Ivo Daalder - United States Permanent Representative to NATO HARDtalk

NATO was founded to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union, with

the US and enthusiastic member. You could say that Ivo Daalder is

perfect as Washington's representative at the headquarters

in Belgium. He is European by birth and American by choice. But are

those two outlooks becoming increasingly difficult to

reconcile? --? There is tension that could affect European citizens

and a division characterised by a former US Defence Secretary as

between those who pay, the Americans, and those who enjoy the

benefits, the Europeans. With divisions over money and philosophy,

as Ivo Daalder with -- prepares to return home, does he keep it is

time that this 64-year-old Security Ivo Daalder, welcome to HARDtalk.

And thank you for hosting a pass at NATO's studio. To keep the

Russian's out, the Americans in and Germans down. That is how the first

Secretary General of NATO described now? What is NATO for in the 21st

century? For three things. At the Lisbon summit in November, 2010,

when we adopted a new strategic concept, we made that clear.

Firstly, collective defence. To in today and tomorrow, when one of

us is attack, whether armies coming through the skies for a

cyber attack on a computer network, we are they collectively to help

defend that country. Secondly, it is about crisis management. The

ability of 28 countries using an integrated command structure,

having common capabilities, being reach out in crisis and hopefully

prevent and if not bring it to an end as soon as possible. Finally

what we call co-operative security. Working with other countries,

stressing the importance of arms control. Expanding our partnerships

across the globe, as well as with countries that are not members in

Europe, in order to be a hard for security relations. In Europe and

beyond. -- be a centre. He talked about 28 countries sharing and

operating together. But you have acknowledged that there are

practical difficulties in achieving last year that NATO's neglected to

cultivate an intelligence surveillance reconnaissance,

despite nearly two decades of experience going back to the

Balkans intervention. Why can't the organisation get its act together

in fundamental ways? It is in the end its 28 members. You do have a

constant tension between what it is that one needs to require

nationally and what it is that one wants as an alliance. It is not a

question of too big, it is to reverse in some sense. If you hurry

smaller country, the only way you can have a strategic lift is to

contribute to a common capability. The Dutch for example bought half a

C 17. Not necessarily useful unless somebody buys the other half and

that is what NATO allows you to do. Bigger countries like the UK or

France are making National Investment and capabilities and say

they can't afford to pay twice. Once for NATO and once for

themselves. That is where the tension comes in and we succeed on

some points and the push in order to succeed down the road on others.

I want to come on to the Britain and America question because that

is interesting. But staying for now with recent NATO activities. Libya

last year. You wrote that by any measure Major succeeded. The UN was

the vehicle by which this intervention was authorised.

Germany abstained in the Security Council. A big NATO member saying

they were not sure if they should do this. Half of NATO's members did

not take part. 14 said know. The other 14 said yes in various

measures. Then the US had to step in because NATO could not sustain

the operation. A strange definition of success. Let's unpacked that.

The US is part of NATO. It did not step in, it provided the key

capabilities that it uniquely possessed in order to allow the

alliance's of those countries who participated, as well as partners

of the Alliance, to conduct the operation. Compare that to Kosovo,

the last big campaign other than Afghanistan. 90% of the targets

were struck by American airplanes and American bombs. In Libya, 90%

was struck by Belgium, the Danish, Canadian, Norwegian, and of course

British and French planes. That is a big change. Only 11 weeks into an

operation, a poorly armed regime in a sparsely Coppock -- sparsely-

populated country and yet the US was once more required to make up

the difference. The then US Secretary of Defence said that. He

did not sound as if, though, we are part of NATO, it is fine, we fill

the gaps. Clearly, as I wrote, when we did our evaluation the Libyan

operation showed both the strengths and weaknesses. The strengths were,

he was an alliance where ten days after the UN Security Council

resolution decide to take over this operation and four days afterwards

was in charge. There's no place in any organisation in the world that

could have done that and frankly, aside from the US, there's no

country in the world that could have done that. But clearly there

are gaps. We have not invested in Europe enough in a critical defence

capabilities, intelligence, surveillance, drone capabilities,

aerial refuelling. We did not stockpile enough ammunition. Some

of the countries that were in the bombing campaign were doing so for

the first this time since World War II. It was a wake-up call.

Therefore, if this alliance wants to be able to do this kind of thing

again, as we wrote, they will have to invest. We will come on to

budget. That is important. You mentioned drones. Could that be

part of NATO's future? Yes. For 20 years, we have been trying to get

an aerial ground surveillance system. After Libya when we showed

the West's gap, NATO bought this system. Five Global Hawk drones

that would be able to operate and are owned by this alliance.

Secretary General of NATO said earlier this year... His

explanation for Libya was that NATO's function was to protect the

Libyan population against attacks from its own government. But NATO

is not there to protect Syrians from attacks by their own

government. Does that trouble you? Every case will have to be judged

by its own unique characteristics. In the Libyan case, we had three

criteria for NATO to be part of that operation. First, they had to

be a demonstrable need. There is one in Syria, isn't there? That is

something that needs to be done there. Secondly, they had to be

regional support. There's no regional support in Syria by NATO.

But there is clearly regional intervention from other countries.

I did is not something that NATO is being asked to do, as it was in

Libya. And there has to be a sound basis and we did have a UN secluded

Council resolution in Libya, that enabled us to intervene. As a

result, until we get that international consensus, that is so

necessary for us to move forward, I don't think there is a role for

NATO. You have clearly discussed it. Something you can't turn a blind

eye to? I of course. Not only do we talk about how we can use military

means, it's a political organisation. The only place in the

world where Europeans and North Americans sit together and talk

about security issues. We do exchange information and discuss

what can be done. You discuss what can be done? What can be and is

being done. But importantly... We already have done something, very

importantly, which is protecting Turkey from the spill over of Syria.

As I mentioned, we are first and foremost about the defence.

Turkey... This his last October when there was a bomb attack that

killed some villagers and NATO condemned it. But under article 4,

not article 5, there was no promise he would step in. To the contrary.

Because of that attack, the Turks then formally asked for NATO to

increase its air defence capabilities through the deployment

of Patriot missiles. The US, together with Germany and the

Netherlands, under a NATO umbrella, have now deployed six to defend

Turkey. Under the terms of NATO's charter, are you saying you can

conceive of circumstances where, if Syria were foolhardy enough to

continue any kind of aggressive action against Turkey, that NATO

would feel it was duty bound and indeed able politically to

intervene? No doubt that if NATO territories attack anywhere, in

this case if Turkey were to be attacked from Syria, NATO would

respond. This would be an attack against all. We have done that

before. When Al-Qaeda struck the US, this council in this building voted

to invoke article 5. There's no doubt in my mind in every

discussion we have had about this, if there is an attack on a major

country, all countries will stand ready to help defend that country

and make sure it does not... Aggression can't succeed. I am

intrigued by your interpretation of nature's position. I notice the

Secretary General in February was quoted by Foreign Policy magazine

as saying we have not had any discussions about a NATO role in

Syria. It raises an interesting question about if it came to it,

how different members of the council and organisation might

perceive its role. If the time comes in which it is judged that

NATO needs to do something beyond being a form for discussion and

dialogue and beyond protecting Turkey, then I have no doubt we

will have the kind of debate that we usually have and, as we usually

do, we will come out with a consensus. You mentioned 9/11 and

the attack that led to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. What

about Afghanistan's sustainability? We expect combat troops, the NATO-

led ISAF fours, to end its role next year along with the American

troops to operate there. But the man in charge of the operation has

just told the BBC that although they have made significant progress,

they are not yet completed sustainable, which is why they have

to start talking about 2018, not 2014. That would allow the gains to

be sustainable. Will that be tolerated by public opinion? Never

mind in 80 countries in Europe, but the US? We agreed in Lisbon and we

reaffirmed in Chicago when we had another important summit in 2012

and just in the last defence ministry again, that our mission is

to prepare the Afghan forces to take full responsibility for

security throughout the country by the end of 2014. And by the end of

2014, this mission that we have been engaged in since 2004, will

end. Combat troops will come home. That will not change. But another

four years of America watching? After the combat mission ends,

after what we call the ICE staff -- the Eye staff forced N's, NATO will

be prepared to launch a new mission. -- ISAF force. That could last till

2018? You agree? The time frame is in determine. We have not made any

decisions about the size, scope or duration. He's clearly trying to

pressure you to go for 2018. will have his view. And his few

will weighed very heavily in any discussion when the military

commander comes in and says, this is what we think. But no decision

The former British ambassador to Afghanistan since that what we are

dealing as cultivating a garden in the jungle. The question is what

happens when the gardeners leave? Used it to me so long as there is a

healthy paving in Pakistan, there is nothing we can do to secure

Afghanistan. -- safe haven in. is not about gardening, this is

about security. It is an analogy between a cultivated part and when

you disappear, there will be encroachment. We will not disappear.

We are leaving behind a very strong, very capable, well armed peace

force. That is already taking care of problems. They will be in a

position to take responsibility for security. We have it in more months

in which NATO will stand ready to sector. The jungle will remain

receded. That is the main sustainability question. People

worry about what is left behind. People are looking for alternative

models. Britain and France have been increasingly core operating

over the past few years. In Mali, French troops around the ground and

the British are providing logistics. People are saying that we do not

really needs mater. -- to NATO. In Mali it is not just Britain and

France. There are many neighbouring countries who are either on a

bilateral basis, including the United States. In this case, France

decided to intervene in this way. Why? Why did they think may to Rees

to difficult? That is a question you should ask Paris. It was a very

courageous and important strategic move. Sometimes it takes too long

to make decisions. It is easy to do it unilaterally. But why did they

do this rotten than going through NATO. They get the general support,

which includes common funding for parts of the operation. This is a

balancing act. It because to me that they might have reflected a

bit when you said that there were serious gaps in the two. -- NATO.

In a sense, it is easier for them to do it together than go through

the organisation that is not up to speed. The question is whether they

can do it without the United States. Can they do it bilaterally, in the

case of Mali for example. What you get from a command structure is a

greater degree of legitimacy. France was able, and rightly so to

appeal to the UN. It got strong United Nations support. NATO is not

the only organisation. It does not have to be in every place

everywhere at every turn. It is far more appropriate for and 82 Act

when it is far away from home. -- may tattoo. Are you torn by the

current debate over American civilians? There is no debate in

the United States about this, in the sense that the NSA surveillance

issue is an issue that is about intelligence gathering. It is about

intelligence gathering in a war for manner. We have three branches of

government. -- will fall. But Boris some Europeans, not least political

leaders, is that it's much not protect Europeans. Programmes such

as prison could have grave, and for its consequences for the

fundamental rights of the citizens. All I can say is that these

programmes have been conducted by United States, as the President and

members of Congress have said, they are legally authorised. We fully

authorised by the US. This is the problem for Europeans. We live in

the world in which gathering of information takes place across

borders by definition. I cannot comment on any particular

information that is being davit. But this is something that all

countries to, including Europeans. Therefore, as a result, that is a

gathering of intelligence information. That is something that

we do in a world where we are still faced with countries and people,

particularly individuals, who are pinned on her destruction. But we

are partners in NATO. But we are not being treated as pounds. There

is a standard that is different for US citizens and citizens in

European countries. There is concern that there should be a

common standard. This is a discretion that is worth having. --

discussion. The reason I raised this question, it is a question

about potential tensions between Europe and the United States. The

former US Defence Secretary, he gave a strongly-worded appearance

before he left office, when he said that there was a two-tier

membership to structure. Those willing to pay the price and bear

the Britons of commitment, and a couple of European countries, and

those who enjoy the benefits but do not want to share the risks and

costs. He went on to complain about national cabinets that European

soldiers do not do so and things. Sometimes infuriating for Allied

commanders. Are you beginning to wonder whether there is a common

outlook? It is very much a debate that we had when he was making that

case. The Germans are in combat in Afghanistan. Soon nobody will be

engaging in combat in Afghanistan. There is the division between those

who pay and those who do not. more concerned about an alliance in

the sense of how much we are investigating in capabilities. The

United States has a different outlook. Everyone has a different

outlook on the world. That is the reality of international politics.

But the most important reality is that despite those differences, we

have the same values. We do not question that we are willing to

invest in protecting those values. If we do not invest, we do not have

the capabilities. If we rely on one country to march, then indeed the

value of this alliance provokes a question on my side as much as it

does yours. I am particularly interested on research. - Make your

side. Maybe the United States does not feel that attachment any more.

Some say maybe that America does not need forces in Europe any more.

The chairman of the house and services committee said that NATO

is a drain on the Treasury and so it's no strategic purposes. This is

a different generation. A few days ago, the last World War II veteran

died. There are none were world were to veterans in the US Congress.

We are rapidly moving away from the Cold War generation. It becomes

important that we explain not only wife United States has an interest

in being an arbiter, which can be explained by the fact that these

are valued allies and we have a strong strategic partnership. We

knew that we can count on Europe. But also it is important for Europe

to demonstrate that this partnership still exists, is