NATO: Strong Together in an Unpredictable World

I have just had an excellent series of meetings with Chancellor Merkel and with ministers Steinmeier and von der Leyen. I thanked each of them for their personal commitment and leadership in our Alliance. We discussed the wide range of security challenges we face, and our plans for the NATO Summit in September.

Our summit takes place at a critical time. For 65 years, the NATO Alliance has helped bring peace and prosperity to the free countries of Europe. Today, more than at any time since the end of the Cold War, that is being put to the test. From Eastern Europe to North Africa and the Middle East.

So we must remain ready to keep our nations safe. To respond to any threat.  To reinforce our network of partners around the world.  To help keep the world stable and secure.  And all allies must take their share of responsibility in keeping our transatlantic alliance strong.

I thank Germany for your leading role in Afghanistan. Your troops have done a remarkable job in the north of the country, as I saw for myself when I visited Mazar-e-Sharif.  Across the country, security has created the conditions for a better Afghanistan and given the Afghan people the opportunity to develop their country and to decide their own future.

At the end of the year, we will end our combat mission and turn a new page in Afghanistan.  Germany has again taken a leading role in offering to be framework nation in the new non-combat mission we are planning after 2014.  Taking the lead in training, advising and assisting Afghan forces.  Building on the many gains we have made.

Germany also plays a key role in keeping our collective defence strong. Both to our south, with a Patriot battery in Turkey, and to the east in the Baltic region.

In Szczecin in Poland, Germany is working closely with Poland and Denmark to enhance the readiness of NATO’s Multinational Corps Headquarters.  Contributing additional troops and turning it into a high readiness headquarters.  This is a significant contribution to the strengthening our collective defence.

Germany’s commitment to international peace and security is clear.    And this level of commitment is particularly important now. With her actions in Ukraine, Russia has violated international law and torn up the rule book that has served Europe so well since the end of the Cold War.

Such behaviour cannot be allowed to return to Europe.

No one wants to turn away from our cooperation with Russia. But no one can ignore that Russia has violated the very principles upon which our NATO-Russia cooperation is built.  And to which Russia herself was committed.

Germany has played a crucial role in the international response to Russia’s actions.  When Europe and the world needed you, you were there.

It is vital for Europe and the world that Germany remains strong.  To provide not only political and economical pressure, but military presence as well. 

So that no country can be in any doubt:  If the rules are broken, if our freedom, our people and our borders are threatened, we will respond. 

Of course, Germany’s defence priorities are for Germany to decide. But I would urge you, as I urge every Ally to give increased priority to your defence.  As European  economies recover from the economic crisis, so too should our investment in defence.

Today, our world is more dangerous and more unstable than at any time since the end of the Cold War.  By facing up to this reality, by investing in our own defence, and by standing together as one through the NATO Alliance, we will ensure our peace and security for another 65 years and beyond.

And with that, I'm ready to take your questions. 

Moderator:  Thank you very.  (SPEAKS IN GERMAN)

Q: Secretary General, I'll do it in English.  So no translation needed.  You mentioned your thanks to Germany for its commitment to NATO.  You have mentioned that you have been urging Germany to give priority to defence.  Did you talk specifically about the two percent threshold, two percent of GDP which Germany falls below for quite some time, has this come up in your talk with the Chancellor or with the ministers?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen (NATO Secretary General):  Yes, indeed, I have raised this issue because we will address it at the summit in Wales.  No decisions have been made yet.  But I have argued that the Russian... the illegal Russian military actions in Ukraine are a wake-up call, a reminder that we cannot take our security in Europe for granted.

Obviously after the end of the Cold War and the 20 or 25 years of reduced tensions in Europe, it's no wonder and no surprise that defence budgets have been declining. 

But we are now in a dramatically changed security situation in Europe. And let me remind you that during the recent five years, Russia has increased its defence investment by 50% while NATO in the same period of time has decreased its defence spending by 20% in average. Some NATO Allies have even decreased more: by up to 40% decrease in defence spending.  This is not sustainable. 

So that's why we will have to address this issue at the summit. And I hope we can agree on a common commitment to gradually increase defence investments. 

Moderator:  (SPEAKS IN GERMAN)

Q:  (Inaudible) German Television.  Mister Secretary General, you were talking about investments to German Defence.  You've probably noticed the German debate on armed drones.  What is your view?  What is your expectation towards that?  And for the question:  if and when German forces should deploy or should not deploy on drones?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen:  First of all, I would like to stress that decisions on acquisition of military capabilities are national decisions. So it's not for NATO to decide whether Germany or any other Ally could or should acquire drones. 

Having said that, within NATO, we have identified drones as one of the capabilities we need to invest in; so drones constitute a shortfall.  And we encourage investments in that capability; because drones can contribute to saving lives.  They can protect deployed troops. And we have seen in NATO operations that the use of drones can also save civilian lives through an improved surveillance reconnaissance. So that our commanders in the field get a better picture of what is actually going on, on the ground.  So this is why we have identified drones as one of the critical shortfalls; and encourage Allies to invest in that capability.

Moderator:  (Speaks in German)

Q:  (Inaudible) for the Dutch newspaper Telegraph.  Mister Secretary General, I have two questions.  First, the Netherlands, for example, are on the level of about 1% of the GDP for defence budget. "What do you say about that, because it's not enough concerning your policy?" is the first question. 

The second question is about the Patriots in Turkey.  The chemical weapons should have moved from Syria right now.  So should also the Patriot missiles and the soldiers now retreat from Turkey because there's no reason to stay there?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen:  First, on the latter, let me stress that the deployment of Patriots is not solely connected to the existence of chemical weapons in Syria.  The deployment of Patriots aims at protecting the Turkish population.  And the Turkish society against any potential missile attack from Syria. So it can....  I mean it can be separated from the issue of chemical weapons.  It's a protection against any kind of missile attacks irrespective of the existence or non-existence of chemical weapons. 

On defence spending, my appeal is an appeal to all NATO countries to gradually increase defence spending.  Let me...  So that, of course, also includes the Netherlands.  Just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding.  Let me add that as former prime minister of Denmark, I know very well that this is a challenging task; because many nations are struggling with their public finances to cut deficit; stop indebtedness. And that's also important; because the higher the debt the more fragile the society. So there is of course also a security aspect related to the economy.  In other words, sound fiscal policies are also sound security policies.  But having said that, it is not sustainable that we are cutting deeply, while Russia and other nations are increasing their defence budgets.

Let me add to this, that we have identified a number of shortfalls, areas where we need more investments like drones as I mentioned; like air-to-air refuelling which was also mentioned by the European Council when it met in December.  We have identified a number of areas where we need more investments.

And finally, this is also a question about solidarity within our Alliance.  It's a fact that one Ally, the United States represents more than two thirds of the overall defence expenditure within our Alliance. And in some areas, we rely 100% of capabilities provided by the United States.  And while, of course, it's part of being in an Alliance that we help each other, I can tell you that whenever I meet American politicians on the Hill in Washington, they ask questions: "Why is it that the American taxpayers should continue to pay the bulk of the common bill for our common security? Couldn't the Europeans pay a bit more?"

And I'm concerned that if we, the Europeans, are not willing to invest sufficiently in our defence, then there's a clear risk that American politicians would conclude that they should pay more attention to other parts of the world. 

So I see this also as a part of solidarity within our Alliance. And this is why I appeal to not only the Netherlands but all Allies that we find ways and means to gradually increase our defence investment. 

Moderator:  (Speaks in German)

Q:  (Inaudible) from the Greek TV, Mega Channel.  You speak about investing in defence.  In the same time, in Greece, we are coming out in a very serious financial crisis.  And the same time, we are a very sensitive region Southeast Europe. And the only defence problem for Greece, or the biggest, is Turkey another member of NATO.  How all this can go together: financial crisis, investing in defence and at the same time feeling insecure from another member of NATO?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen:  Let me start with the latter.  Actually, I think not least thanks to the membership of NATO both Turkey and Greece have managed to settle disputes in a peaceful manner during decades now, which I think is good news and a testament to the strength of being a collective military alliance.

Next, actually, Greece is among the few Allies that fulfil the 2% benchmark when it comes to defence expenditure.

And finally, I do know, as I mentioned that for many countries it is hard to see how they can increase defence spending while they are still struggling with their economies.  I mean, austerity measures come at a cost and that's why I also made the argument that we have to take into account the different economic conditions in different countries. 

I think that would possible to do that.  But overall, we need a common commitment to increase defence investments as the economies recover. 

Moderator:  (Speaks in German)

Q:  My name is (inaudible) from the Polish Radio.  You have mentioned this multinational corps that is Poland, in Szczecin base, grounded by Denmark, Germany and Poland.  Do you know if there is any real plan to enhance this corps, if it should be bigger?  What do the NATO members think about it? Thank you.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Actually, defence ministers from the three countries announced recently that they are going to, sort of speak, upgrade that headquarters and also improve its readiness. So that's an example of how we reinforce our collective defence. And I wouldn't exclude that the three countries would be joined by others. So I think we will see an upgrade of that headquarters, including making it more responsive as we call it. 

Moderator:  (Speaks in German)

Q:  Mister Rasmussen, a few days back, you said that Russia has infiltrated European Green groups fighting fracking.  What kind of evidence do you have for that claim?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Yes, as a matter of principle, we never comment on intelligence information.  But we have solid evidence that Russia is also active when it comes to infiltration of so-called non-governmental organizations.  I do not suggest that's the case for all environmental organizations of course, not...  I have also had an opportunity to discuss this with political leaders in Allied nations who confirmed this. So it's a fact. I've just stated a fact.  I'm not engaging in an energy discussion; because that's not for the NATO Secretary General to do that. 

But speaking about energy security in Europe, it is a fact that from a security point of view, it's a problem that European countries are so dependent on imported oil and gas from Russia. And then, of course, I mean it's pretty easy to guess that the reason why Russia is financing groups that counter the development of alternative energy sources, the reason is that they want to keep it that way; that European countries are dependent on imported oil and gas from Russia.  It's not.... I mean it's not complicated science.

Q:  But I mean intelligence information is not a fact.  If it's a fact, you need to give us evidence that it's that way. 

Anders Fogh Rasmussen:  Yes, but as you know, usually, it's very difficult to provide backgrounds when we gather intelligence. And that's why as a matter of principle we never... we never comment on that. But what I have done is actually just to convey a message which is a fact based on our intelligence, based on information I received from political leaders and Allied nations. 

Moderator:  (Speaks in German)

Q: Yes, from (inaudible) Italian.  I have two questions for you.  You talked about peace and stability; but your last military act in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't have these effects until now. And I think... and you didn't talk about UN. So the rule of the United Nations in these wars,  I would like to know your point of view about the rule of the United Nations and the rule of the diplomacy in keep-peacing (sic) for the future.  And another small question, what happened in the future when even the other countries will be able to make new drones?  Did you (have) pictures or photographs when also the other countries will have the ability to make drones and to use them?  What will happen?  Which will be the factor in the war?  Which kind of peace we will have?  Thank you.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: First, on Afghanistan and Iraq, on the latter, let me remind you that NATO as such was not engaged in the conflict in Iraq; but afterwards, NATO deployed a training mission to Iraq to train and educate Iraqi security forces. But at a certain stage we had to leave because the Iraqis didn't prolong the necessary security agreements. 

Now, on Afghanistan, we're on track. We will complete our ISAF combat mission by the end of this year as planned. And I'm confident that the Afghan Security Forces will be able to take full responsibility for the security all over Afghanistan as planned. And while there is still challenges... of course, there are challenges in Afghanistan, we have seen a clear progress.  Afghanistan today is a much better society than Afghanistan 15 or 10 years ago.   Security-wise, while you have still attacks, the security situation is better. And as I've said, we have built a strong Afghan security force that will take full responsibility for the security. And we will continue to train, assist, after 2014. 

But also if you have a look at the broader development of Afghanistan, it's a much better society.  You see economic growth from a low starting point, yes.  But you see economic growth which is underpinned by better infrastructure.  Tens of thousands of roads have been constructed. 

Sure, the majority of the population is covered by mobile phones.  I'm mentioning it because that's vital for a modern economy.  The educational system has improved: eight million children go to school, out of which, more than one third are girls.  Previously, they couldn't get an education at all. The health system has improved.  Life expectancy has risen in particular for women.  Child mortality has gone down. And you also see a very vibrant media environment in Afghanistan.

So, across the board, you see progress.  I do not suggest that everything is perfect.  Of course, there is still challenges; but it's a much better society than it was some years ago. 

Now, on UN... the UN role, I see the United Nations as an indispensable international actor.  And in fact, all current NATO operations are based on United Nations' mandate... mandates.  So we operate within United Nations' framework. And we have during recent years improved our cooperation with the United Nations.  And actually our Libya Operation in 2011 was based on a United Nations' mandate, actually a very historic security counter-resolution of a responsibility to protect the civilian population in Libya. 

Finally, on drones, let me stress one very important aspect of this; because I have seen that in the debates drones are mentioned as something very special.  But from an international legal perspective, we don't see any difference between manned aircrafts and unmanned drones. When we elaborate rules of engagement, for us, it's the same whether it's manned or unmanned. 

Moderator: (Speaks in German)

Q: Concerning Afghanistan, the actual situation. After 2014, a certain amount of troops should be stationed there.  The condition is that the new president of Afghanistan should sign that agreement. Election, right now, is in a very, very, let's say chaotic situation due to internal strife in Afghanistan. What happens if that agreement is not signed by whoever will be the follow of Karzai in the near future?  The whole plan will stand in limbo, in jeopardy. 

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: The answer to that is very clear and very short.  If there is no security agreement, there will be no training mission.  It is as easy as that.  It is a prerequisite for deploying a training mission that we have the necessary legal framework in place. And that is a bilateral security agreement between the US and Afghanistan and NATO's Status-Of-Forces Agreement.  So if they are not signed in due time, we cannot deploy a training mission.  But again, I do expect the legal framework to be signed so that we can deploy a training mission.

Q: But this can be signed only by the elected president.  And that's the problem right now.  It may be postponed for a long time.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: We will see when the presidential electoral process will be completed.  According to the latest information, it's still the intention to publish the final results of the second presidential... or the second round of presidential elections; to publish these results on the 22nd of July. 

If that's the case, there's a still a fair chance that a new president will be inaugurated at the beginning of August.  And both presidential candidates have pledged that they will sign the security agreement shortly after they take office. So in that case, the security agreements will be signed before the NATO Summit and we can launch the training mission. 

Moderator:  (Speaks in German)

Q:  Klaus (inaudible), as you know, the German Parliament is putting often strict limits or caveats on any mission of Bundes wherever it may be. And I was wondering whether you think that this is working against effectiveness.  Is this working in the future when countries are encouraged to pool and share in particular when our minister is now proposing that the German Bundestag would decide with arms... where the drones will be armed in a far-away theatre from a case to case decision?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen:  Well, it's not a new phenomenon that certain contributions to NATO operations are based on certain caveats.  And in the past, we have dealt with that in a way that has allowed us to carry out our military tasks in an efficient manner. 

Also, in Afghanistan, I think it's... I mean it is a prerequisite for deploying armed forces abroad that parliaments take decisions; that parliaments are in control.  And of course, they can set certain conditions. But having said that, you point to an important aspect of more and more multilateral cooperation.  As you know, I have promoted the smart defence concept which is about more multinational cooperation on developing military capabilities. 

And of course, it puts more emphasis on exactly this aspect; because when a nation decides to join such a multinational project, that specific nation must also accept that specific capability can actually be deployed; can be used if necessary.

If one of the participants in a multinational project can veto the use of such a multinational capability, then, of course, other participants in that collective project would start to doubt whether it's the right investment. 

If they invest in a certain capability, but others are able to block the use of it, by using a veto, then that collective project is put into jeopardy. So you raised a very important issue that must be addressed if we are to move forward in using more and more collective solutions. And personally, I have no doubt that in the future nations will need to help each other much more.  We need more and more multilateral cooperation; because in the future, it will be increasingly difficult for individual nations to acquire the necessary and often very expensive military equipment on their own.  So they'll have to pool and share resources in joint efforts. And then they will also have to accept that those capabilities can actually be deployed and used. 

Moderator:  (Speaks in German)

Q:  How serious do you take the threat by Russia that they will deploy SS-26 Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, close to the border with Poland?  And did you already see signs that they have actually deployed them?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: We are following developments closely. As I said, as a matter of principle, we never comment on intelligence information.  But in direct response to your answer, I would say "unfortunately, we have seen that declarations from the Russian side are not just words."  We have seen recently that words have been followed by concrete action.  So we take such declarations seriously.