Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
MR. CRAIG KENNEDY: So welcome to the last session of this year's Halifax international security forum. What should NATO stand for? And another really stellar panel that's going to be moderated by Mr. Anton La Guardia, the defense and security correspondent for the economist. The floor is yours. MODERATOR: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. This is the last panel of the day. So before lunch and before we all gather our thoughts and head home refreshed, enlivened by the weekend. My name is Mr. Anton La Guardia; I'm the defense and security correspondent of the economist. It's a great treat to be here in Halifax with its wonderful maritime tradition and to know that this is [INAUDIBLE] backyard. The subject is what NATO should stand for. In a sense, we come back full circle to a discussion we had at the beginning of the conference. This is a theme that is intensely debated within NATO at the moment, strategic concept, what should NATO be doing? Should it be about expedition operations in Afghanistan which are going less than brilliantly? Should it be about territorial defense and article 5? What should article 5 be? What constitutes an attack in the age of cyberwarfare? To answer the questions those questions, we have Christian Schmidit State Minster Defense in Germany and part of the Froncon access in German defense matters. To his right we have Pauline Neville-Jones, governor of the BBC and much else besides and possibly in the coming months so we would love to hear what you think is in store for us. We have Peter De Crem, the defense minister of Belgium, I gather that the town hall in the town of Aalter is known as the Kremlin. And finally Bruce Jackson who has begged me not to give you his biographical details. He is the president for the project trends on democracy. Its 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nature has debated its identity and its purpose ever since. So let me start it with a question which is what NATO is for today and what should it do in the coming 20 years. MR. BRUCE JACKSON: Since we're thinking about NATO, I think we should probably think critically. I was thinking about Steven Bryer's comment which I think summarized it all as Eastern Europe and then what? That is a pretty good strategic question for an organization. Thinking about this panel all that came to mind was the TV show Desperate House Wives. If you look at NATO since 1989, it's been under employed, desperately bored staying at home, slightly confused and incredibly promiscuous. And it's never met a mission that it doesn't want to embrace whether it is cyberwarfare or energy security. And just the other day, the secretary general said that climate change be part of our strategic concept. Enough. What happened to be the classical missions? It become as began as a steel company, now it's in the software business. I think as we look at a strategic concept, it seems to me that back to basics would be a good advice to NATO and the new period. MODERATOR: What should be its single faithful objective? MR. BRUCE JACKSON: Eleven years ago we told the Senate of the United States that the new members of NATO are going to have the mature article 5 capability within 13 years. There are two years left and we haven't done the contingency plan for the defense of Eastern Europe. I would begin with basics. In 2006, when there was an energy crisis, Europe was almost brought to its knees which are basic military tasks. When there was a war between Georgia and Russia we found out we didn't have contingency plans for half of the Alliance. Those are pretty much nuts and bolts military assignments. And I would prefer that they do those things first, then we can talk about what we do beyond that. This is discussion. Expeditionary warfare is a tactic; it is not a strategic objective. It is how you conduct the operations, not a mission in itself. So I think that there has to be a little more basic military rigor in how we do things. MODERATOR: Peter are you a desperate house wife? THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: No, but I can say NATO is something different than the European Union is. European internal market is not something that you fall in love with. But I can see that NATO is something that you can fall in love with. It has been a success since 1949; its essence collective defense in a political military structure and it was such a success that other countries keep on knocking on the door to join it. And therefore we should really beware of what we are doing in the future concerning that horrible notion of enlargement because I do not like enlargement. I like other countries knocking on the door to join us in a product in which they fell in love. And then we have to overcome which is that new strategic company concept. I think the new strategic concept should not reinvent the war [INAUDIBLE]. I think the formula since 1949 was a success. It's that collective defense so let's continue on the base of that collective defense taking into account that famous article 5 which is so very close and then of course that everybody is participating in the same way. I think I'm going to mention it once again that enlargement did not solve all the problems of security in the world. It did not solve the problem of a taking process within NATO and I think we should take into account a good and fair decision making process in NATO. And it makes for a very reformative organization and that is what I'm foreseeing for NATO so we don't have to enter into discussions of collective defense; for a large part in the world and it worked. So up to me it was a success. With that challenge, also for the first time that really Afghanistan needs to be a success because it can be a great danger. If we don't succeed with NATO in Afghanistan, we will be an organization that will be reduced to minimalist proportion. That is the three challenges we have in front of us. MODERATOR: Pauline, are you - is Britain going to be out of love with NATO? BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: No. That is a short answer. I think actually in fact you asked me a question about an incoming demonstration. I think you are going to find this is a government that takes NATO pretty seriously. We will want to see the work on the concept, thorough and meaningful and will be a strong supporter and contributor to the alliance MODERATOR: What should the concept say? BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: It is interesting, is it not, that in a vastly changed world from the last time that anybody had any go at writing what NATO should try and do. A different patent of international relations has emerged. We are talking about going back to the basics. And I agree. The specific, the specificities of NATO are really articles 5 and 4. They are the mutual defense guarantee. They are actually the implication of that obviously for territorial defense which I don't think is out of date which is absolutely key to European security. It is the [INAUDIBLE] which now becomes in its own right something of a partner to NATO in certain tasks that the alliance might be going to undertake. It binds different European countries, the different traditions and actually provides simultaneously both deterrents and reassurance. It is very important not to upset that balance. I think we do need to put more emphasis than we needed to in the past on article 4 which I would d describe really as a sort of solidarity clause. And this gets into an area of where they will be differing views, how far should NATO go down the road of not being just concerned of things perceived of as being defense and getting into some of the things which we will call security and which relates to the continuity of daily life in the member states. I am a proponent of going some way down that road because I believe cybersecurity are large threats. They are a threat to your military capability if it goes wrong and I don't believe that if some nations in NATO are really insecure in that area which can become under attack that the rest of us remain unaffected by that. So I think there is an internal job of technical assistance-sorry. MODERATOR: In terms of article 4, what would we therefore do in case or- BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: What it amounts to is looking at those. It is a question about and I think we have to look rather thorough of those issues which represent where there or where there can be and say which of those is NATO the apt organization to do something about. Which really lie to others and part of this seems to me should be an allocation of tasks because there are going to be certain things that NATO will decide it shouldn't do and we should be in for a large membership. We ought to find ways of saying we will do this another way. I regard the concept it is going to look at the strategic environment. And I think part of it will be to decide what NATO does and where other tasks should lie also. MODERATOR: And finally should it be back to basics or this enlarging of tasks that some people consider? Would you concentrate in Afghanistan or at home? THE HON. CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT: We have to do both, to come back to the basics the founding nations are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and the people founded on principles of democarcy and the rule of law. They are resolved for collective defense and for the absolutely act well. Sixty years old and we do not have any need to change. This is the core issue of NATO and the core case of NATO. And this is deterrence and common defense. We have to redefine what common defense means 60 years later. And there I think there is some to be refurbished. We have seen a lot already in 1999 the strategic concept. I would and addition to this concept. What is necessary? If you come to the threat analysis it is really a multifold possibility including energy, including cyberattacks, including things we probably do not have a picture on as my impression we should not just focus on Afghanistan and the new strategic concept. It is very often looks on the actual situation to the extent and does not have the view for the future what could be involved for the future. What we can draw out of Afghanistan is that in terms of strategy I think we have definitely a need to extend of NATO and cooperation. You refer to the European Union it is urgently needed that we not only in the defense planning process but in the cooperation and in coordination we have to look to other players in this field. European Union has not yet become a defense profile. It has a defense profile and it is step by step on the way to have some [INAUDIBLE]. The linkage that we got with the agreement years ago does not sufficiently fit for this what we have to do the next time. This includes the question how a civilian tools and necessities should be binded in and I think this brings back NATO again to the core. NATO was not founded as just a military alliance but as a political corporation and we should better focus again on this particular intention and I think that this is a very important issue. Some are saying - I have heard recently somebody saying look what we are doing. That is our strategic concept. I would say we should go a little bit beyond that of what we are doing actually MODERATOR: You have heard many of the issues that are at stake in NATO. Back to basics, more partners. Let's do better in Afghanistan. I just want to turn to the audience and gather some views before we move on and drill down to some of the specific issues. My eye was caught by former ambassador to NATO. Is there a microphone for him? I would urge you all to be concise and crisp. If possible stick to 17 syllables. AUDIENCE: I find that difficult. My question is really a key off of what Christian said because I think you articulated very encouragingly to an American ear the complex nature of the security environment that we are in and the complex ways in which NATO is going to have to adapt to deal with it. My concern, however, is I think Bruce put his finger on it. But we don't agree among the allies on most of the threats that we face. And you can tick them off. Its how important is Afghanistan? How do we deal with Russia? How much do our societies invest in security and defense? Are we building the right capacities? Is NATO for military only? Is NATO the principle venue for where we deal with to a transatlantic community or is it really the EU or other places with principle venue? We have great discussions among experts. But I'm concerned that at a political level our societies are not looking at these questions, sharing the same instincts and our political leadership talking to each other about how we are going to deal with this in the future. How do we breakthrough that ceiling so that we at a level of societies and leaders a renewed political compact within this transatlantic community? MODERATOR: Briefly, Kurt, would you have anything to throw into that as an answer to your own question? AUDIENCE: I think he outlined the right idea. To be more specific about that there are at least three NATOs out there in people's minds: There's an expeditionary NATO, come with us to Afghanistan. There is a passive territorial defense of Europe. There is a much more proactive defend-us-against-Russia NATO. I think we need a political understanding among all the allies that all are relevant and we have got to have the balance of interest of each other at heart. We have to have some to have some solidarity with the NATO to do all three at the same time. MODERATOR: I guess the question is which one of those three NATOs should be the priority? Let's have a show of hands. Who thinks the first priority should be expedition warfare principally in Afghanistan? Six. Territorial defense article 5? And defense against Russia? It's pretty evenly split. AUDIENCE: No one is raising their hand because it is not either/or. That means investment in the capacities. MODERATOR: Or all of the above? It's still the same. I saw a hand here. AUDIENCE: From the University of Turkey. Very short comment and question. NATO used to be a Cold War organization and transatlantic structure. And after the Cold War the threat is globalized and now we are operating in nonarticle 5 cooperation and nonbusiness cooperations. But the main sense is still transatlantic. So after the Cold War was ended there was a very successful story about PFP, partnership for peace. All of those old enemies became partners and then members to the structure of security. So don't you think to cope with this global threats, it is now time to revise or reform Washington treaty and create some sort of partnership status like associate partners or joint partners, whatever around, such as South Korea, South Africa, etc., not as to members of NATO but those to cooperate within some areas of the world such as piracy or the north pole issues, etc., etc. Is it possible? If yes how? If not, why? MODERATOR: How do you reconcile three main domains that NATO has to cooperate in? THE HON. CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT: I would be the merge for all three. I think it focuses your contribution to the experience we have in the European Union. You have to look to get in the coherence. In the NATO of 28 already is in a situation that we have to look into to get the house wives together better in an understanding what they want to put on the table and this is not yet fully made. We talk about the traditional territorial defense which is - and the reflects toward the position of the Russian federation which is far more common in the new member states in middle and Eastern Europe. And I think we should look on this and not just say this is because we are over this. We are not over this and we should talk about this coherence very well. Far over NATO the global NATO issue, this is what I have said about the 28 is just a follow up of Richard Lucas saying of and speech about NATO goes out of area or goes out of business. NATO went out of area but NATO did not go global. And my [INAUDIBLE] Kissinger said sometimes if everybody is allied with everybody nobody is allied with nobody. I think there is reason about that we should not define where the challenges are coming from but where those are in the alliance of values are prepared to prevent the emerging of such challenges. And I think there is in the coherence which comes to plannings, defense planning, up to the question of common funding to its fitting structure which we have in NATO and should include that we have with this enlarged NATO of 28 for two other countries we have been giving enhancement for the future. I think this is where we are. And the others is a question about partnership. MODERATOR: You are questioning whether 28 are too many in terms of decision making? Should the consensus rule be amended? THE HON. CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT: And not just add one to the other. THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: In Afghanistan and raising the question of Europe, the new president who happens of the union will have to cope also with elaborating a vision of the defense and security policy of Europe. But as a European I can say that NATO has now a great opportunity to play a huge role under all that it always wanted to play because the European Union and all the domestic budgets are confronted to such challenges, the global warming, the aging of the population, security and insecurity that no European government or no European prime minister of head of state will be able to convince his population that all that should be budget cuts in favor of increasing a defense budget. That is a great challenge. That is a great opportunity now for NATO and that is also something that we as Belgiums would like to propose and introduce during our upcoming presidency. I think we should go away a little bit from that Venus and Mars item between that side of the Atlantic and the Europeans ones. I think we really have to see what are the challenges. Collectively [INAUDIBLE] and in a very strong collaboration with union. MODERATOR: Pauline makes the point about budgets and if it's in power in a few months time said he wants to bring the budget back to light. Will defense spending suffer and what will that do to Britain's position in NATO and its ability to conduct operations in Afghanistan. BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: We are not going to bring fence to fence against any cuts that may be applied in other parts of the budget. It is also implicit on that. We are not going to pick on defense, either. Our first top priority, I would like to link is to the whole NATO agenda. I belong to those who think we cannot choose. Twenty-eight members mean different countries have different priorities. But the part of being part of this alliance is that you actually, the solidarity and mutual effort part of it, has to be a part. Now, for the U.K, there is no situation that is more important to our security than Afghanistan and Pakistan. Something like 75 percent of the all the terrorist related activity in the United Kingdom has that link. For us it is supremely important. So that will continue to be a top priority for us and we will put in the resources both in terms of man and kit that are needed. We do feel, quite strongly, having been one of the countries being active in the use of its armed forces that actually we can't go in NATO funding military operations the way they are. That is to say [INAUDIBLE] and that does need to be an operational budget. That will be a huge thing to agree. I do think it does have to been on the agenda. I'd say something else, however, which is that I think that democratically elected governments are not going to find that their populations are willing to go on endlessly voting for the use of their armed forces and political situations. There is something called exhaustion that can take place. So I do think that we have to be -- while I believe very, very strongly that NATO should withstand the things with it has capabilities and shouldn't lay out [INAUDIBLE], I think it is important that NATO equally doesn't actually constantly operate right up to the limits of its capabilities and it needs to be a reserved organization. And we need as western world, as alliance to move as we can, Afghanistan being a conflict where we are engaged and where we must be seen to have a success and therefore we need very carefully to define what success means. I think after that we need as allies we need to move much more seriously down the road of what's been known as conflict prevention. And if I might make one more point which is and Christian mentioned it and it is a hobby horse mind, this alliance is a political alliance. It is something we need to be talking about not all of them are going to be conducted through NATO but NATO remains at the core of a lot of them. We need to go back to being at the heart of political consultation inside the alliance. MR. BRUCE JACKSON: I think Pauline really hit the center of this debate which is what are the correct balance between and the political requirements of NATO. Many things that Christian is legitimate concerns, but we're talking about where those things need to be solved. I happen to think military organizations are organizations of practice. They are not organizations of theory. I have actually never heard of an Army that got an award in Afghanistan and decide to have a stragetic conflict in the middle of a war. It's a very strange thing. When you go to a general and you say what your area of operations is and what your mission is. You want a crisp answer. I think we are kind of over waiting the legitimate political concerns we all have about this new world and we are basically superimposing them on top of NATO. Every time the Americans -- it is easier to criticize one's own country-- that we run into a foreign policy problem whether it is our lack of concept of strategic defense or maybe a step back in democracy in the Ukraine we will NATOize it and that will make it better. No, it doesn't. It really doesn't. And getting all the desperate house wives together actually makes it worse in the serial. There are things that need to remain in the political level until they are coherent enough and we have consensus enough to go into a military organization and be deconstructive. Mostly these are engineers. They solve specific problems. I think we are doing NATO a disservice, we are distracting it from its central missions, and I think building out from core capabilities is better than taking the Chinese menu approach, to take everything on the menu and do it all at once. I think there is a stick to the knitting thing and then gradually as you are required go out. I just have this sense that the secretary general basically picks up the paper every day and says there is a new mission I can get into. I'm not familiar with that in military crime. MODERATOR: Where do you put Afghanistan? Go back to basics you have the war in Afghanistan. What to do about that? MR. BRUCE JACKSON: I had skepticism with going global; I know it was a catchy slogan that we should throw the ball long on first down. I wouldn't have done that. The original building of the Atlantic alliance is down counter intuitively. How do you take Europe? And the idea that we go long on extreme lengths, we're still talking about what our supply lines are to get to Afghanistan. We don't have the strategy for Iran before we went in war with Iraq. It seems to me these are serious threats and I was a great advocate of intervention but I would have done a little more planning and preparation before we get committed. MODERATOR: Let's go back to the audience for some more questions. And then there is a question in the back there. AUDIENCE: There is sadly nothing far from the set of desperate house wives than NATO headquarters. But I have a question for the panel. To my mind, I think where we'll go and I'm just guessing, in the next little while will be relatively clear. I think all the allies are going to agree that NATO needs to continue doing. I think they are all going to agree that territorial defense also involves acting beyond your boarders. [INAUDIBLE] which we find ourselves. I think they are all going to agree that NATO is not just military organization but it is a security organization and that means agreeing on a list of things where NATO should also get engaged for the defense of it's allies. I can make an argument that and intense cyper attacked looks a lot like an electromagnetic pulse attack from the Cold War which can cripple a society. There is one paradox which I can't square in my own head. I'm curious to hear the panel's views. And that is how to square the need for reassurance with some of our allies with the need for a better relationship with the Russian federation. Because the things that those allies want, contingency planning and exercises on their territory are seen as so corrupt to the Russians that it will undermine a better relationship with the Russians. There are some in NATO who say only by reassuring those allies can we bring the family together and reach out with confidence to the Russians. There are others who say only by having a better relationship with the Russians can we really reassure a, a true reassurance for these new members because all the rest of it really won't provide security for them. We should stop doing those things. I would be curious to hear the panel's views. MODERATOR: And this in the context of some very large Russian exercises that took place recently. If Russia is doing large military exercises should NATO be doing them as well? THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: And we have one neighbor to the right and this is Russia. I think that we should really invest in good relations with Russia. I think the purposes that were held by the Obama administration could make it possible that we have results in those good relations. But I think that it is very important also for new members of NATO that although it is sometimes very hard to understand, that we are not really -- that it will have no result for the thing of NATO if we continue to rehearse what a dreadful period the Russian occupation was. We have to turn that page and we should [INAUDIBLE] if we are really sold. And doing that on the basis of solidarity which is an open and fair dialogue. So I'm rather confident but we have to be very with an attitude which is full of attention. A lot of negotiations are coming up and really also because I'm going to those countries who have also a role to play in disarmament, in the nuclear and I think that we should really invest in good relations with Russia. The paradox is that I do not foresee that we can cultivate two currents within NATO. MODERATOR: Everybody wants good relations with Russia. THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: Do we? Does everybody want better, deepened and broadened relations with Russia? MODERATOR: You suspect some members don't? THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: Are in a difficult political and historical situation to do so. MODERATOR: Would you accept the need for contingency planning and for exercises? The Russians are exercising what does NATO do? THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: Well, it's not because Russians are exercising that we should start with exercising, also. I think that we should at least letting them know that it's up to us the best way to enhance good relations and that's how we are working-- BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: I don't think the Russians are a military threat in the classical sense. They conduct these exercises. I think we are perfectly capable of coping with the military content of that. I equally don't actually think that this is a country that entirely shares our values. And I think it's not unfair to say it is a revisionist part. And now with the session before somebody asked the question and posed it very well was it more worrying that the death [inaudible] climax of opinion, influence in public attitudes it makes it harder to invest in good relations with Russia. I take the view that in that I don't want to have an antagonist relationship with Russia. And a test case for me and whether they actually respect other people's severity. I do not believe that the European, that the alliance or the European partners should accept the doctrine that there is limited sovereignty in certain parts of Europe. It is the among those countries that feel threatened by that doctrine which is one of the things that divides the European end of the alliance and that sense of security and insecurity alliance members by not being clear about what we actually stand for. And I know the test case in many ways is obviously Ukraine. I think we have to be clear, very clear about the values we stand for. One for me is Russians do not have the right to currently and the right of choice of countries of [INAUDIBLE] in their neighborhood and will tell you a part of their backyard. MODERATOR: So in the spirit of clarity. BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: I haven't been clear enough? MODERATOR: Would you give tangible reassurance to the would you accept the need for contingent planning or what would you do for Ukraine? BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: I think it is a job of the alliance that it should do contingency planning. I think remark was well made by Bruce when he said a lot of homework hasn't been done. And that is not the same as barking loudly or actually conducting equally provocative exercises. I think we should make it clear that we are prepared. All of that said it seems to me that this is speak softly which you let the people know that you cannot be rolled over, militarily. And I think it comes back in the end to how we manage to develop our relationship politically with Russia. I don't think we should go into a great competition on the military scale. And I think we can take a loss but that is actually a great deal of military. I think we should be calm about that while at the same time not being foolish. It is for me a political question and it is actually a hard one. And it is a real challenge but it is also a challenge for the U.S. and part of all of this is does the produce results? It is part of the global picture. MODERATOR: You wanted to jump in? MR. BRUCE JACKSON: On the Russian relationship, I don't see that the contradiction to think that NATO is in it for the Russian interest. Russia is going to be supporting [INAUDIBLE] its not going to object to the of the Baltic zone. The EU just approved the pipeline that Russia has a part in with Germany which is going to be secured by NATO forces. It is a free insurance policy. I think the mistake that NATO wanted to do one particular thing there has been an inversion. NATO used to be the lead dog in the transformation after '89. It is no long the lead dog. In resetting its relationship, we just came off a summit with Russia. I think what we really need to do is break down the barriers created by those organizations so NATO can coordinate directly with the European Union as it deals with Russia. NATO's job is to protect the flanks of EU. That's what is going to redefine the eastern space as many Germans have written about. But because of this barrier that was created years ago NATO cannot walk down the street and sit down with the EU and ask for their requirements and their definitions. And I think it's almost criminal negligence we are not allowed to talk across Brussels. MODERATOR: We will get to relations with the EU. I saw a comment back there. Thank you. AUDIENCE: I'm from Portugal. First a comment. At the present stage we are neither the review of the charter, only the review of the strategic. So it is sort of an intermediate discussion. A question: If you walk here through the Halifax arsenal you see a great motive for the Canadian armed forces. Fight against fear. Fight against stress. Fight against chaos. Which other words would you add to this if you wanted to do some public relations for NATO? MODERATOR: Anybody got a pitchy slogan? Fight against doubt? THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: What we are doing we are doing good. Perhaps a lack of modesty. But we need to stress other which are very important in NATO when we are abroad is the nation of -- that is a nation that people are not mentioning anymore but was in fact always a cornerstone of the alliance. And when we are abroad in that famous in our most important operation, Afghanistan we see that also the notion of interpretability should be reinvented or reconsidered and that is also something when we have new members coming that we really should say it is not only the advantages of being there but also being a member of an alliance like NATO also needs efforts and that's, I think is a huge problem. I really want to stress once again, that in reviewing that strategic concept the notion of interoperability [INAUDIBLE]. THE HON. CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT: I could say I'm happy that we do not have as a motto NATO on the cross roads. I think we just have to develop and stay with what we have performed in the recent years. But coming to our Afghanistan and the challenges we have in abroad, I think there must be clear that all NATO member states have to be contributors to security. And they have to be committed to deliver and to contribute in and all beyond what I refer to the [INAUDIBLE] and all of these issues which are not strictly military in a classical sense but in a comprehensive understanding necessary to settle conflicts as they are today. The second what I would like to say is we have to look at what has been discussed before about a nuclear strategy and nuclear issues including all - MODERATOR: Before we go into nuclear issues, let's get a couple of questions. Minister MacKay, please. AUDIENCE: Thank you. I think -- go back to the basic question here. What should NATO be? What should it look like? It should be the best security instrument we can make it. And the discussion around how we improve its possibility capabilities, expeditionary versus home gain, new strategic concept, it's a bit like self licking ice cream. It can become a perpetual talk. What distinguishes NATO from other bodies is that it does have military force behind it, when needed. And I think Bruce's point about having these discussions in the midst of a very bloody conflict in Afghanistan can take us a bit off track. What expression for NATO -- to borrow a phrase, ask not what NATO can do for you, but what you can do for NATO. And I think having a real discussion about what countries bring in terms of capability is going to be helpful because we have all heard references to a one if not two or three-teir NATO that has been somewhat undermining, I think in terms of how effective we have been in Afghanistan, for example. And I'm very proud of the work that all countries are doing. Canada is in an uncaveted position in Canada province in the fight. And John McCain said yesterday what is the exit strategy. It is a strategy for success and I think we all have to get our minds around that. So question. What do you see as the means to define what NATO's role is when in the fight? Should we be doing a bit of an inventory? And should we just be frank with countries that when they come to a conflict like this, I boil it down to bring what you can, do what you can. If you are not able to do a full range of combat, if you are able to bring other assets, if you are able to do more on the reconstruction development; that's fine. Let's just make sure that it is a coordinated approach. And I guess the final question is and it was mentioned earlier, do we officially affiliate with other countries who are not NATO members? Do we put an associate membership? Would that help in terms of the overall strategic goals of NATO? MODERATOR: Christian. THE HON. CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT: The last question I think is a very interesting one because we come to redefining partnership programs. As being in action in mission and combat there is not the time just to reflect what the levels of admission should and could be. I think we should have an openness of NATO to others but we should have to set the loads and to set what we expect from those contributing to the joint effort. And I think we have made some progress but like referred to Bruce, the arrangement, we have to refuel this arrangement. We need better and faster capabilities and possibilities to add to capabilities as well today. MODERATOR: Capabilities problem is not a Berlin plus problem. It is a problem of defense budgets. THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: It's also the political route to participate. How long have we been discussing it in the framework of the capabilities? And there was a trust fund that was brought about but that trust fund was only filled up to 20 percent of the capacity that we needed. In the beginning, when I was minister almost two years ago. These are not discussions we cannot afford anymore if you are in Afghanistan or in a decade in another theater and we have to discuss meeting after meeting about filling up our capabilities. Then we cannot say that we are the best. I think we should make a framework on that doing our homework and be sure that our needed capabilities are filled in. MODERATOR: You made the point that politically governments can't spend more on defense. THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: It's a larger discussion. If we are member states we should participate to a fair degree. You cannot enter an alliance and an organization and you are not able and not willing to participate whether it is [INAUDIBLE] and that's a huge problem when we see our operational capabilities. And I think in that perspective we didn't succeed yet. MODERATOR: Would you favor his recommendation that as well as article 5 one should look at article 13 and whether people should be thrown out of NATO as underperforming assets? THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: You do not throw out the people you love, of course. MODERATOR: Pauline. BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: I want to get to what the Canadian minister just said. I don't think there is every a good time. And NATO ought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. He made some important points about Afghanistan. Can I pay tribute to Canadian forces who have taken a bigger hit in terms of casualties on the field than any other? And you are right in the hard spot. What's the role of NATO in the fight? Well it is very important that we get this across to our populations what the nature of the challenge is. But what NATO is trying to do. It is twofold it is to hold and secure and train the Afghan Army and police to take that role on and to do both of those things as rapidly and thoroughly as we can . That definition is fairly simple. Its execution is extremely complex and it does include a political element in it and will be a crucial part in reducing the [INAUDIBLE] and the time scale of the time we're there because I don't think we can go on though I do not think we should set timelines of we are going to get out in [INAUDIBLE]. I think we have to start to set some parameters of what it is we are trying to achieve. And when we have achieved them we will be able to start the withdrawals. On the question of associate members, I do not believe we should touch the treaty. The Washington treaty is a better treaty than we got and nothing else so we stick with what we've got. Beautiful. I think within it gives us plenty of freedom to associate people. The U.S. P of NATO is our capacity to generate force and to provide the core of a coalition and NATO's which enable other forces to join us. I don't want us to have an in-area and out-of-area debate again. I don't equally think NATO should become a global power. But what it can do is it seems to me in the areas in which it does actually have an extended role, it can also form the core of partnerships with others. We need to extend our seriousness or purpose in forming relationships, political and military with other armed forces of countries that share the kind of objectives that we have and be able to work with them. Work with them not on this time we have to raise and we have 45 or 46 countries. I think we should have a more systematic approach to the partners that we can call on, the doctrines we develop which involves also talking politics to them. MODERATOR: Thank you. AUDIENCE: I know you struggle to the response to the question, finding the right slogan for NATO. So let me bring up the question of what seems to have been for the last at least since 2001 the mantra of NATO even before [INAUDIBLE] to be he said Afghanistan will be the litmus test of NATO. He used that phrase at every turn. We heard it this morning who talked about the test of NATO. Pauline Jones mentioned we need success and yet on Friday, Germany's defense minister said very clearly I do not regard Afghanistan as a litmus test of NATO. So my question is that consensus on the mantra breaking down? Should it be actually removed? Should this burden, this test, this anxiety, this pressure be removed from NATO's soldiers because what has been nearly a decade, including Canada, if you look at the ground it really is evolving into an America plus its friends and allies, NATO and nonNATO, the two top commanders are American. The Americans will take over after the British in charge of regional command south, where the British are and the Americans have to send Special Forces to help out the Germans. So I ask this question about the mantra. MODERATOR: So we redefine success but we redefine failure. MR. BRUCE JACKSON: On this issue I completely agree with the minister that Afghanistan is a defining mission of this particular generation. I think Armies learn their direction from marching. That is the test of the military alliance. It seems to me that there is a little bit confusion in that maybe NATO has the wrong slogan, if our marketing were better, we have a changed our mission statement. We basically have a cell side problem. I don't think we have a cell side problem. I agree with Pauline. It is a political organization the political organizations are defined by their constituency. I think NATO has gotten out of touch with its voters and basically the comments you are getting from central and Eastern Europe is you don't handle our requirements. Ukraine is telling you, you are irrelevant for our problems. These are important information -- this has to be a constituency driven organization. And I think constituency is trying to communicate with NATO in ways -- I mean there is a pressure to be relevant, to address things. I think NATO is struggling a little bit. I think in an increasingly geoeconomic world. But I think we should go back and look again at how NATO functioned in the [INAUDIBLE]. But as the missions changed we continue to ask if it is a constitutional problem maybe it is a jurist in Canada that would be better at it than we are of or if you discover in Ukraine that there is a permeability of the software architecture, couldnt Microsoft do that job better than NATO. Basically looking around for the hand offs that occurred in the ball pens are the right way to do it. Thinking about NATO as who is going to do every mission to battle. That's not the right way to do it. MODERATOR: Specifics of the question. Whether NATO stands or falls on Afghanistan where do you stand? MR. BRUCE JACKSON: I completely agree with that proposition. THE HON. PIETER DE CREM: I think I made my point on that. And told that it was a proof and it is also considered that way by Senator general [INAUDIBLE] and when we heard debate that took place yesterday in the morning in which Senator McCain also was playing a role with the other members of the panel, I think we cannot really foresee that through our military presence we are not able to -- and I heard yesterday that we are 18 months we will be of a huge importance to win and winning is perhaps not only military victory but passing that country to an Afghan ownership. MODERATOR: What would you like to hear from President Obama in the coming weeks? Should it be a big surge and should the Europeans put more troops in? Why is the surge only American? THE HON. CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT: I think whatever we hear in the next week or two weeks time, it's clear that the litmus test is rather we are able to get the Afghans into coordinating development to what's a self -- themselves been able to guarantee there and our security. The purpose of where we are is that we haven't as it reflects to our security. So there has to be some change. And this change has to be settled in this what will be the conference wherever this will be in the end of January of next year. And I think after this, there has to be a revision of what is necessary as instruments, as tools, maybe you talk about surge or you talk about addition of instruments and bench marks. I agree that we shouldn't have timelines in a sense that we are binding ourselves without binding ourselves to success. But we will have to define what success means and when the time is that we can just-- MODERATOR: How would you define success? THE HON. CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT: I expect that we will see just from our country that after this conference there will be preparedness if necessary to increase commitment. AUDIENCE: Robin Shepherd. I would like to come back to a question which got somewhat lost in one of the other questions. This is about Ukraine but extended also to Georgia. It seems to me that Ukraine and Georgia entertain three aspects of what we have been talking about. One is the question as to whether other countries should be subject to a national security by Russia. There is also the question of their own preparedness to join. And thirdly there is the question of whether NATO has the will to expand and take on those issues. I want to ask, Pauline, whether an incoming conservative government will be supportive of Ukraine and Georgia membership and perhaps to, Bruce, whether, in fact, the prospects of Georgian and Ukraine membership is in any way realistic? BARONESS PAULINE NEVILL-JONES: Sometime am I allowed to come back to the litmus. On Ukraine and Georgia, I think that NATO has made commitments. I don't actually think that was well judged. What we should have said in my view is there is going to be a map process and there will be at the end of the day a decision on both parties whether they qualify and whether they want it. I think it should have map now. This is an organization that should keep its promises. Do I think that we should get into a situation where this is going to become a living issue? We are in a very tight corner, I do think that while this option should remain on the table and it should be one that they are entitled to choose is not clear to me in the end Ukrainian will regard that -- - and when you are divided it is hard to make a positive decision in any event. What I do think is we should be trying to work in a situation in which the conditions in which NATO membership would seem vital don't actual arise. In other words, we got round this problem politically. That comes back to the question of what kind of relationship we have with Russia. MR. BRUCE JACKSON: The statement said that they can be and they can't join the institutions. I don't think both countries today are interoperable with NATO. They can already do that. I don't think it is preparing them in military terms. They have a democracy deficit. They have constitutional deficits. Those problems, let's call them European Union or soft power problems. How long that takes them, I don't know. But I do think if they complete those kinds of things, then we can go forward. I don't think NATO can lead them into the promise land. It is the European Union that is going to take part in this. And this is also a level of economic development that we'll need to sustain this. That's what we're waiting for. Obviously, the M-part of map was misleading. I think they should have access to all the of NATO and that should be completely in parallel with whatever the European Union is doing. If they call it an association, we should call it a NATO association and parallel whatever the political people are doing. MODERATOR: How far would you agree with being more vital towards Ukrainians and the Georgians? THE HON. CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT: That is a development not a time progress. But coming one minute back to Russia and I give up the nuclear component now in this time but I will think we have heard and we know that next year is a year of a lot of possibilities of cooperation and decision and contracts with Russia. We should mention the [INAUDIBLE] and we are regarding the Istanbul commitments. But I think we should work on to get back on the table and have on the table some possible constant. This content could assist in marked confidence to Russian percussion and could assist Georgia and the Ukraine in settling their own position better than now. MODERATOR: I'm afraid that the heavies are at the door so I have to call it an end. I'm leaving you with the CFE nuclear issues. These are all issues that perhaps next year in the conference you can discuss at length. MR. CRAIG KENNEDY: Thank you so much. I want to thank the panel. That was terrific. I want to thank our moderator.