Seems to be so huge, particularly in political arenas, in a way in which power and authority is broadcast and in the means by which we construct that power. So to me the flowers are representative of that pattern and its about those ways in which we decorate ourselves to create a certain sense of control. Rose barack obama and taryn simon, when we continue. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose welcome to the program. Tonight, a conversation with president barack obama. The interview follows our sit down in the white house last week. This took place in hanover, germany, in which the president attended an industrial affair with Angela Merkel . London he had lunch with the queen, dinner with a future king, and then played golf with the Prime Minister and celebrated shakespeare. In riyadh, met with leaders of the gulf council and talked about i. S. I. L and riern and in london made a clear case for print to stay in the European Union. I spoke with the president about the visit and the matters discussed including some of the things he said in his speech in hanover. Here is that conversation. Good to see you. Rose someone told you this is a trip with your three favorite ladies. I enjoyed spending time with all of them. Rose you ever done such an elegant walk and talk except in the white house . Its the most elegant i have been a part of in a long time. Rose lets talk about the announcement youre sending for 250 special forces to syria. Mmhmm. Rose what does that represent . It represents what ive said from the start which is that us dismantling i. S. I. L is a priority and, although we are not going to be sending Ground Troops in to fight, we are going to try to find out what works and then double down, and one of the things thats worked so far is us putting special forces in for training and advising local forces and also intelligence gathering. One of the challenges of mounting a fight against a group like i. S. I. L that embeds itself with civilian forces, theyre not isolated, theyre 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 and out of places like raqqa, us being able to distinguish between those whom we can and cant work with, thats all important. Rose will they be engaged in any search and Kill Missions . Im not going to go into details of the all the mission sets that theyre involved with. As a general rule, the rule is not to engage directly with the enemy but rather to work with local forces thats consistent with our overall policy throughout. One question about the g. C. C. 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 them up to diplomacy. Did something come out of this meeting on that point . There is no doubt that there is good reason to be suspicious about iran. They have been a state sponsor of terror. They have tried to destabilize some of their g. C. C. Neighbors. They support organizations like hezbollah that threaten israel and have engaged in terrorist acts against the United States. But the argument that 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. Theyre not liberals. Theyre not friends of america. Rose moderate . But theyre more practical and more moderate. And then there are hard liners. And what we should be doing is setting up a collective response to any agg change. I think if were going to solve problems like syria, if were going to make progress in yemen where now have cessation of hostilities, it makes sense for those g. C. C. Countries to not necessarily trust iran but at least open up a dialogue and a channel with them where interests of both sides can be met and we can reduce the sectarianism that unfortunately is feeding a lot of the violence in the middle east. Rose let me pivot to china. How aggressive do you see the action in the South China Sea and do you worry that they will cross some line in which you will have to respond more aggressively . I have been consistent since i have been president in believing that a productive, candid relationship between the United States and china is vital not just to our two countries but to world peace and security, and generally we have been able to establish those kind of channels and work through a series of tensions. I have repeatedly said to the chinese got that we welcome a continued, peaceful rise of china. One of the arguments that i make in the United States is that we have a lot more to fear from a weak, disintegrating, paranoid china that cant absorb, you know, hundred hundreds of millif people who might slip back into poverty, were a lot better off with a china who feels confident rose not a zero sum game. Its not a zero sum game. What is true, though, is they have a tendency to view some of the immediate regional issues or disputes as a zero sum game. So with respect to the South China Sea, rather than operate under International Norms and rules, their attitude is were the biggest kids around here and were going to push aside the philippines or the vietnam. The the vietnamese. Rose and how do you respond . The argument to them is were not claimants. Were not choosing sides here. What we are trying to uphold is a basic notion of interpretational rules, norms and order and, for example, if the filipinos appeal to International Tribunals under the law of the sea which china and the philippines are signatories too, thats a way to resolve a dispute, not by sending out a gunship or threatening fishermen. This is an area where, ironically, chinas actions have actually pushed a lot of the neighbors towards us. I mean, if you think about vietnam, im going to be traveling there next month, given the history between our two countries, the fact that right now we are far more popular in china than vietnam, and there is a strategic pivot that theyre engaged in, partly economic because of the Transpacific Partnership, partly because of their concerns and the desire to Balance Power between us and china. I think thats both an opportunity for us, but it doesnt mean that were trying to act against china, we just want them to be partners with us, and where they break out of International Rules and norm also, were going to hold them to account. Rose and how do you do that . Well, there will be a variety of diplomatic mechanisms. They care about what we think. Theyre not looking to pick a fight either. We do 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 to send a clear message to them that the International Community is on the side of resolving these disputes peacefully. Rose let me take you to britain where, like any other american tourist, had breakfast, had lunch with the queen, dinner with the future king, played golf with the Prime Minister and celebrated shakespeares 400th birthday at the globe theater and then caused some controversy because you said to them, britain is better in the European Union because britain in the European Union can do more. Mmhmm. Rose are they responsive to that, the citizens of britain, where you are held in high regard . Ultimately, this is up to them. I dont have a vote. This is up to the british people. They should make their decisions based on not whats good for the United States but whats good for the United Kingdom. But i am absolutely persuaded that the United Kingdom is stronger, more influential and more prosperous if it stays in the European Union. Think about it. They send 44 of their exports to this Single Market in europe. If they leave the European Union, they have lost their biggest customer. Now, they will try to renegotiate and get back in. I guarantee you, i wont be on better terms than what theyre 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, though. There is a corollary between those who are demanding that britain leave the e. U. , 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 change, and people have anxieties about that change, some very legitimate. Global capital movement, workers are less mobile and as a consequence, less leverage, wages stagnate. There is obviously terrorism fears have emerged that are very complicated but people want to simplify them by thinking if we can just hermetically seal ourselves off then we would be okay, and what all this adds up to is i think a desire to pull back with a draw and reject the global integration thats been taking place. Unfortunately, in an age of smartphones and the worldwide web and International Travel and big cargo ships and Global Supply chains, thats just not possible, and, so, 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, you know, Great Britain should be in the e. U. Arguing on behalf of the values and the common sense that they care about, which, by the way is, you know, the things we care about as well. Rose you made an important speech here and youre going to talk about trade, i assume, some of the issues facing europe. How bad do you think the opposition to trade and the rise of populism is . I mean, some say that, you know, 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 theres a fear not only in europe but in the United States. Absolutely. Rose how do you convince them that trade is positive . Because youve got a trade agreement with asia, with the e. U. Well, as i said before, there is a reason why people have some suspicions about trade. Not every trade agreement in the past has been good for workers. There has been offshoring seeking primarily low wages or low Environmental Standards and companies can profit and sell back the goods irrespective of what thats done to the communities theyve left so, there are legitimate concerns about how globalization is proceeding. My argument, and i think this is hard to dispute, is that the only way to change this system is to engage it, not to withdraw from it. If, for example, we dont pass the Transpacific Partnership, where we are now writing the rules for the asiapacific, and were able to raise labor standards so that suddenly vietnam, for the first time, is going to start recognizing 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, if we dont ratify that, then we have a status quo in which china goes into those same countries and says, we dont care about human rights, we dont care about worker rights, we dont care about environmental rights, and they will write the trade rules that will disadvantage our companies and further water down the standards that weve built up inside our country. So the point is not there arent legitimate concerns about globalization. The point is were threequarters up the mountain and its a lot easier to go up than to climb back down, and i think the kneejerk response, both from the left and the right, in europe and in some cases in the United States, has been to say, lets just, you know, pull up the draw bridge, lets not ratify any trade agreements. Well, if we dont ratify trade agreements, that means you must be satisfied with the status quo. Obviously, its not satisfactory. If you dont like how nafta worked, the Transpacific Partnership modifies it in a way that enforces labor and Environmental Standards you used to complain about. Rose but you have convincing to do, like the nominee of your party. Well, the politics are tough and the reason is because the benefits of trade have often been diffuse. Even wellstructured trade agreements create some disruptions. It may be good for 90 of the economy. It may create all kinds of jobs and export opportunities, because export jobs pay better, but people dont see it as much, they dont feel it. The average person working for a company in the United States that exports doesnt necessarily know that theyre exporting, they just know theyre making a great product. If u. S. Consumers benefit from lower cost goods that improve their quality of life and keep inflation down, thats not something they know, but when they see that plant close, they do know that. Oftentimes, if the plant has closed because of automation as opposed to trade, its hard to make that distinction. So part of our job is not to dismiss concerns about globalization. They are real and they are legitimate. It is to argue how do we make globalization, which is not going to be reversed any time soon, work for ordinary people . How do we make sure its working for communities all across america or here in europe . And that is something im convinced we can do. But, you know, weve got to get the facts out. Rose were in germany. Your favorite Global Leader who has been with you longest. Yes. Rose what is it about you and Angela Merkel . What is it about her that makes you believe she represents the kind of leadership you need in europe . Well, i think that i have an affinity for her and i would like to think she has an affinity for me because were both pretty rational. We try to analyze a problem and solve it based on facts and reason and cohn sense, and what i also believe, though, is that 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. Rose and willing to make decisions that may not be in her interest. Yes, and shes a good politician. If you look at what shes doing with regard to the refugee crisis, shes making an argument that were prospering now because people invested in us in the martial plan and worked with us in reunification and we worked hard and 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 on various issues, on economic policies. Shes pursued a more austere set of economic policies and had that influence in europe and the way that slowed their growth more. Even when we disagree, were disagreeing on the basis of facts and of common baseline of values and i think thats reflective of what the transatlantic relationship has to be out. Rose how are you coming together on dealing with migration and refugees . What ive said to them is this is not just a european problem, this is our problem, too, for two reasons one is that if you have a flood of refugees and its disorderly, then, you know, these are folks who potentially, if not handled properly, could end up being an alienated population inside of europe that is not assimilated, is not integrated, and will be 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 its putting on europes politics, the way that it advances far right nationalism, the degree to which it is encouraging a breakup of european unity, that in some cases is being exploited by mr. Putin who says forget about europe, look at sort of reasserting the nationalist greatness and antimuslim sentiments. Rose his goal is to divide europe. Well, i think mr. Putin has generally viewed n. A. T. O. , e. U. , transatlantic unity as a threat to hes mistaken about that. I indicated to him that, in fact, a strong, unified europe working with a strong, outwardlooking russia that 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, then thats 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 n. A. T. O. Umbrella, trying to help them in the aegean sea. We have been trying to facilitate the deal that has been struck between the e. U. And turkey so that there is an orderly process of migration and, obviously, one of the things we have to do is to try to use all our diplomatic power together to bring about an end to the civil war. Rose as i prepared for this on your trip and whether it was the g. C. C. Going to london or germany, it seems a principle that comes out of your sevenyearsplus is you strongly believe you have to do this with partners, whether against i. S. I. L, whether battling migration in europe or righting politics or whatever it might be, is that a message you have to these Prime Ministers, we have to work together, and are they receptive in terms of making a commitment so theyre not free riders, to make a commitment to the effort against i. S. I. L, dealing with migration and the efforts