Anders Fogh Rasmussen - Secretary General of NATO HARDtalk

fallen for the first time in 22 years. `` overall.

Welcome to HARDtalk to with me, Zeinab Badawi, at the Nato

headquarters in Brussels. Nato is 65 years old this year. But does it

lack the vigour, resources, and political will to be an effective

military force on the world stage, at a time when conflicts across

continents in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine and West Africa present ever greater

dangers to global security? Can Nato help make the world a safer place,

or should it go into retirement? My guest today is the outgoing

secretary general of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. Nato 65 years

old, why is it not time for it to go into retirement? Because Nato is

just as needed now as it was during the Cold War. We were quite

successful during the Cold War, prevented the Cold War from getting

hot. But today, we see new crises surrounding our alliance, from

Russia and Ukraine in the north and east, to Syria, Iraq, in the

south`east, to Libya and Sahara in north Africa, to the south. So we

need Nato to ensure effective defence and protection of our

allies. OK, does that mean, then, that Nato would consider going into

Iraq, carrying out air strikes alongside the US? Because I will

tell you what the former Nato chief, retired US Navy Admiral James

Stavridis said in June ` Nato needs a quick strong shot of Turkish

coffee to get its energy level up, and make some decisions about

engagement. Because what is emerging now is a clear and present danger

along the southern flank of the alliance. We need to ensure the

effectiveness in Nato's response to these challenges. But it is also

important to stress that Nato is not the response to all crises. Our core

task is to ensure that defence and protection of our allies. But I

mean, now that Chuck Hagel, the US Defence Secretary, has said what is

going on in Iraq with jihadists, the Islamic State, that it is a threat

not only to the United States, but also to Europe, and Australia, he

says. So therefore, would Nato not consider carrying out air strikes

alongside the US, to try to defeat the jihadists? There has been no

request for Nato engagement in the Iraqi conflict. The Iraqi government

has requested from individual allies, notably the United States.

Of course, we follow the situation closely, and should any of our

allies be threatened, we stand ready to do what it takes to ensure

effective defence of our allies. Do you know that there is a link

between what is going on in Iraq and what is going on in Syria? The

former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in her book Hard Choices,

made it clear that she thought there should be stronger action to help

the rebels in Syria. And she has now said that, in light of what is going

on in Iraq, with the jihadists is gaining territory, that is a direct

result of the fact that more help was not given to the rebels in

Syria. Do you feel that an opportunity was missed? Well, I

consider this an internal US discussion. I'm not going to

interfere with it. Seen from a Nato perspective, there was no request,

there is no request for a Nato engagement. There is no legal

mandate for a Nato engagement. That has not stopped you in the past

though. In 1999 Nato went into Kosovo without a UN mandate. Yes, we

took action in accordance with the UN Charter. As regards... There

wasn't a UN mandate. As regards Syria, I do believe that the right

way forward is to find a political solution, how difficult it might be.

So you see a political solution. Do you agree with the former US

Secretary of Defence when he says we tend to overestimate our ability to

determine outcomes through military interventions, particularly in the

Middle East? I belong to the camp that firmly believes that sometimes

a credible military great can facilitate diplomatic solutions. One

example is the threat of the US and other countries to strike against

Syria, to give up chemical weapons, and actually, that threat was a

success from a political point of view. It was Syria decided to give

up chemical weapons programme. So it is an example that a firm military

stance, a credible military threat, can facilitate solutions. US Defence

Secretary Robert Gates was looking at what kind of action you should

have to events in Arab countries which have gone through upheavals,

revolutions, such as the Arab Spring. If you take Nato's

intervention in Libya in 2011, you deem that a success because

civilians had been protected, and after seven or eight months you

could say they were not attacked by Gaddafi's forces. But look at Libya

today. You have militias at one another's throats, you have people

living in terror, you have a very weak central government. You can't

really say that that has been a successful outcome. The Nato

operation as such was a great success. We implemented the United

Nations mandate fully, and protected the Libyan population against attack

from its own government. But please also recall that the UN mandate was

limited. Nato did not have troops on the ground, and once our limited

operation was concluded, Nato was not engaged in Libya. So Nato cannot

take responsibility for what happened in Libya after the

conclusion of our operation. How and when does Nato decide which conflict

to intervene in? There have been calls, for instance, one leader has

called something against the jihadists in

jihadists there. We policeman? First of all let me

where to become stress that Nato has no intention to

be or to become the world's policeman. But actually, all of the

requests for Nato intervention here and there and everywhere reflect a

kind of Nato success. People actually expect Nato to be able to

solve all kinds of crises. I have to say, modestly, that we can't. And we

can't act as the world's policeman. So the decisive factor, when we are

going to determine whether we will engage, is does it serve the

interest of the security of our allies? And if it is necessary to

engage in order to ensure effective defence of our allies, we will

engage. Yes, but obviously the core mission of Nato is the defence and

security of Europe. We have seen since September the 11th that Nato

has operated further afield, as we said, in Afghanistan and Libya and

so on. But Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at

Harvard University, wrote this last year, Nato has been extremely

creative in devising new rationales for its existence. This strategy for

keeping itself in business might have worked, had these various

adventures worked out well, but they didn't. So the fact that we're

seeing turmoil, and so many conflicts all over the world, and

Nato seemingly having limited impact, does that to some extent

suggest that the organisation has outlived its usefulness. We don't

need any way to invent arguments for the existence of Nato. And the fact

that in a very unstable and insecure world, Nato territory, the 28 Nato

allies, represent a great zone of peace and stability, reflects the

success of our alliance. The existence of Nato deters any

potential aggressor, against even thinking of attacking a Nato ally.

And that is the ultimate success of our alliance. Is it really not, for

instance, Nato's operations in Afghanistan? Obviously every

individual country which has contributed has its own budget. But

let's just give you a an example of two of the biggest contributors. The

United States, $296 billion. The United Kingdom $22 billion. A total

of 3500 western troops have been killed in Afghanistan, not to

mention the thousands and thousands of Afghan civilians. Can you

honestly say that, as Nato prepares to withdraw its combat troops at the

end of this year from Afghanistan, that you can say that that has been

money well spent? All the sacrifice in blood and treasure has not been

in vain. We have achieved what we came for in the first place. We

engaged in Afghanistan to prevent the country from once again becoming

a safe haven for terrorists, who could launch terrorist attacks

against Europe or North America. And since the international operation in

Afghanistan started, we have not seen international terrorism

originate from Afghanistan. But you have still got the Taliban, still

strong in Afghanistan. To the extent that now the United States and other

western powers are saying look, there is going to have to be as

political solution to what happens in Afghanistan. And we need

governments reaching out talking to Taliban representatives. So how can

you say that your military operations have been a success in

Afghanistan? They have not neutralised the Taliban. As I said,

we came to Afghanistan in the first place to prevent the country from

being a safe haven for terrorists. And we have succeeded in achieving

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

security force of 350,000 Afghan soldiers and police. And I am

convinced, and we are confident, that the Afghan security forces will

be able to take full responsibility for the security by the end of this

year, when we complete our mission. So you can honestly say that the

International Stabilisation Force in Afghanistan, ISAF, has been a

complete success? It has been a success. I'm not suggesting that

there won't be security challenges in the future. Obviously there will.

The enemies of Afghanistan will continue to try and destabilise the

situation in Afghanistan. But I am confident that the Afghans will be

able to handle it. On their own, without assistance. It is our

intention to establish a training mission, after 2014, and continue to

train, advise, and assist the Afghan secret forces.

One consequence of the intervention of Nato in Afghanistan and Iraq, you

have had a training presence since 2011. All of this has given a bit of

war fatigue, combat fatigue, to alliance members. This is something

that is well recorded. An influential think tank says this is

what has happened to Nato. You have got members and they are saying,

enough. I have followed the discussion closely. Clearly, I

agree. I also see these tendencies. I have to caution against that. If

we are to ensure effective protection of our populations in

Nato regions, we also have to be prepared to engage in other areas,

to address security challenges at their root as we did in Afghanistan.

This is also why I have encouraged Nato allies to increase defence

spending. We have had drastic cuts, and that situation is unsustainable.

They have cut defence spending by an average of 20%. You want a

recommitment of Nato members to spend 2% of their GDP on defence.

The European average is 1.6%. For some countries it is even lower.

Spain and Germany. They are not listening to you. They do not have

the will to do what you want them to do. More and more countries are

actually listening to this. We have recently seen political decisions in

a number of countries, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey, to start

increasing defence spending towards the 2% of GDP. But these are tiny.

With the exception of Turkey. They are not going to make a massive

contribution to Nato's budget. I believe that more will come. I am

not suggesting this is easy. Many countries are still struggling with

huge public deficits. It is also important from a security point of

view to get your fiscal house in order. But it is not sustainable to

see Russia increase their defence spending by 50% during the past five

years where we are cutting 20%. Russia has something like $430

billion to spend in the next decade upgrading its defence systems. You

have said Russia's aggression poses a huge threat to Nato members. Why

are you so worried about what Russia might do next? What we have seen in

Ukraine is a wake`up call. An illegal Russian military action. For

the first time since the Second World War a European nation has

grabbed land by force. It has created a completely new security

environment in Europe. This is a reason why allies, in particular

European allies, must increase their defence spending. You said Russia

has something like 20,000 troops on its border with Ukraine. You

recently visited Kiev and said Russia must pull back from the

brink. What is your "or else"? What is the possibility? What is going to

happen if they do not? If Russia were to intervene further in

Ukraine, I have no doubt the international community would

respond decisively. Notably through deeper, broader and tougher economic

sanctions that would isolate Russia. Economic sanctions, not the domain

of what you do at Nato. Let me put you this point. Nato's hands are

pretty tied as to what you can do. A former ambassador to Nato says, a

new awareness about Russia does not imply action. There is no US

willingness to lead, and Germany's foot is planted on the brake. Nato

is almost, by definition, on the sidelines. We are definitely not on

the sidelines when it comes to ensuring effective protection of our

allies. This is the reason why we have taken immediate steps to

reinforce our policing over the Baltic states, deployment in the

Black Sea, more military exercises. We will take further steps to

improve our readiness, including updated and new defence plans, more

military exercises and proper deployment. You are talking about

the summit in September. But a Conservative MP said that Nato is

woefully prepared for any threat from Russia. In the case of the

Baltics, we would be in real trouble. The risk of an attack by

Russia on a Nato member is significant. Do you believe that

Russia could mount an attack on, say, one of the Baltic states? I

have read that report with great interest. To an extent, I would

agree in its conclusions. This is the reason we will adopt a readiness

action plan. I will not guess about ideas and intentions in the Kremlin.

Why not? You should know. Would Russia go into Ukraine or the Baltic

states? You must know how Nato would respond. Indeed. The best way to

avoid even a thought in the Kremlin to attack a Nato ally is to ensure

effective deterrence. That includes a more visible Nato presence in the

east. So that the Russians know that they will meet a determined alliance

if they were to attack. You are talking about the kind of responses

you could make to Russia. I want to put this to you. A member of a think

tank that chaired the experts report, he said Russia's strategy in

the Ukraine cannot be confronted by troops, tanks and aircraft alone. It

makes use of special forces and intelligence agencies, local

proxies, information campaigns, intimidation and economic coercion.

So Nato is going to have to look beyond the traditional response you

have been outlining here, the military exercises, isn't it? I

fully agree. We call it hybrid warfare. It is a combination of

military means and sophisticated information. Political in a way.

Also political. We have to pursue this more comprehensive approach in

which Nato can play a role. But we also need to involve other

organisations. So even though you are head of the world's most

powerful regional defence alliance, the military part, although you

describe it as a political and military alliance, there are

political and economic means that are more effective than military

ones when it comes to Russia, for instance? We have been citing the

sanctions and the dialogue. Is this more effective? I believe that

military actions and economic and political initiatives can go hand in

hand. I do believe that sometimes a credible military threat, credible

military deterrence, can facilitate diplomatic and political assurances.

You backed the Iraq war in 2003. A Danish protester tossed red paint on

your saying you had blood on your hands. What would you say to that

protester? I would say, appeasement does not necessarily lead to peace.

On the contrary, sometimes appeasement will just encourage the

conduct of unspeakable actions. You have to demonstrate your

determination to protect and promote the values in which you believe.

Freedom, individual liberty, democracy, the rule of law. To that

end, unfortunately, you sometimes have to use military might. You are

going to go down as the Secretary General that resigned over the first

land war in Europe since the formation of Nato. How does that

make you feel? It has challenge. It has created a

completely new security situation in Europe. We have to adapt to that.

During my five years as Secretary General, we have worked hard to make

our alliance stronger. We developed strong military

capabilities. We have stronger, more capable combat forces than ever. The

Crimea is your political epitaph, as it were. It is a demonstration that

despite more than 20 years of efforts to engage Russia in a

constructive discussion, Russia never accepted the outcome of the

Cold War. We must adapt to that and take necessary measures to ensure

protective defence of our allies. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, thank you for

coming on HARDtalk. There were a lot of storms around

yesterday, and we had this