie let me pivot to china. How aggressive do you see the action in the South China Sea and are you worried that they will cross some line where you will have to respond more aggressively . President obama i have been consistent since i have been president and believing that a relationshipandid between the u. S. And china is vital not just to our countries but to world peace and security. Have been ablewe to establish those kinds of channels and work through a series of tensions. I have repeatedly said to the Chinese Government that we welcome a continued, peaceful rise in china. One of the arguments that i make in the United States as we have a week,re to fear from disintegrating, paranoid china that cannot absorb hundreds of millions of people do might slip back into poverty. We are better off with china that feels confident. Charlie it is not a zerosum game. President obama it is not a zerosum game. They have a tendency to view some of the immediate regional issues or disputes as a zerosum game. With respect to the south china underather than operate International Norms and rules, their attitude is, we are the biggest kids around here and we are going to push aside the philippines or the vietnamese. Charlie how do you respond . President obama our argument is that we are not claimants, were not choosing sides here. What we are trying to uphold is the basic notion of International Rules, norms, and order and so, for example, if the filipinos appeal to International Tribunals under the treaty of law of the sea which they are both signatories to, that is a way to resolve a dispute, not by sending out a gunship or threatening fishermen. This is an area where, ironically, chinas actions have neighborsot of the towards us. If you think about vietnam, i am going to be traveling there next betweeniven the history our two countries, the fact that right now, we are far more popular in china than vietnam, and there is a strategic pivot that they are engaged in, partly economic because of the Transpacific Partnership, partly because their concerns and the desire to Balance Power between us and china. I think that is both an opportunity for us but it does not mean that we are trying to act against china. Just want them to be partners with us, and where they break out of their internationalism norms we will hold them to account. Charlie how do you do that . President obama there are a variety of diplomatic mechanisms. They care about what we think. They are not looking to pick a fight, either. We have to understand their politics and their systems and were not looking for any rash actions of any sort. But what we have been able to do is send a clear message to them that the International Community is on the side of resolving these disputes peacefully. Charlie let me take you to britain where you had lunch with the queen, you had dinner with a celebrated, and you shakespeares 400th birthday at the globe theater. Controversy caused because you said to them, britain is better in the European Union. It should not be a brexit because britain and the European Union can do more. Are they responsive to that, you think, the citizens of britain where you have been held in high regard . President obama ultimately, this is going to be up to them. I do not have a vote. This is up to the british people. They should make their decisions not based on what is good for the United States, but what is good for the united kingdom. But i am absolutely persuaded kingdom isited stronger, more influential, and more prosperous if it stays with the European Union. Think about it. They said 44 of their exports to this Single Market in europe. If they live leave the European Union, they have lost their biggest customer. They will try to renegotiate their way back in. It will not be on better terms than what they are in right now so just from a pure economic perspective, this should be a nobrainer. There is a larger set of forces at work here mother. There is a corollary between those who are demanding that britain leave the eu, antiimmigrant forces that are concerned about outsiders changing their culture, what we see back home with mr. Trump, and some of the rhetoric there, we are in a moment of global havee, and people anxieties about that change. Some of it very legitimate. Global capital is moving, workers are less mobile, and their as a consequence they have less leverage, wages stagnate, there is obviously terrorism fears that have emerged that are very complicated but people want to simple five them by thinking if we could just her seal ourselves off than we would be ok and what all this adds up to is a desire to pull back with the draw and reject the global integration that has been taking place. Unfortunately, in an age of smart phones and the world wide web, and International Travel to globalrgo ships supply chains, that is not possible. What we need to do is not disengage but rather get in there and try to make sure that the International Rules are ones that are consistent with our values, so we want Great Britain should be in the eu, arguing on behalf of the values and common sense that they care about and which, by the way, i approximate the things we care about as well. Charlie how bad do you think the opposition to trade and the rise of populism is . Some say there is an effort to blame globalization as you just suggested, and that that adds to the optical of plants closing and jobs going overseas and there is a fear not only in europe but the United States. President obama absolutely. Charlie how do you convince that trade is positive because you have it trade agreement with asia and with the eu . President obama there is a reason why people had suspicions about trade. Not every trade agreement in the past has been good for workers. There has been offshoring seeking low wages or low Environmental Standards and companies can profit and so back those goods, irrespective of what that has done to the communities they have left, and so there are legitimate concerns about how globalization has proceeded. My argument and i think this is hard to dispute, is that the only way to change the system is to engage it, not to withdraw from it. If, for example, we do not pass the Transpacific Partnership where we are writing the rules for the asiapacific and we are able to raise labor state labor standards so vietnam for the first time will start amazing labor rights or malaysia suddenly recognizes they have to do something about human trafficking, or other countries start saying under the terms of this agreement, we have to abide by certain Environmental Standards create if we do not atify that, that we have status quo in which china goes into those same countries and says, we do not care about human rights. We do not care about worker rights. We do not care about environmental rights. The tradeill write rules that will this advantage are companies and water down the standards we have build out built up inside of our countries. The point is that there are not legitimate concerns about globalization. The equivalent of three quarters of the mountain and it is a lot easier to go up then to climb back down. I think the kneejerk response both from the left and the right in europe and in some cases, and the United States, has been to say, lets just pull up the drawbridge. Lets not ratify any trade agreements. If we do not ratify any trade agreements that means you must be satisfied with the status quo. Obviously it is not satisfactory. If you do not like how an after, the Transpacific Partnership modifies it in a way that enforces labor Environmental Standards that you used to complain about. Charlie you have some convincing to do. President obama the politics of it are tough and the reason is the benefits of trade have often been diffuse. And well structured trade agreements it create some disruptions. It may be good for 90 of the economy. It may create all kinds of jobs and export opportunities. Export jobs tend to pay better. But people do not see it as much, they do not feel it. The average person who is working for a company that exports does not necessarily know that they are exporting. They know they are making a great product. If u. S. Consumers benefit from lowercost goods that improve their quality of life and keep inflation down, that is not something they know, but when they see that plane close they know that. Oftentimes, if the plant has automation as of opposed to trade, it is hard to make that distinction, so part of our job is not to dismiss concerns about globalization. They are real and they are legitimate. Make to argue how do we globalization, which is not going to be reversed anytime soon, work for ordinary people. How do we make sure it is working for communities all across america or here in europe, and that is something i am convinced we can do, but we have to get the facts. Charlie we are in germany. Your favorite as you have said, your favorite Global Leader who has been with you longest. What is it about you and Angela Merkel is to mark what is it about her Angela Merkel . What is it about her that represents the kind of leadership you need in europe . Iesident obama i think that have an affinity for her. I like to think she has an affinity for me because we are both pretty rational. We both try to analyze a problem and solve it based on facts and reason and common sense. Also believe, though, is she represents a vision of europe both in her own life and in her policies that has resulted in stability and prosperity here in europe and a strong transatlantic relationship. She believes in free markets. She believes in liberalism. She believes in democracy. She believes in a free press. She believes in pluralism. Charlie she is willing to make moral decisions when it may not be in her political interest. President obama that is right. She is a good politician other way she would not have been here this long. If you look at what she is doing in respect to the refugee crisis she is making in our image of the german people that, look, we are prospering now because people invested in us in the Marshall Plan and helped us during reunification and we worked hard and we deserve our success, but we also benefited from those who were willing to see humanity in us after world war ii and we now have that same obligation and that kind of moral authority i think is important. She and i have had disagreements with various issues, on economic policies, she has pursued a more offsteer set of economic policies and had that influence hasurope and whether that slowed their growth more. Even when we disagree, we are disagreeing on the basis of common baseline of values and i think that is reflective of what the transatlantic relationship has to be about. Charlie you believe this conversation and meet with heads of state from europe. How are you coming together on dealing with migration and refugees . President obama what i have said to them is that this is not just a european problem. This is our problem, too. For two reasons. One is that you have a flood of refugees and it is disorderly, and these are folks who potentially, if not handled properly, could end up being an alienated population inside of europe that is not assimilated, and will berated, resentful and that could have an impact in terms of their willingness to engage us and help us on things like counterterrorism. But more importantly, more strategically is the strain it is putting on europes politics. The way that it advances far right nationalism. The degree to which it is breakup of a european unity. That in some cases is being exploited by somebody like mr. Putin, who says forget about europe, look at reasserting the andonalist greatness antimuslim sentiment. Charlie his goal is to divide europe . President obama i think that mr. Putin has generally viewed aso, eu, transatlantic unity a threat to russian power. I think he is mistaken about that. Fact,cated to him that in a strong, unified europe working with the strong, outward looking is defining its greatness not on the basis of military but rather on the basis of its ability to harness the talents of its people for economic good, that that is the right recipe. So far, he has not been entirely persuaded. In the meantime i want to make sure that europe itself is not threatened. So what we have been doing to answer your question about how were approaching it, we are under the nato umbrella trying to help them in the aegean sea. We have been trying to facilitate the deal that has been struck between the eu and ankey, so that there is orderly process of migration and obviously, one of the things we have to do is try to use all of our diplomatic power together to bring about an and to the civil war in syria. Charlie as i prepared for this and your trip when you met with princip it seems that a le that comes out of your seven years less, you have learned or you strongly believe that you to do this, you have with partners, whether it is against isil, or battling migration here in europe or rightwing politics or whatever it might be. Is that a message you have to the prime ministers, we have to work together, and are they receptive to it in terms of making a commitment so that they are not free riders making a commitment, to the effort against terrorism in their homes . President obama they are receptive to it. Charlie what are you asking . President obama i think they need to do more particularly around the fence. A semiproposition and nato is Everyone Needs to spend 2 of gdp on the fence. We spend close to 4 . We understand that some countries may need to gradually get there. But there has been a complacency aroundd, postcold war, nato defenses. Now that you have threats on the southern front, that is going to strain resources requiring new capabilities but the general message that we have to do things together is absolutely true. Because the nature of the threats we now face are different. These are transnational threats. These are threats that do not involve defeating some great power that is trying to take over the world but it is Climate Change and it is transnational Drug Trafficking and human trafficking, and it is problems povertyled states and and migration. These are the kinds of problems dealtbest out with with by linking up and sharing information and sharing best practices and pooling resources. And one of the points i made very early on in my presidency is that the United States will