In remarks aired live on Fox News and CNN shortly after midnight ET (the cable nets become legitimate news networks late on Sunday nights), Barack Obama spoke at a town hall meeting with Chinese students in Shanghai, addressing topics like trade, international relations and Twitter, which he says he has “never used” (this comes as news to the 2.7 million now-depressed followers of @barackobama, for whom the world has now come crashing down).

China notably did not broadcast the remarks live, preferring instead to show edited portions on CCTV (The White House did live stream the event into China, where it was not censored). Perhaps that’s because Obama argued for greater rights and freedoms for young Chinese. He called individual personal expression a universal right and stressed that those common fundamental principles should be upheld:

We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation, but we also don’t believe that the principles that we stand for are unique to our nation. These freedoms of expression and worship — of access to information and political participation — we believe are universal rights. They should be available to all people, including ethnic and religious minorities — whether they are in the United States, China, or any nation. Indeed, it is that respect for universal rights that guides America’s openness to other countries; our respect for different cultures; our commitment to international law; and our faith in the future.

This came up particularly in the “Twitter question,” which will probably be the take-away from this event. President Obama said he did not use Twitter but that he thought it should be open and accessible, that the free flow of information strengthens society and generates new ideas.

And so I’ve always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I’m a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.

Now, I should tell you, I should be honest, as President of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time. I think people naturally are — when they’re in positions of power sometimes thinks, oh, how could that person say that about me, or that’s irresponsible, or — but the truth is that because in the United States information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear. It forces me to examine what I’m doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States.

Another key issue, not brought up in the question time but in the initial remarks, was the subject of trade, with Obama making a subtle reference to the widening trade deficit:

In 1979, trade between the United States and China stood at roughly $5 billion — today it tops over $400 billion each year. The commerce affects our people’s lives in so many ways. America imports from China many of the computer parts we use, the clothes we wear; and we export to China machinery that helps power your industry. This trade could create even more jobs on both sides of the Pacific, while allowing our people to enjoy a better quality of life. And as demand becomes more balanced, it can lead to even broader prosperity. (emphasis mine)

In other words, “we cannot keep purchasing the world, so lowering that trade deficit would help both countries.” Paul Krugman actually wrote about this today, and the dangers of imbalanced trade.

Finally, the President received several questions about his Nobel Peace Prize and his decision making on Afghanistan, as if the students were hinting around the potential disconnect between the two. The President talked openly about the “burden” that he feels from the acceptance of the Peace Prize, using the idiom “You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.” He noted his role as commander in chief, but taking a question on the subject of Afghanistan, he admitted the complexities and the often competing forces at work in making such a decision. He also formally acknowledged that Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan anymore. I’m going to clip the entire answer, because it’s crucial:

Now, the reason we originally went into Afghanistan was because al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, being hosted by the Taliban. They have now moved over the border of Afghanistan and they are in Pakistan now, but they continue to have networks with other extremist organizations in that region. And I do believe that it is important for us to stabilize Afghanistan so that the people of Afghanistan can protect themselves, but they can also be a partner in reducing the power of these extremist networks.

Now, obviously it is a very difficult thing — one of the hardest things about my job is ordering young men and women into the battlefield. I often have to meet with the mothers and fathers of the fallen, those who do not come home. And it is a great weight on me. It gives me a heavy heart.

Fortunately, our Armed Services is — the young men and women who participate, they believe so strongly in their service to their country that they are willing to go. And I think that it is possible — working in a broader coalition with our allies in NATO and others that are contributing like Australia — to help train the Afghans so that they have a functioning government, that they have their own security forces, and then slowly we can begin to pull our troops out because there’s no longer that vacuum that existed after the Taliban left.

But it’s a difficult task. It’s not easy. And ultimately I think in trying to defeat these terrorist extremists, it’s important to understand it’s not just a military exercise. We also have to think about what motivates young people to become terrorists, why would they become suicide bombers. And although there are obviously a lot of different reasons, including I think the perversion of religion, in thinking that somehow these kinds of violent acts are appropriate, part of what’s happened in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan is these young people have no education, they have no opportunities, and so they see no way for them to move forward in life, and that leads them into thinking that this is their only option.

And so part of what we want to do in Afghanistan is to find ways that we can train teachers and create schools and improve agriculture so that people have a greater sense of hope. That won’t change the ideas of a Osama bin Laden who are very ideologically fixed on trying to strike at the West, but it will change the pool of young people who they can recruit from. And that is at least as important, if not more important over time, as whatever military actions that we can take. Okay?