: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