Anders Fogh Rasmussen - Secretary General of NATO

Download Subtitles

Transcript

:00:00. > :00:00.fallen for the first time in 22 years. `` overall.

:00:00. > :00:16.Welcome to HARDtalk to with me, Zeinab Badawi, at the Nato

:00:17. > :00:20.headquarters in Brussels. Nato is 65 years old this year. But does it

:00:21. > :00:23.lack the vigour, resources, and political will to be an effective

:00:24. > :00:26.military force on the world stage, at a time when conflicts across

:00:27. > :00:36.continents in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine and West Africa present ever greater

:00:37. > :00:39.dangers to global security? Can Nato help make the world a safer place,

:00:40. > :00:42.or should it go into retirement? My guest today is the outgoing

:00:43. > :01:01.secretary general of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

:01:02. > :01:08.Anders Fogh Rasmussen, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Nato 65 years

:01:09. > :01:11.old, why is it not time for it to go into retirement? Because Nato is

:01:12. > :01:15.just as needed now as it was during the Cold War. We were quite

:01:16. > :01:21.successful during the Cold War, prevented the Cold War from getting

:01:22. > :01:24.hot. But today, we see new crises surrounding our alliance, from

:01:25. > :01:27.Russia and Ukraine in the north and east, to Syria, Iraq, in the

:01:28. > :01:30.south`east, to Libya and Sahara in north Africa, to the south. So we

:01:31. > :01:45.need Nato to ensure effective defence and protection of our

:01:46. > :01:48.allies. OK, does that mean, then, that Nato would consider going into

:01:49. > :01:59.Iraq, carrying out air strikes alongside the US? Because I will

:02:00. > :02:02.tell you what the former Nato chief, retired US Navy Admiral James

:02:03. > :02:05.Stavridis said in June ` Nato needs a quick strong shot of Turkish

:02:06. > :02:08.coffee to get its energy level up, and make some decisions about

:02:09. > :02:11.engagement. Because what is emerging now is a clear and present danger

:02:12. > :02:15.along the southern flank of the alliance. We need to ensure the

:02:16. > :02:24.effectiveness in Nato's response to these challenges. But it is also

:02:25. > :02:29.important to stress that Nato is not the response to all crises. Our core

:02:30. > :02:33.task is to ensure that defence and protection of our allies. But I

:02:34. > :02:36.mean, now that Chuck Hagel, the US Defence Secretary, has said what is

:02:37. > :02:40.going on in Iraq with jihadists, the Islamic State, that it is a threat

:02:41. > :02:49.not only to the United States, but also to Europe, and Australia, he

:02:50. > :02:52.says. So therefore, would Nato not consider carrying out air strikes

:02:53. > :02:56.alongside the US, to try to defeat the jihadists? There has been no

:02:57. > :02:58.request for Nato engagement in the Iraqi conflict. The Iraqi government

:02:59. > :03:10.has requested from individual allies, notably the United States.

:03:11. > :03:13.Of course, we follow the situation closely, and should any of our

:03:14. > :03:20.allies be threatened, we stand ready to do what it takes to ensure

:03:21. > :03:23.effective defence of our allies. Do you know that there is a link

:03:24. > :03:26.between what is going on in Iraq and what is going on in Syria? The

:03:27. > :03:29.former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her book Hard Choices,

:03:30. > :03:37.made it clear that she thought there should be stronger action to help

:03:38. > :03:40.the rebels in Syria. And she has now said that, in light of what is going

:03:41. > :03:44.on in Iraq, with the jihadists is gaining territory, that is a direct

:03:45. > :03:55.result of the fact that more help was not given to the rebels in

:03:56. > :03:58.Syria. Do you feel that an opportunity was missed? Well, I

:03:59. > :04:05.consider this an internal US discussion. I'm not going to

:04:06. > :04:08.interfere with it. Seen from a Nato perspective, there was no request,

:04:09. > :04:17.there is no request for a Nato engagement. There is no legal

:04:18. > :04:22.mandate for a Nato engagement. That has not stopped you in the past

:04:23. > :04:25.though. In 1999 Nato went into Kosovo without a UN mandate. Yes, we

:04:26. > :04:33.took action in accordance with the UN Charter. As regards... There

:04:34. > :04:36.wasn't a UN mandate. As regards Syria, I do believe that the right

:04:37. > :04:40.way forward is to find a political solution, how difficult it might be.

:04:41. > :04:43.So you see a political solution. Do you agree with the former US

:04:44. > :04:46.Secretary of Defence when he says we tend to overestimate our ability to

:04:47. > :04:53.determine outcomes through military interventions, particularly in the

:04:54. > :04:55.Middle East? I belong to the camp that firmly believes that sometimes

:04:56. > :05:04.a credible military great can facilitate diplomatic solutions. One

:05:05. > :05:06.example is the threat of the US and other countries to strike against

:05:07. > :05:09.Syria, to give up chemical weapons, and actually, that threat was a

:05:10. > :05:25.success from a political point of view. It was Syria decided to give

:05:26. > :05:28.up chemical weapons programme. So it is an example that a firm military

:05:29. > :05:33.stance, a credible military threat, can facilitate solutions. US Defence

:05:34. > :05:36.Secretary Robert Gates was looking at what kind of action you should

:05:37. > :05:38.have to events in Arab countries which have gone through upheavals,

:05:39. > :05:44.revolutions, such as the Arab Spring. If you take Nato's

:05:45. > :05:46.intervention in Libya in 2011, you deem that a success because

:05:47. > :05:50.civilians had been protected, and after seven or eight months you

:05:51. > :05:57.could say they were not attacked by Gaddafi's forces. But look at Libya

:05:58. > :06:00.today. You have militias at one another's throats, you have people

:06:01. > :06:08.living in terror, you have a very weak central government. You can't

:06:09. > :06:10.really say that that has been a successful outcome. The Nato

:06:11. > :06:17.operation as such was a great success. We implemented the United

:06:18. > :06:19.Nations mandate fully, and protected the Libyan population against attack

:06:20. > :06:28.from its own government. But please also recall that the UN mandate was

:06:29. > :06:31.limited. Nato did not have troops on the ground, and once our limited

:06:32. > :06:39.operation was concluded, Nato was not engaged in Libya. So Nato cannot

:06:40. > :06:42.take responsibility for what happened in Libya after the

:06:43. > :06:45.conclusion of our operation. How and when does Nato decide which conflict

:06:46. > :07:02.to intervene in? There have been calls, for instance, one leader has

:07:03. > :07:02.called something against the jihadists in

:07:03. > :07:03.jihadists there. We policeman? First of all let me

:07:04. > :07:03.where to become stress that Nato has no intention to

:07:04. > :07:06.be or to become the world's policeman. But actually, all of the

:07:07. > :07:09.requests for Nato intervention here and there and everywhere reflect a

:07:10. > :07:12.kind of Nato success. People actually expect Nato to be able to

:07:13. > :07:22.solve all kinds of crises. I have to say, modestly, that we can't. And we

:07:23. > :07:25.can't act as the world's policeman. So the decisive factor, when we are

:07:26. > :07:28.going to determine whether we will engage, is does it serve the

:07:29. > :07:59.interest of the security of our allies? And if it is necessary to

:08:00. > :08:02.engage in order to ensure effective defence of our allies, we will

:08:03. > :08:08.engage. Yes, but obviously the core mission of Nato is the defence and

:08:09. > :08:11.security of Europe. We have seen since September the 11th that Nato

:08:12. > :08:14.has operated further afield, as we said, in Afghanistan and Libya and

:08:15. > :08:16.so on. But Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at

:08:17. > :08:19.Harvard University, wrote this last year, Nato has been extremely

:08:20. > :08:26.creative in devising new rationales for its existence. This strategy for

:08:27. > :08:29.keeping itself in business might have worked, had these various

:08:30. > :08:31.adventures worked out well, but they didn't. So the fact that we're

:08:32. > :08:34.seeing turmoil, and so many conflicts all over the world, and

:08:35. > :08:37.Nato seemingly having limited impact, does that to some extent

:08:38. > :08:41.suggest that the organisation has outlived its usefulness. We don't

:08:42. > :08:47.need any way to invent arguments for the existence of Nato. And the fact

:08:48. > :08:50.that in a very unstable and insecure world, Nato territory, the 28 Nato

:08:51. > :08:57.allies, represent a great zone of peace and stability, reflects the

:08:58. > :08:59.success of our alliance. The existence of Nato deters any

:09:00. > :09:07.potential aggressor, against even thinking of attacking a Nato ally.

:09:08. > :09:24.And that is the ultimate success of our alliance. Is it really not, for

:09:25. > :09:30.instance, Nato's operations in Afghanistan? Obviously every

:09:31. > :09:38.individual country which has contributed has its own budget. But

:09:39. > :09:41.let's just give you a an example of two of the biggest contributors. The

:09:42. > :09:52.United States, $296 billion. The United Kingdom $22 billion. A total

:09:53. > :09:54.of 3500 western troops have been killed in Afghanistan, not to

:09:55. > :09:57.mention the thousands and thousands of Afghan civilians. Can you

:09:58. > :10:00.honestly say that, as Nato prepares to withdraw its combat troops at the

:10:01. > :10:04.end of this year from Afghanistan, that you can say that that has been

:10:05. > :10:07.money well spent? All the sacrifice in blood and treasure has not been

:10:08. > :10:13.in vain. We have achieved what we came for in the first place. We

:10:14. > :10:16.engaged in Afghanistan to prevent the country from once again becoming

:10:17. > :10:18.a safe haven for terrorists, who could launch terrorist attacks

:10:19. > :10:21.against Europe or North America. And since the international operation in

:10:22. > :10:23.Afghanistan started, we have not seen international terrorism

:10:24. > :10:29.originate from Afghanistan. But you have still got the Taliban, still

:10:30. > :10:32.strong in Afghanistan. To the extent that now the United States and other

:10:33. > :10:35.western powers are saying look, there is going to have to be as

:10:36. > :10:48.political solution to what happens in Afghanistan. And we need

:10:49. > :10:56.governments reaching out talking to Taliban representatives. So how can

:10:57. > :10:58.you say that your military operations have been a success in

:10:59. > :11:02.Afghanistan? They have not neutralised the Taliban. As I said,

:11:03. > :11:06.we came to Afghanistan in the first place to prevent the country from

:11:07. > :11:10.being a safe haven for terrorists. And we have succeeded in achieving

:11:11. > :11:13.that goal. In the meantime, we have also built up a very strong Afghan

:11:14. > :11:20.security force of 350,000 Afghan soldiers and police. And I am

:11:21. > :11:23.convinced, and we are confident, that the Afghan security forces will

:11:24. > :11:32.be able to take full responsibility for the security by the end of this

:11:33. > :11:34.year, when we complete our mission. So you can honestly say that the

:11:35. > :11:43.International Stabilisation Force in Afghanistan, ISAF, has been a

:11:44. > :11:47.complete success? It has been a success. I'm not suggesting that

:11:48. > :12:01.there won't be security challenges in the future. Obviously there will.

:12:02. > :12:04.The enemies of Afghanistan will continue to try and destabilise the

:12:05. > :12:07.situation in Afghanistan. But I am confident that the Afghans will be

:12:08. > :12:09.able to handle it. On their own, without assistance. It is our

:12:10. > :12:12.intention to establish a training mission, after 2014, and continue to

:12:13. > :12:36.train, advise, and assist the Afghan secret forces.

:12:37. > :12:40.One consequence of the intervention of Nato in Afghanistan and Iraq, you

:12:41. > :12:44.have had a training presence since 2011. All of this has given a bit of

:12:45. > :12:53.war fatigue, combat fatigue, to alliance members. This is something

:12:54. > :12:57.that is well recorded. An influential think tank says this is

:12:58. > :13:03.what has happened to Nato. You have got members and they are saying,

:13:04. > :13:13.enough. I have followed the discussion closely. Clearly, I

:13:14. > :13:16.agree. I also see these tendencies. I have to caution against that. If

:13:17. > :13:19.we are to ensure effective protection of our populations in

:13:20. > :13:22.Nato regions, we also have to be prepared to engage in other areas,

:13:23. > :13:41.to address security challenges at their root as we did in Afghanistan.

:13:42. > :13:44.This is also why I have encouraged Nato allies to increase defence

:13:45. > :13:47.spending. We have had drastic cuts, and that situation is unsustainable.

:13:48. > :13:50.They have cut defence spending by an average of 20%. You want a

:13:51. > :14:00.recommitment of Nato members to spend 2% of their GDP on defence.

:14:01. > :14:08.The European average is 1.6%. For some countries it is even lower.

:14:09. > :14:12.Spain and Germany. They are not listening to you. They do not have

:14:13. > :14:21.the will to do what you want them to do. More and more countries are

:14:22. > :14:24.actually listening to this. We have recently seen political decisions in

:14:25. > :14:26.a number of countries, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey, to start

:14:27. > :14:42.increasing defence spending towards the 2% of GDP. But these are tiny.

:14:43. > :14:45.With the exception of Turkey. They are not going to make a massive

:14:46. > :14:50.contribution to Nato's budget. I believe that more will come. I am

:14:51. > :15:03.not suggesting this is easy. Many countries are still struggling with

:15:04. > :15:06.huge public deficits. It is also important from a security point of

:15:07. > :15:09.view to get your fiscal house in order. But it is not sustainable to

:15:10. > :15:17.see Russia increase their defence spending by 50% during the past five

:15:18. > :15:20.years where we are cutting 20%. Russia has something like $430

:15:21. > :15:23.billion to spend in the next decade upgrading its defence systems. You

:15:24. > :15:31.have said Russia's aggression poses a huge threat to Nato members. Why

:15:32. > :15:43.are you so worried about what Russia might do next? What we have seen in

:15:44. > :15:46.Ukraine is a wake`up call. An illegal Russian military action. For

:15:47. > :15:51.the first time since the Second World War a European nation has

:15:52. > :15:57.grabbed land by force. It has created a completely new security

:15:58. > :15:59.environment in Europe. This is a reason why allies, in particular

:16:00. > :16:06.European allies, must increase their defence spending. You said Russia

:16:07. > :16:09.has something like 20,000 troops on its border with Ukraine. You

:16:10. > :16:18.recently visited Kiev and said Russia must pull back from the

:16:19. > :16:25.brink. What is your "or else"? What is the possibility? What is going to

:16:26. > :16:28.happen if they do not? If Russia were to intervene further in

:16:29. > :16:38.Ukraine, I have no doubt the international community would

:16:39. > :16:48.respond decisively. Notably through deeper, broader and tougher economic

:16:49. > :16:53.sanctions that would isolate Russia. Economic sanctions, not the domain

:16:54. > :16:58.of what you do at Nato. Let me put you this point. Nato's hands are

:16:59. > :17:01.pretty tied as to what you can do. A former ambassador to Nato says, a

:17:02. > :17:11.new awareness about Russia does not imply action. There is no US

:17:12. > :17:18.willingness to lead, and Germany's foot is planted on the brake. Nato

:17:19. > :17:27.is almost, by definition, on the sidelines. We are definitely not on

:17:28. > :17:30.the sidelines when it comes to ensuring effective protection of our

:17:31. > :17:33.allies. This is the reason why we have taken immediate steps to

:17:34. > :17:35.reinforce our policing over the Baltic states, deployment in the

:17:36. > :17:38.Black Sea, more military exercises. We will take further steps to

:17:39. > :17:40.improve our readiness, including updated and new defence plans, more

:17:41. > :18:07.military exercises and proper deployment. You are talking about

:18:08. > :18:09.the summit in September. But a Conservative MP said that Nato is

:18:10. > :18:23.woefully prepared for any threat from Russia. In the case of the

:18:24. > :18:26.Baltics, we would be in real trouble. The risk of an attack by

:18:27. > :18:35.Russia on a Nato member is significant. Do you believe that

:18:36. > :18:40.Russia could mount an attack on, say, one of the Baltic states? I

:18:41. > :18:47.have read that report with great interest. To an extent, I would

:18:48. > :18:56.agree in its conclusions. This is the reason we will adopt a readiness

:18:57. > :19:05.action plan. I will not guess about ideas and intentions in the Kremlin.

:19:06. > :19:10.Why not? You should know. Would Russia go into Ukraine or the Baltic

:19:11. > :19:16.states? You must know how Nato would respond. Indeed. The best way to

:19:17. > :19:26.avoid even a thought in the Kremlin to attack a Nato ally is to ensure

:19:27. > :19:49.effective deterrence. That includes a more visible Nato presence in the

:19:50. > :19:52.east. So that the Russians know that they will meet a determined alliance

:19:53. > :19:56.if they were to attack. You are talking about the kind of responses

:19:57. > :19:59.you could make to Russia. I want to put this to you. A member of a think

:20:00. > :20:02.tank that chaired the experts report, he said Russia's strategy in

:20:03. > :20:12.the Ukraine cannot be confronted by troops, tanks and aircraft alone. It

:20:13. > :20:14.makes use of special forces and intelligence agencies, local

:20:15. > :20:19.proxies, information campaigns, intimidation and economic coercion.

:20:20. > :20:22.So Nato is going to have to look beyond the traditional response you

:20:23. > :20:34.have been outlining here, the military exercises, isn't it? I

:20:35. > :20:36.fully agree. We call it hybrid warfare. It is a combination of

:20:37. > :20:42.military means and sophisticated information. Political in a way.

:20:43. > :20:54.Also political. We have to pursue this more comprehensive approach in

:20:55. > :20:58.which Nato can play a role. But we also need to involve other

:20:59. > :21:00.organisations. So even though you are head of the world's most

:21:01. > :21:03.powerful regional defence alliance, the military part, although you

:21:04. > :21:05.describe it as a political and military alliance, there are

:21:06. > :21:15.political and economic means that are more effective than military

:21:16. > :21:23.ones when it comes to Russia, for instance? We have been citing the

:21:24. > :21:25.sanctions and the dialogue. Is this more effective? I believe that

:21:26. > :21:31.military actions and economic and political initiatives can go hand in

:21:32. > :21:34.hand. I do believe that sometimes a credible military threat, credible

:21:35. > :21:49.military deterrence, can facilitate diplomatic and political assurances.

:21:50. > :21:55.You backed the Iraq war in 2003. A Danish protester tossed red paint on

:21:56. > :22:05.your saying you had blood on your hands. What would you say to that

:22:06. > :22:08.protester? I would say, appeasement does not necessarily lead to peace.

:22:09. > :22:24.On the contrary, sometimes appeasement will just encourage the

:22:25. > :22:26.conduct of unspeakable actions. You have to demonstrate your

:22:27. > :22:37.determination to protect and promote the values in which you believe.

:22:38. > :22:43.Freedom, individual liberty, democracy, the rule of law. To that

:22:44. > :22:46.end, unfortunately, you sometimes have to use military might. You are

:22:47. > :22:49.going to go down as the Secretary General that resigned over the first

:22:50. > :22:49.land war in Europe since the formation of Nato. How does that

:22:50. > :22:59.make you feel? It has challenge. It has created a

:23:00. > :23:03.completely new security situation in Europe. We have to adapt to that.

:23:04. > :23:05.During my five years as Secretary General, we have worked hard to make

:23:06. > :23:16.our alliance stronger. We developed strong military

:23:17. > :23:21.capabilities. We have stronger, more capable combat forces than ever. The

:23:22. > :23:27.Crimea is your political epitaph, as it were. It is a demonstration that

:23:28. > :23:29.despite more than 20 years of efforts to engage Russia in a

:23:30. > :23:40.constructive discussion, Russia never accepted the outcome of the

:23:41. > :23:49.Cold War. We must adapt to that and take necessary measures to ensure

:23:50. > :23:51.protective defence of our allies. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, thank you for

:23:52. > :24:29.coming on HARDtalk. There were a lot of storms around

:24:30. > :24:31.yesterday, and we had this