and to deploy similar maritime forces in the -- -- thank you. thank you very much indeed for very relevant questions. first thank you for your kind words, and you ask me how we could possibly coordinate between nato and the european

union and ask questions the same direction. i think we have three areas in which we need very close coops and coordination between the nato and the european union. the first is operations. and we operate together in afghanistan in closet vow, and also have to say that despite all the overall political problems of let's call them challenges in our corporation we manage to coordinate smoothly in theater. so e.u. and work efficiently together in afghanistan k4 and e.u. work together in a very

efficient marijuana. so i think in daily life we manage to get along. secondly, we need close coordination when it comes to development of capabilities. and that leads me to answer the questions about smart deference and pooling and sharing that several of you mentioned. you mentioned, as smart defense pooling -- also mentioned that. we have ensure that we do not pursue parallel programs, but actually compliment each other and ensure efficient use of taxpayer's money. no unproductive competition no dop indication of work. i could mention an excellent

example how we have im-- embarked on what i would call a productive division of labor. at the chicago summit last year, european nato allies committed themselves to develop capacity within air-to-air refueling. overall, we have a lot of capacity within nato when comes to air-to-air refueling. we are dependent on u.s. capabilities. what we need is a european investment in that capability. so european allies knead commitment in chicago, and that's an excellent example how we can -- no reason for nato embark on that. ..

and those meetings take place with io at 26, that is about participation. for the same reason the e.u. is a bit reluctant to have too many meetings with only 26 out of 27 members. if we suggest other issues are relevant, kosovo for instance,

then we can only do at an informal meetings and in exchange for turks are reluctant to accept too many of those meetings. that's where we are that leads me to the conclusion that in us to find a solution to the cyprus problem, we continue to have this absurd situation. so here's an issue where we should move forward. i deviously tabled some pragmatic or postals as to how we could move forward, but i have to realize the final political solution we need the parties in cyprus find each other and they should. they have huge economic challenges. they have resources they could exploit once they reunify the eye and inherent the european union could play a role.

the european union has some lockridge to facilitate a solution to that problem. now ask me about nato post 2014. are we really that keen for new tasks? do we try to invent the new activities to ensure that nato continues to be relevant? no way. there's no need to invent new things. we have a full plate. our hands are full. so nato post 2014 will be in nato that is prepared to take action at d-day. one way to do that is to make sure the ability we have two operate together in afghanistan, and if the buddy will be maintained and further developed in the.

we caught the connected forces initiative because it's exercise, training, education so what we learned in afghanistan will be maintained even if we draw down in afghanistan. believe me, there will be new tasks. we stand ready. we are prepared for the unexpected. if you asked me when i took office in august 2009, can you imagine nato in libya? i would not only probably, but definitely have answered now. nevertheless it showed up as a task we had to handle. and this is my point. we need to stand ready for the unexpected and that is nato post 2014. now, mr. saha of asked the same

question. also has to question about syria and recent reports on the israeli strike in syria. i have of course seen the press reports. i've also noted that no subject diggity has taken place in areas of relevance for our deployment of patriot missiles in turkey. but obviously the situation in syria remained a matter of concern. we are concerned about the disaster in the deterrence situation. we are concerned about the risk of spillover in the region on possible use of chemical weapons so he urged the international community to find a political solution as soon as possible.

that could take agreement among the five permanent members of the u.n. security council. the only way forward is a political solution. she died and come only to a strong and unified message from the international community. mr. klick asked me whether the so-called usb events to a shovel weekend the transatlantic relationship. my brief answer is that we'll very much depend on us the europeans. i think it is in our interest that the u.s. rebalance its interests and focus more in the asia-pacific region taken into account the rising powers. if we are to ensure americans still zaire parliament as a power company europeans must invest in the transatlantic

relationship politically, economically and militarily. mrs. yacoub sorry asked the same question. will they see what a vacation down k. -- downgrade nato? if the europeans don't invest in the transatlantic relationship, it may we cannot bond. but actually we've seen a strong u.s. commitment to european security. for instance, the u.s. contribution to a nato missile defense system is a u.s. commitment to addressing emerging security challenges. so instead of having a lot of

stationary forces in europe, the u.s. is now engaged in a modern way that actually addresses the threats of our turn. in that respect, you also asked me about absolute infrastructure. do they have any research that indicates how much money is wasted on obsolete infrastructure and structures in general. i am not aware of such research, but we are very much focused on reforming military forces in the direction of more capability so less tragic structures, more ability to deploy ways necessary

is actually the essence of ongoing reform efforts and transformation effort within nato. mr. tete got asked me which u.s. nato recommend the european union to develop a european defense policy clicks i'm not going to interfere with io policies, but i think you have heard my words today. i do believe we need to strengthen european defense and i don't see any contradiction between a strong nato and a strong european defense corporation. balustrades and within nato. cell is strengthening the

european defense policy is about investment capabilities and now i speak openly upfront and new institutions, then it could contribute in a viable way to strengthening our overall security. otherwise it will just be as i said. in that respect i am in favor of it, but i don't interfere with it. and just to conclude i'm not point, very often but discuss -- and some political groups are also discussing whether we should actually have a common european defense. now, to speak realistically, i don't if we will see it in my lifetime because when it comes

to, and i intend to have for a long time, i say this because the secretary general nato, i have learned how much individual nations protect their integrity and national tea when it comes to defense and security policy. that's really untouchable. i don't think that will materialize, but i believe in the coming years we will see nations go up or he much, much more cross borders because they needed. so you will see projects on pooling and sharing of whatever, but the bottom line the bottom-line wealthy nations are not able to acquire advanced extensive military equipment on their own.

even the european nationstate to cooperate. we will see much more collective defense efforts in europe in the coming years. now ask me about there could about there could be a good ath advised the prime minister to participate in your councils in december. i would refrain from interfering with european decisions on who they want to invite in european council. finally, it's a success story. the lesson learned that very close nato and individual players can actually achieve allied. and i wonder through the possibility that based on these

lessons learned, it would be worthwhile to play maritime assets in other turns of the world to an international effort to ensure free and open ceilings because piracy seem to be able to a marriage and other parts of the world. thank you. >> i would like to get to the floor and someone who wants to commend your remarks on the good relations between nato and the e.u. and the need for the division of labor on the floor. >> thank you very much, chairman. i'm delighted to see you here come the secretary general. it's always great to have a whiff of reality in this institution. could i say first of all, you made your remarks just now about

nato has no need to invent things after 2014. the european union wants to and thinks all the time and scours the world trying to find opportunities to put a flag in order to justify european defense policy. it seems to me the question we have to ask is how should we strengthen the capacity of the democracies? how should we strengthen their ability to act in this dangerous world? not how should we find it just as i payroll for the european union? the fact is you are in a very difficult position. diplomatic, little bit of politician. you are mainly a diplomat. you have to speak in a way that's not going to offend any of your 28 member states.

the fact is for having a different conversation. it's not about strengthening defense capabilities. it's about finding a role for the european union to act. don't you think in this time is scarce defense resources, it would take far more sense rather than have the european union creating parallel structures and institutions if it was to concentrate on the european affair within nato? because that is very realistically it's going to happen. of course all the duplication of effort is compounded by the fact we end up with basically the same member states talking to one another in the same city. my concern i suppose in the way things are going at the moment is first of all we don't have a very truthful conversation

because the conversation here is about roles for the european union, whereas in reality what she'd like to say is please stop playing politics. stop up a new institutions and structures and things. create more capability. that so we need. you're not going to do it to the european union because their objective is something entirely different. aren't you worried about an eventual bifurcation of the alliance that we would end up on the one hand we have the european union and the other hand the north americans? i know there are people here that would see that within this organization. that is the objective they have in mind and it strikes me that's a very dangerous direction to go and. so i'd be very interested in your view on that potential.

secretary-general, really what i would ask you to do is encourage the european countries to put their effort into the allianceand stop all this duplication and start dressing it up as if somehow or other they're adding capability when actually they are not. >> i have seen mr. rasmussen in many situations, an outspoken president of the european council, but i've never seen as a diplomat. [laughter] >> thank you and thank you for given this opportunity to give a dialogue with nato. i would like to focus on russia and the missile defense. he remembered there was this great between russia and nato and one would work together on missile defense and since then there has been a lot of problems

in missile defense. i would like to hear your assessment now that americans have at least postponed throughout the missile defense, does it open up new possibilities to work together and what is the situation in the nato russia council? i would also like additional question. i saw this year the european parliament delegation and you mention in news that nader should have a role in area and also here at are there any plans on this and what would you say that the nato's role in this? thank you. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: chairman, first of all may i say that mr. rasmussen is constantly

beginning to advanced across europe not is a matter of principles. what is going on now is the new systems being used. technologies such as drones, which kill people. show your support. we all understand when you talk about strengthening the european parliament to nato. it's quite simple for anyone who looks at this stage of the fact.

nato wants to be about to decide which crisis that will intervene and end anywhere it doesn't see fit to take action at all vivid it to the europeans. i would pick out what she said about supplying clean template. there was talk of cooperation, but because that the classes of interest amongst major imperialist powers in the united states will use its leverage in nato because nothing can change in nato unless washington gets the nod and a look at the founding church of nato. it's also clear in the united stat applies to break because

france, then the united states would say we don't wanted to be, let the europeans do it. then there's the reference made to taxpayer funds, workers and so on. for 20 years following the when yugoslavia, kosovo still occupied. when is it going to come to an end? yes, i will wind up, chairman. let me repeat this prayer. what about afghanistan? when i saw that going to come to an end? we all read about who is standing in line, so please be a bit more sincere and explained a very tangible interests influencing nato in europe. thank you. >> the maximum speaking time is now two minutes celebrant has a chance to take the floor.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: you're a very brief very concise. three specific questions. firstly, colic severity touched on this pooling and sharing and smart defense. we heard from security and defense committee that 300 million euro could be saved by pooling and sharing, whereas the cuts being made by member states are 30 billion euro. in other words, 100 times more. if anything being done by nato to try to stop these numbers state cuts?

and now on missile defense there are enthusiasts and skeptics regard this is what the politicians say, how do you intend to persuade the people of europe that the missile defense is in the interest of the people of europe rather than just the interest of the united states. i'd like to thank you for your words of hope regarding georgia. the political parodies than people in georgia are very much in favor of nato membership. but what are you going to do? how are you going to persuade major european governments who dropped their resistance? thank you. >> mr. vigo. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: thank you. thank you, secretary general. there are a lot of unpredictable factors that have a bearing on our security. we need to reduce the number of factors in relation to what we have today. there are too many such factors, so that leads me to my question, do you believe that better coordination between nato and the european union might be, for example anticipating bringing forward the processes, put the

processes you expect to vendors that have been harder to foresee? and unexpected events coming nato has not been terribly successful. or to the blunter about it, it's actually failed. we need to strengthen our cooperation, not just expanding logistic capacity, but also our ability to apply thoughts. that is happening but macedonia and its position but nato? >> clearly there is a country which is extremely significant. thank you. >> thank you very much.

i'm not an institutionalized. i don't care who exactly does buy it. we have shortfalls when it comes to military capabilities. we have learned lessons from operations, notably in afghanistan and libya, by the way we learn a lot of lessons. based on that, we have identified critical shortfalls and my focal point is to fill those gaps, whether that's within a nato framer court e.u. framework, i don't care. 21 nations have been are supposed to. obviously, we ohr taxpayers that

we have one set of taxpayers we need more investments in transfer capability. just to be brief about it. we learn thoughts from the libya operation. we need a better capacity when it comes to surveillance, reconnaissance and to seek in concrete terms about that, that is to invest in drones that can be used to gather such information and guide their military and political decisions. these are critical shortfalls.

and as i mentioned, at the nato summit in chicago last year, european nato allies committed themselves to invest in air refueling capacity. if they want to do that, through the european defense agency, i don't care about institutions. i care about the work to be done . now, this is why i do agree that the most important thing to decide that the european council meeting in december with the to invest a sufficient amount of money and critically needed military capacities. that would be the most important decision to take.

now, mrs. kronberg asked me know. and i've never made such a statement. nato as an allies is not engaged from the rand question. for support international efforts to find a political and diplomatic solution. missile defense you ask me whether the change of the so-called peace adaptive approach could also facilitate closer cooperation with russia on missile defense or not the important question. guess they think it should because the concern so far are

are primarily related to the four space and now face for her is being abolished. so if there is a political will and moscow to cooperate, that could pave the way for an agreement as to how nato and russia could cooperate on missile defense. let me stress having said that. the fact that the fourth and final phase has been abolished does not change but the whole of the population of european nato nations would be the missile defense system because the first

three phases will be implemented as planned and that will cover all populations european nato nations. ask me when will the operation of kosovo come to an end? well, the interesting thing is people in the region don't consider it an observation. on the contrary, reasonably when concluded the agreement, both parties requested nato to stand guarantee peace and stability and help implement the agreement. so that's not the occupation. of course i am pleased to see

that nato is considered such an impassioned guarantor of peace and stability and of course we will stay as long as necessary to implement the u.n. mandate. we operate on the basis of the u.n. than eight, have an obligation to implement the u.n. mandate to ensure free movement. you asked me about afghanistan. basically wrote not by the end of 2014 the isaf mission will come to an end. that will complete our combat mission, but we'll stay after 2014 to help the afghan security forces. mr. lilac asked me whether we will do anything to stop cuts and defense budgets.

as you know, international decision with the benchmark to which nato allies have stated those allies that spanned more than 2% on defense commit themselves to stay above the 2% while those allies try to work towards a 2% benchmark. it's not a legal requirement. it's political obligation. whenever i visit capitals and soon it will benefit more, i will repeat that the shame. actually i can tell you that i've had a political dialogue

with government, but also parliamentarians in some capitals. i have seen a positive response. i can mention one country in which the main political parties have raced a rut to let go agreement to which they will now move gradually towards 2%. so that's why it is also important to engage directly with parliamentarians. because this is very much about budget, defense budgets and financial fiscal policy. the last me about missile defense. how can they convince people it's also european interest? it's quite clear we are faced with a real missile threat.

more than 30 countries in the world have missile technologies, some of the range so they can hit targets in europe. it is clearly in europe's interest to develop a protection against that real missile threat. finally, the decision we took in bucharest in 2008 at the nato summit still stands. of course provided they fulfill the necessary criteria, we have established a special nato church or commission and within that commission to move forward so the church a reform process with the aim to one day in the future be able to join the

alliance. there's a lot of work ahead. they're the nato aspirations. so it is very much to demonstrate your gift fulfills the necessary criteria. finally, mr. boyle asked me about future enlargement. we have engaged activity with sculpture. as you know, we've made the decision also had 2008 in bucharest that we are ready to start negotiations as soon as a mutually satisfactory solution has been found. they know that for many in the eighth, we've done all we can.

to start negotiations immediately when it's been found. they find a solution to that main issue. to my mind, it's not impossible if there is good political will. thank you. >> thank you very much. i have four names on my list, three names. if everyone keeps his part for one minute, perhaps weekend make it. you are the first one to try it. >> thank you, chairman.

>> were human nato have investment but the bombings carried out by israel and damascus? tissue coordinate the operation? the reason i'm putting this question to you is on the seventh of march 2013, nato signed a partnership and cooperation agreement with israel, a bilateral agreement under headlines in the press at the time that israel was becoming a de facto member of nato. the military plumbing between israel for any future actions in the middle east is two months before and it's hard to believe there's been no coordination. so how do you analyze their action? thank you.

>> thank you, president, mr. secretary-general. he talked about the need for leadership in a changing world without which political leadership is quite empty. i wanted to ask you about the capacity of the so-called cyberdomain or relations to technology and defense. in the united states its established a defensive capacities legitimized and necessary. i read with great interest. could you tell me what nato is planning in relation to cybersecurity and how we use secure the freedom and security also in relation to take knowledge he do not become a zero-sum game? the last question related to syria, where porsche is now one of the few options. i followed closely for the past years and that a number of

occasions about nato getting involved in syria. i simply wanted to ask you why. >> mr. husak. >> thank you, chairman. i just came back from the balkans and talking about all kinds we still have some in finished business they are as far as the nato enlargement is concerned. macedonia was mentioned about about countries such as montenegro or how do you see the prospects of serbia can be expected the next nato summit will be a march summit. >> thank you, chair secretary-general.

three questions. what should nato in your opinion due to promote nuclear disarmament. second, there's an arms race going on in east asia. we are feeding into that with our arms exports. what's your opinion on not? shouldn't we be more cautious in our policy regarding arms export to that region? and third, beyond missile defense, what is according to your opinion the top of the agenda that we should pursue as europeans and particularly u.s. nato with regard to security cooperation with russia but in this context i'm sure you seen the report by alders statesmen.

i'm building mutual security and these europe they take region. what's your opinion on not? >> as you know, there was this thing burgos, activity on a large scale in a european territory and a lot of coordinated investigations and so on, the united states and israel even press the allies to deal with hezbollah in an official manner. on the other hand, they still have some controversy here. of course this is not a today's, but this has been discussed. the connection of course with hezbollah and illustrate. is it falsely related to the

fact that something serious gets to be undertaken in the future i hope regarding iran, hezbollah probably has dealt with it before. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you. well, a number of countries were fat it, but what about nato? russian planes came close to the swedish frontier. might that have happened had they been a member of nato?

>> thank you very match. first, mr. kaiser, ask them whether nato and israel ties or had coordinated strikes -- no, definitely not. we have a partnership with israel, yes cliques we have a partnership called the mediterranean dialogue, which actually count on them is real, but six other countries in north africa and the middle east and they have a developed individual cooperation program with each of these countries.

but we haven't coordinated in straight. mrs. shaka, cybersecurity, that's absolutely one of the new security challenges on which we need to focus much, much more in the coming years. we are in the process in nato's strengthening cyberdefense. first step has been to strengthen the defense of our roommate on knotwork and we need that because i'm a regular basis, we are attacked, which shouldn't be a surprise. so far we've been very successful in defending our systems. so that is the first step.

next of course we will also have to consider whether and if so how we can develop a capacity that can come to the health of individual allies that are subject to attacks. some allies may have the deed to defend themselves against attacks or other allies would appreciate it shall have been nato capability and a rapid reaction team that can assist upon request if needed. so these are some of the elements in the work that is being prepared and not these cybersecurity is also an issue on which we need the strong

cooperation with partners across the globe because cybersecurity is a cross-border issue and should be dealt with also in partnerships with like-minded countries. now, you ask me about syria. why is it that nato doesn't have any intention to intervene militarily in syria? very often i get that question because people refer to the successful nato operation in libya and then they ask me, why couldn't you do the same syria? i have to say there is a clear difference between libya and syria. and libya would operate on the basis of akeley united nations mandate to protect the civilian

population against attack, got active support of countries in the region. nine of these conditions are fulfilled in syria. syria is much more complex society and i do believe that an external military intervention might have uncovered it to bowl regional repercussions. this is the reason i do believe the right way forward is a political solution. having said that, i fully share your frustration. it's absolutely outrageous hope we are witnessing in syria. this is the reason why it is indeed a matter of urgent leave with the international is strong and unified message to the

regime in damascus. so far the u.n. security council has failed to reach a consensus i strongly regret because i do believe we have a political framework that could be used as an june 2012, the so-called action group in syria issued a statement of declaration, signed by all five permanent members of the u.n. security council. in that statement, it is clearly stated the regime in damascus should initiate a process of transition leading to accommodation of legitimate aspirations of the syrian people. i do believe a solution could be

based on that declaration. too bad and of course negates u.n. security council resolution. now mr. burkett asked me about the good. they have made substantial progress. this is the reason we have granted a membership action plan. they do not fulfill the necessary criteria, but i am quite impressed by the work done and the progress achieved. but there's a political statement. a couple years ago, we granted a condition based membership action plan.

we have declared we are willing to activate that membership action plan as soon as they carry through certain modest reform related to defense property. in february this year at a meeting with the political leaders. they promised me to implement a political agreement last year, but so far we've not seen any progress. it's regrettable, but we stand ready to move forward as soon as they do their homework and i party answered as far as concerned and i do believe the recent political agreement also facilitates progress has regard western balkan integration into euro atlantic structures. thanks very much up to the

countries in the region to do their homework, then we stand ready. in brief, we are ready when they are ready. so whether the next summit will be in a largeness summit, first point we have not made any decision but will have the next summit. secondly, to become a member of the nato, you need to fulfill certain criteria. so it's for the countries to do their homework. a nuclear disarmament -- we've adopted a strategic concept. in nato's strategic concept we reaffirm what most nations in the world subscribes you already in 1970 to work towards a world without nuclear weapons.

we share that grand vision. however, we are not naïve, so we also stated as long as nuclear weapons exist, nato will remain a nuclear alliance. but having said that, would be pleased to see a reduction in the stockpiles of tactical nuclear weapons in a balanced way. and you have to tell you nato allies have reduced the number of nuclear weapons instinctually since the end of the cold war. the same is not the case and were speaking about russia. so that's why i have to stress that yes, we are indeed in favor of reducing the number of nuclear weapons, but in a balanced way.

into euro atlantic security, i've read reports from the group with great interest and definitely we need positive engagement with russia. that's also why we've invited russia to cooperate on missile defense. we have moved forward with russia on a practical cooperation area. cooperation on missile defense would be a real game changer. so far, our invitation has not been positively received in moscow, which i regret, but we continue our dialogue. now mr. simpson asked me whether this incident would have taken place in sweden as a member of

nato. i don't know. i don't know what i'm not going to interfere with the domestic swedish debate on nato. i have followed it with great interest, but i have to reiterate what i've also clearly stated in that there is a clear difference from being a member in not being a mom her. to the contrary view has been a member of nato. but we appreciate the very close and positive partnership we have.

[speaking in native tongue] >> thank you very much, secretary general. [applause] thank you, secretary general for your remarks and it nations. the next speaker is here. dayside >> translator: at that to thank the secretary general for attending and i think that between now and the e.u. summit, there will be and should be discussions between the e.u. and nato given the synergy effects, which can only be achieved through european cooperation, but also for reasons of the clear of complementary cooperation between nato and the european union. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: perhaps all of

you in the bank could remain seated until we close this item. and will see that this is all the more necessary given the possible changes in u.s. house the. i don't know if u.s. middle eastern policy is going to be if the u.s.a. become self-sufficient in energy. that will change the balance between the u.s. and are up and also between nato and the european union. i am very grateful to you for the opportunity to debate today. but sometimes they miss nato's du discussion, we have