biden. [applause]

ladies and gentlemen last summer i was in, going from india to japan and i stopped in singapore to meet with what people refer to as the henry kissinger of the far east. a fellow a lot of you know of equal on you someone that most foreign-pforeign-p olicy experts note and almost every world leader has sought his opinion. he was kind enough to meet me in his home because he has written and spoken a great deal about the future of india, china, russia and the united states.

i sat with him. he is 90 some years old now and i sat with him and his home. he is somewhat frail but he still has an incredibly crisp and sharp mind. in the middle of our discussion i turned to him and i said to him, i said mr. president what is china doing now and literally meaning what is the progress going on? i know president she because i have spent more time with him than any other leader i believe and i think eve knowledges and i was trying to figure out where is china likely to go? he looked at me and he said china is in the united states looking for that barry black talks. this is literally what he said and i quote, looking for the buried black box. i looked at him and i said, i

beg your pardon? he speaks perfect english. he looked at me and he said they are looking for the box that contains the secret that allows america to be the only country in the world that is constantly able to renew itself and remake itself to continue to lead the world. i said to him, presumptuous of me, i said mr. person i know what's in that black hawks. one is an overwhelming constant stream of immigration that not only has never ceased that comes in waves generating from other parts of the world the most venture some and the most courageous people in the world. it takes a lot to pick up from what all you know and say i'm going to leave and go to a place i don't know, go to a country that might not want me and have the courage to do it.

i sat there is a second thing in that black locks. stamped in the dna of every american or native-born is from the beginning, from the time they are kids we are taught to not give much reverence to orthodoxy. as a matter of fact they are encouraged to challenge orthodoxy. even as bad as some of our school systems are in the graduation rate i might add is a different issue thanks a lot of help from some of you but even in the schools that are tough you never hear of a child being chastised in an american school for challenging orthodoxy. because we know the only thing that allows change to occur is to break the mold that went before. and it's a little bit like that famous answered that steve jobs gave when asked at stanford by a

student, what do i have to do to be more like you? his response was two words and you all know this. think different. think different. i'm not sure there is any other country in the world, any other country on earth that promotes and teaches and it has culture has such a sense of think different. don't be afraid. challenge, challenge orthodoxy. as a result of that more than any country in the world in my view america as a hardwired for innovation. it is what has enabled to give us the world changing ideas from the cotton gin to microsoft. it's what made hollywood the world storyteller. it's the reason that i remain and i mean this sincerely, i

remain so optimistic about the future. i got here when i was a 29-year-old kid and i was supposedly a young optimist. you notice i'm the oldest guy in administration and i'm refer to as the white house optimistic. i am, i am and it's in large part because of all of you. because the 21st century, in the 21st century that the true wealth of the nation is founded in the creative minds of its people. the notion of creativity and innovation as a tool for social and economic advancement is not just an american idea. it's universal goal not met many other places. i see people as they travel the world and i travel about 900,000 miles just since being vice president and equally or more than that in previous years to engage in foreign policy. i see people everywhere reaching out in every single country that i visit. i see them reaching out to try to figure out how do they do

what we do because we are a creativity and innovation are expressed in wording. although societies where that happens they thrive. businesses flourish. people find courage to embrace the kind of reform, the change that is needed. this is not hyperbole. freedom and prosperity and stability may not always take root but it's the places where it tends to take root. that's good for america. it grows the ranks of like-minded nations and trading partners and friends and there can never be too many of those. the question is how do we create a global economic order that favors creativity and innovation everywhere? that's what i want to talk to you a little bit about today. of course -- of course each societies

different and some are fundamentally different but there's a certain common ingredient that makes up success. basic liberty so citizens can think and speak freely and journalists can tell people the truth. and even tell people what is not the truth. fair economic competition, a willingness to draw on a societies full talents including women and immigrants. the courts that adjudicate disputes fairly and there is a recognition that they do. and a system where intellectual property is protected because in the absence of that protection it will not be created. america has experienced teaching in fostering innovation is not about crafting the right economic policy or developing the best educational crichton. it's about establishing and forcefully protecting a climate in which it can flourish.

america has been in the idea business for a long long time. our founders included in vendors like ben franklin and adventureadventure s like thomas jefferson. it's no surprise that the protection of intellectual property is enshrined in the u.s. constitution and has remained a priority for america ever since. both at home and abroad. around the world. today the face of piracy in your industry is changing. it used to be a man not too many years ago sitting in a movie theater with a camcorder trying to go unnoticed inconspicuously in the camcorder was about the size of a golf bag recording the movies that they were going to pirate. though the cameras are obviously smaller today to a remarkable

extent this practice continues but now the face of piracy is also a computer server in a far-off country stealing an illegal version of a hollywood movie to send it around the world with the of a mouse and rob you, steal from you what is yours. the technologies involved and as some are lost including international. to deal in the way that is tough and smart as well as persistent. those who engage in large-scale illegal copyrighted infringing on movies and music, the megaupload web sites enabling mass theft. in the same way laws already on the books to do off-line, on the books for off-line illegal copying and distribution. as i meet with world leaders and

make this point emphatically because one of the things that matter whether i'm in the ukraine or where i am a flake part of the issue that still is one of the major elements of our foreign policy is the significant change and promotion on trade and rules for the 21st century because the 20 century rules are somewhat obsolete. in taking someone else's intellectual property is theft plain and simple. that's what it is. it's just theft. theft is not only from the individual creator of the company but theft in united states gross national product. because billions of dollars and tens of thousands of american jobs has a profound negative effect on our economy. i also point out that until they clamp down on copyright infringement, stealing our business trade secrets using our

intellectual arsenal and using unlicensed software, those nations remain second-rate powers. unable to nurture that environment that generates homegrown innovation. because intellectual property is not just for big america. big america corporations. it's the software app designers in silicon valley and the techie in tanzania or the musician in korea for the medical researcher in poland. the indian filmmaker doesn't want his movie selling on the street for 5 cents, 10 minutes after he produces it. that is one of the reasons why the rest of the world has not generated the kind of creativity that all great nations need. ladies and gentlemen what is at stake here is a lot more than just the value of ideas. it literally is the character of

the countries involved in this theft. how can a nation say as a law-abiding nation when your government of your nation steals the most valuable ideas from your country they never steal a shipment of a thousand animal bills pulling into it port for sale in their country. what the heck is the difference? no, really. but they are stealing can be even much more valuable than the commodities we share. but it goes beyond intellectual property. that's just one of the several issues that we have to resolve in terms of waiver constitute a legitimate. regime. the world has changed. christie's always tell me is the lead irishman in the senate after teddy, used to always say

why did they hell do they always quote irish poets? i quote them because they are simply the best poets in the world. yates had a line as many of you remember in the poem he wrote to easter sunday 1916 about the first rising of the 20 century. a line is more applicable to the world you all face today than it was to ireland in 1960. he said, all has changed. changed utterly. the terrible beauty has been born. all has changed. it has changed utterly. we are a truly global economy and we have to do what we did at the end of world war ii and our grandfathers did and update the rules of the road for this new era of globalization and trade. that's why we have been so aggressive proposing new.

agreements. not only to generate growth and prosperity but to strengthen the global trading system and enhance our foreign-policy. because the choice the countries make in the next few years will shape the character of that global system of competition for decades to come. and a lot is at stake for you. a lot is at stake for america. the rest of the world is not standing still. president obama and they're not going to sit by and let the outcome of this new system be determined by others. that is where we are currently negotiating to major trade agreements. the first is a transpacific partnership with connect. connect to the economies both in the western hemisphere and the pacific they send including japan malaysia peru and others. make enough 40% of the world's

gdp. that is what the president was doing in advancing his trip to asia last week. the second is the transatlantic trade and investment partnership as washington would for referred to as ttip which was significantly deepening the multibillion dollar economic relationship we have with the european union. together they were tonight two-thirds of the world economy, the competition that generates competition and intellectual property. the benefits for america and the middle class would be significant. 44 million americans work for companies that export goods. hundreds of thousands more would be working if they did not steal your copy. jobs supported by exports pay as much as 18% higher wages than the national average.

we shouldn't be afraid of this competition. i tell leaders all over the world america welcomed his competition. it's stamped into her dna. and that if the field is even remotely level we will succeed and you will succeed. ladies and gentlemen we have learned a lot over the last 20 years about trade agreements and a truly globalized and integrated economy. things we did before we are not willing to do any longer. we we are negotiating differently reflecting what was learned. we have learned that agreements do not include labor standards and include labor standards that are inhumane in the countries that engage and that it undercuts their business is at home well. we learned that if agreements do not include environmental standards that damages the health of people in the country that is competing with us and it puts us at a competitive disadvantage because we do

protect the environment and the production of our products. we learned that an agreement doesn't include standards protecting intellectual property other countries often make no effort to protect them and it hurts us badly and does not provide the environment which they can create their own, their own intellectual growth. we learned state-owned enterprises are forced to compete other countries will pick favorites to the detriment of their own small businesses as well as considerably damage american companies. so we make no apologies for insisting on the changed standards between nafta and now. fair labor standards, well-defined environmental standards, protections of intellectual property. it amazes me how many people around the country don't realize

that it's a multibillion-dollar issue. most people have no sense of it. and new disciplines regarding state-owned enterprises. the basic elements that should be included in the 21st century trade agreements that america will sign if they are included for also actively working through the world trade organizations to promote and enforce the rules that i discussed that are in place now. it was in that spirit that i sat down with then vice presidents sheedy in los angeles at a luncheon in 2012 and we talked about how we were going to have more fair trade. i said it's real easy. all you have to do is pick up a phone. you think i'm being facetious and i'm not. literally he said bureaucrats are sleep in china. i said mr. vice president you have considerably more power to wake up your bureaucrats than i do. and guess what?

some of you were there. literally by the end of that lunch we had a handshake. it wasn't massive but it did grow access for american films which chris spoke to. it did impact the bottom-line. the point i am racing and the truth is that things can be done if the will exists and if we are insistent enough. the next year the number of blockbuster foreign films shown in china increased by over half and our share of the box office revenue has doubled and your share of the box office revenue has doubled. keep in mind for chris's assistant later. and access for independent films has increased as well. not all that we need.

obviously this is just a start, and implementation and further progress is going to be essential but it's all tied in for the mind-set about where we are relative to trade and international trade agreements. but rest assured with your help we are keeping at it. but let me close with this thought. the stakes are a lot more than economic for you and for the country. the people in your industry understand about as well as anyone here and i'm not just talking about the entertainment industry. i'm talking about microsoft and all of the creative elements of the society. the face-off, the face of america isn't the diplomats or soldier or president or vice president who shows up in another country. it's arab businesses. it's our culture.

speaking of the movie industry your movies. >> directly to more people by a longshot than every single diplomat in every single elected official in united states of america ever could. you provide a glimpse for the rest of the world and the culture, the attitudes and the values of the american people. not always good but you give a clear and sometimes raw rendition of who we are. but there is a profound difference when people in nondemocratic countries see the technological wizardry and animation of avatar or gravity and the fundamental decency of the american people like silver lining playbook in dallas buyers club. films like lincoln or the old films like "to kill a mockingbird". like it or not along with their

musicians, athletes, writers business people you are the face of american culture to the rest of the world. that's a pretty awesome responsibility and i'm not here to lecture you about anything. but i am here to say it's our responsibility together to create a global economic order where creativity and innovation can thrive. because if we do we will leave our children not just stronger and more prosperous america by the writer and better world with a hell of a lot greater chance to avoid the gigantic misunderstandings that result in conflicts. that's more than you ever wanted to hear but the truth of the matter is you are at the epicenter of whether or not we can achieve the goals we have set out to do which is to lead the world not just by the power of the example of our power but

by the power of our example. thank you also very much and i've got to go to lunch with angola merkel. thank you. [applause] thank you guys. >> in the beginning of the war when we were pressed into it you are afraid of holding the gun that then when you enter the first battle and we fought and i shot somebody and killed somebody it does something to you so it's very difficult. as time went on it became easy. it became normalized. this is what happens. you normalize the situation so you can lift the weight is if

you don't you actually died. defense secretary chuck hagel today spoke about the nato alliance its history and its relevance to the russia ukraine conflict. it's 40 minute talk is followed by a panel discussion on ukraine with former russian german and polish officials. >> in 1997 my daughter hillary and i have for hillary in my own family, then it presents senior majoring in politics pics nato as her thesis topic. she called her mom then in my third term in congress to get my assessment. so i had to really think about it. nato expansion have been agreed upon and in 1994 brussels

declaration and there was real enthusiasm certainly in the united states congress. the senate voted 89-19. that's a very initial vote these days in 1998 to ratify the addition of three countries to nato poland hungary and the check republic. 16 countries have now been added through six rounds of enlargement since the end of the cold war. but there were also skeptics. tom friedman the writer tom friedman who also is a former wilson scholar wrote an op-ed last month in which he quoted his 1998 interview with it then 94-year-old george kennan. said kennan, i think the russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. we have signed up to protect a whole series of countries even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way.

so segue to 2014 and the urgent challenge to de-escalate conflict and avoid miscalculation over the events in ukraine and russia. nato expansion is again being scrutinized. today's topic into the fold or out in the cold could not be more timely or fit better with what the wilson center does well our kennan institute headed by matt who is was sitting in the corner right here was founded by the kennan family and boasts over 1400 scholar alumni, 100 of which are currently on the ground in ukraine and our global europe program headed by christian osterman are here has hundreds of scholar alumni bordering the conflict zone. we have assembled the program today including former officials from russia and poland who were key roles in 1994.

wolfgang is injured who is of policy planning at the german foreign office the deputy assistant secretary of nato and the wilson center global fellow cheryl cross. news our star margaret warner right over there will moderate but here to keynote kickoff our conversation is secretary of defense chuck hagel who was elected to the senate in 1997 and voted for nato expansion. i checked. after his remarks he will take a few questions from the audience. secretary hagel, a close friend is the first enlisted combat veteran to lead the department of defense and we all know that serving in government at the highest levels is a combat sport his plate is full with the afghan drawdown, the pivot to asia, realignment of missions in resources and a very tough

budget constraints. the russia ukraine issue is yet another and nato's capacity and future role are on the line. as a member of myself on the defense policy board i grapple with this issue with their colleagues earlier this week. mines far parted in mind are struggling to figure out what the best answers are. unfortunately my daughter hillary isn't writing her thesis now or mom would have very little advice to give her. i also just returned a few minutes ago from a breakfast with german chancellor merkel who was in town to reach -- meet with present moment secretary hagel and others. it's a very good thing that she is here and no doubt the conversation will center on these comments. tough issues, tough guy. ready for the challenge. educated at the university of nebraska on the g.i. bill and nebraska's record last season, football right it was 9-4 west

of thing worse than the prior year's 11-3, ouch but a few touchdowns for u.s. policy right now would be a good thing. so to bring a smile to your face chuck we welcome you here and look forward to what you have to say. here is a scarf for the cornhuskers. go big red. please welcome chuck hagel the 24th secretary of defense. [applause] >> should i put that on for the presentation? jane, thank you. i'm always overwhelmed her company but now you have outdone yourself with the special nebraska cornhuskers scarf and by the way the cornhuskers will have a better season this year. thank you. thank you jane and thanks to the

wilson center for what you continue to do for our country and world affairs to bring thoughtful analysis and leadership to these tough issues the world is complicated as we all know. it's not getting any less complicated nor is it getting any less dangerous. your continued contributions and leadership as well as the substitution are very valuable and important parts to all of our efforts overall efforts to find peaceful, wise resolutions to these difficult problems. to my friends here who are on the panel that size good to see you and thanks for your continued contributions as well. and for those here who have been in this business of analysis and thinking and writing for many years thank you.

now is no time to stop. we are going to need everybody more than maybe ever in our lifetimes. as the world expands and opportunities expand and challenges expand. technology unprecedented change all over the world. but it is our time and we must not fail the world. as jane noted i have known jane many years. we worked together in congress, traveled together. always admiring her judgment and ability and sharp analysis of issues and in particular i have already said bayard and respected them and particularly appreciated her directness. those of you who know jane well and most of you do know that she is very clear in what she believes and says it very

plainly and that isn't altogether bad. i'd think if there was ever a time for plain talk in the world today respectful, respectful of each other and sovereignty in our interests in the world but we have to be clear with each other. jane has done that and i think we all appreciate that inner leaders said jane thank you and thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about this issue. i know what your theme is this morning. it's particularly timely as well as valuable so thank you. the challenges facing nato today and calls for a need for this historic alliance. what we must do to strengthen it. 65 years ago after a long debate about america's role in the force -- post-war world -- at that at the

house to witness president truman formally accepting and ratifying the north atlantic treaty. doing so present truman with prominent voices has been noted here this morning including those prestigious voices. those voices called for america and in kenyans words to relieve ourselves gradually of the basic responsibility for the security of western europe. instead general eisenhower arrived in paris in 1851 as the supreme allied commander fear. by 195311 u.s. air force ranks and five army divisions and 50 navy warships had followed. militaries of nato nations began working together. it began working to integrate north american in the european strategy.

america did not make commitments in search of monsters to destroy instead president truman joined the north atlantic treaty because he said he was convinced that nato would serve as a shield against aggression and the fear of aggression and thereby let us get on with the real business of government and society. truman joined the north atlantic treaty because he was as he put it a simple document that if it had existed in 1914 and in 1939 would have prevented two world wars. america was committed to nato because nato would help protect vital american interests by reinforcing the unity of transatlantic security. nato would ultimately protect security and prosperity here at home with this alliance. a truth that i believe endures to this day. on the centennial of the start of world war i in the weeks

before the 70s anniversary of allied landings at normandy russia's recent action in ukraine has reminded nato of its founding purpose. this prevented a clarifying moment for the transatlantic alliance. nato members must demonstrate that they are as committed to this alliance as its founding members were who built it 65 years ago. they must reaffirm the security guarantees at the heart of the alliance. they must reinvigorate the inartful joint planning exercises and capabilities that are its lifeblood. and they must reaffirm from the mediterranean to the baltics allies are a commitment to the security of every ally is resolute. the longest most complex operations in its history and one that is strengthen the capability and the cohesion of the alliance.

it also comes as we prepare for a nato summit this fall in wales which will be an opportunity to re-examine our nato militaries trained equipped and structured to meet new and enduring security challenges. after more than a decade focused on counterinsurgency and stability operations for nato must balance within renewed emphasis on territorial defense with its unique expeditionary capabilities because as we have seen threats to the alliance me to start -- neither start or stop at europe's doorstep. emerging threats and technologies mean fewer and fewer places are truly out of the area. balancing a full range of missions will require nato to have a full range of forces from high-end systems where deterrence to special operations in rapid response capabilities. allied forces will must also be ready deployable incapable of

ensuring our collective security. i said at the defense minister meeting early this year that we must focus not only on how much we spend but also on how we spend. ensuring we invest in the right interoperable capabilities for all nato missions. this will require the united states to continue prioritizing capabilities that can operate across the spectrum against the most sophisticated adversaries and it will also require nato nations, nato nations to prioritize similar investments in their own militaries. since the end of the cold war america's military spending has become increasingly disproportionate within the alliance. today america's gdp is smaller than the combined gdp sabar 27 nato allies. but america's defense spending is three times our allies combined defense spending.

over time this lopsided ergen threatens nato's integrity cohesion and capability and ultimately both european and transit linux security. many of nato smaller members of alleged to increase their defense investments and earlier this week at the pentagon i thank estonia renewed commitment and nato. the alliance cannot afford for europe's larger economies and most militarily capable allies not to do the same particularly has transatlantic economies grow stronger. we must see renewed financial commitments from all nato members. rush is actions and ukraine have made nato's guy you abundantly clear. i know from my frequent conversations with nato defense ministers that they do not need any convincing on this point. talking amongst ourselves is no

longer good enough. having participated in the nato defense ministerial over the last year and a half and having met with all of my nato counterparts i have, way recognizing that the challenge is building support, the real challenge, the real challenge is building support for defense investment across there governance not just our defense ministries. defense investment must be discussed in a broader context of member nations overall fiscal challenges and priorities. today i'm there for calling for the inclusion of finance ministers are senior budget officials at a nato ministerial focus on defense investment. this would allow them to receive detailed briefings from alliance leaders and the challenges we all face. leaders across her government must understand that the consequences of current trends reduce defense spending and help them make up the fiscal impasse.

the united states must have strong committed and capable allies. this year's quadrennial defense review makes this very clear. going for the department of defense will not only seek but increasingly rely on closer collaboration with our allies and in ways that will influence you a strategic planning and future investment. for decades from the early days of the cold war american defense secretaries have called on european allies to ramp up their defense investment and in recent years one of the biggest obstacles to alliance investment has been a sense that the end of the cold war ushered in the end to history, and into in security at least in europe. and aggression by nationstates. russia's actions in ukraine shattered that myth and ushered

in embracing new realities. even the united and deeply interconnected europe still lives in a dangerous world. while we must continue to build a more peaceful prosperous global order there is snow postmodern refuge for me into the threat of military force. we cannot take for granted even in europe the pieces underwritten by the deterrent of military power. in the short-term the transatlantic alliance has responded to russian actions and continued resolve but over the long term we should expect russia to test our alliances purpose and stamina and commitment. future generations will note whether at this moment at this moment of challenge we summon the will to invest in our alliance. we must not squander this opportunity over shrink from this challenge. we will be judged harshly by history.

by future generations if we do. nato should also find creative ways, creative ways to find nations around the world to help them adapt to collective security to rapidly evolving global strategic landscapes. collective security is not only the anchor to the transatlantic alliance, it's also a model for merging the security of stations around the from africa to the persian gulf. i say this having just contained a form of asean defense ministers last month having called for a corporation no defense minister of this year. these institutions bring all of our people all of our interest in all of our economies closer together. serving as anchors for stability security and prosperity. strengthening these regional security institutions must be as

centerpiece for america's defense policies as we continue investing in nato. as these institutions develop their own unique security arrangements they stand to benefit by learning from nato's unmatched interoperability and command-and-control systems. there can be no transatlantic asperity absent security but we must also keep in mind investing in our lives and our collective security means more than just investing in our militaries alone. it means the united states and europe must partner together over the long term to bolster europe's energy security and blunt rushes course of energy policies. by the end of the decade europe is positioned to reduce its natural gas imports by more than 25%. u.s. department of energy has conditionally approved export permits for american liquefied natural gas that ad up to more than half of europe's gas imports from russia. it means deepening our economic

ties and trade initiatives like the transatlantic trade investment partnership and that means continuing to exercise global leadership and shared values like human rights and the rule of law. but may conclude by reflecting on the historic decision 20 years ago to move toward nato enlargement which i know as jane has noted is the a focus of this congress. some argue that nato enlargement invited russian aggression. critics called it a tragic mistake and an irresponsible bluff. some still do. the historical record now speaks clearly for itself and it makes clear that nato has sought partnership, not conflict, with russia and that enlargement has contributed to stability and security.

no one wanted to replace europe's cold war dividing line with the new one

nato enlargement did not invite russian aggression. instead, it is affirmed the independence and democratic identity of new members. it did not crisis then or now. instead settled old disputes and advanced regional stability. promote freedom and free markets and is advance the cause of peace. that is why nato still holds the door open for aspiring members and why it must maintain partnerships with nations around the world. consider the alternative, a world without nato and the assurances of collective security.

that world would have risked the enormous political and economic progress made within and between aspiring members. it would have risked a precarious european security environment in which today's central and eastern european allies would be torn between europe and russia. it would have risked in security reverberating deep into the heart of western europe and ultimately it would have rest a europe less free. thanks to american leadership and thanks to some of the distinguished leaders here today as we will hear from this morning that is not the world we live in. yes the world is imperfect, yes we have challenges but we must reflect on what we have done as we prepare and build platforms and institutions to take on these new threats of the early 21st century.

in 1997 i sat set on the senate floor that america europe and russia could all benefit if the nations of central and eastern europe are anchored in the security nato can offer. today the transatlantic alliance anchors global security. offers the possible antidote to the aggression and fear of aggression president truman warned against in 1949. freedom stability and prosperity and well in door well into this century. in the next century but only if nations on both sides of the atlantic see this clarifying moment. two gears of 19 days after general eisenhower arrived in paris as a supreme allied commander in europe he was inaugurated as the 34th president of the united states. president eisenhower was as war weary as the american public and people all over the world. he had written to his wife mimi

in his words that he constantly wondered how civilization can stand war at all. he would lie awake at night smoking cigarettes and the knowledge privately that there was not one part of his body that did not panic but in his first formal address as president ike insisted that america had to remain engaged in the world. he said no nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effect if cooperation with fellow nations. in 1957 president eisenhower returned to paris where in his address to the first nato summit of heads of state he connected america's transatlantic commitments to vitality of our factories and mills and shipping of our trading centers are farms in our little businesses and to our rights at home, our rights to produce freely.

freely think freely and pray freely. those who doubt the values of america's commitment several abroad should read -- recall that command because the impressive piece of prosperity we enjoy today is heartwarming and we must remember it is always perishable. as ike like to say it takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice by a lot of people to bring about the inevitable. without deep engagement in the world america would face more conflict, not less and on the terms of our adversaries not on our own terms. that is why america's commitment to its allies in europe and around the world is not a burden it's not a luxury but it is a necessity and it must be unwavering. thank you. [applause]

thank you. steve thank you very much secretary hagel for it remarks that would inspire the cornhuskers and the entire world. we will now take a few questions from the audience. please identify yourself and i suggest that you stand up so we know where you are when you are speaking. questions? way in the back. >> hi. i agree with congresswoman harman on your inspirational speech. i want to know especially in light of enlargement in the

balkans do you predict any sort of efforts being done to resolve those old disputes similar to the macedonia greece dispute which has prevented the country from joining nato over the last six years? thank you. >> well as you all know, that is an area of the world that is working its way through difficult historical differences you know i think everyone here, much about those differences. i think progress is being made in those countries as they sort through those differences peacefully. and perfect. it's a challenge. it's a matter of continuing to make progress, build functioning, free democratic institutions, respect all the people regard as of their religion or their ethnic backgrounds created i think a

lot of progress is being made. we have seen that i think in the definition of boundaries in nation-states as they continue to work toward democracy and self-government in a responsible way so i'm encouraged by that. i do think that nato, the european union and those alliances have helped that. i referenced generally, not specific way, to the balkans but generally what i think nato has meant in my comments regarding we have fostered nato alliance in the european union. we foster that coming together in building on common interests. not our differences but build platforms. where do we agree and work agree and where can we benefit? we have differences and we have got that but we will never

peacefully resolve differences without building institutions and platforms of common interest. it's the whole point behind the coalitions of common interest built after world war ii weather was denied nations or nato or imf or the bank that came out of bretton woods woods. all of that was about common interests so we didn't revert back into a third world war as the third one would probably go a long way in destroying mankind with his sophistication of weapons. i'm encouraged, more to do but i'm encouraged. >> more questions? and it won up front are several in the back. how about in the very back. i can't really see what you are wearing so i can describe you. >> i'm a russian professor living here and i have a question about the historic relationship with nato and

russia. 69 years ago in may of 1945 our countries together were celebrating victory against prussianism. now america changed as russia's enemy. what happened over these years? thank you. >> well, i think you might want to address that question to some others as to what happened but i would answer your question this way. i said in my speech that during the process of nato enlargement and many of the strong arguments that were made and i use this as just one example to answer your large question of what happened. all different views about nato

enlargement represented. i was in the senate at the time and jane was in the house. we spent a lot of time on this issue. we were all part of the debate at the time weather was in congress or outside. there was a tremendous amount of focus and effort on this examining all points of view. what were the consequences of enlargement and should we do it? russia's response as a sort have been noted here but in my opinion the right decisions were made to go forward on enlargement. during that process there was a reaching out from nato members to russia. i referenced a couple of the specific target ships for peace. we have the russia nato meetings and that was done specifically to recognize that russia would i'm sure think that somehow this

was a threat to them, their security and unique gove -- need not go back in history to far to get all that. i was not at the center of every decision but i was in the senate at the time on the foreign relations committee at the time, traveled a lot on this issue and i know our government at the time and our allies at the time did reach out to the russians to try to reassure them that this was about common interests, not about our differences. i think we have had in the last 20 years especially since the implosion of the soviet union we have had ups and downs in the russia-u.s. relationship in the nato-russia relationship that we have had periods of cooperation as well. we do a lot of things with the russians and we have differences. obvious to what has happened in the ukraine as i made clear at

least in my opinion and my speech, that was not nato aggression that brought this action songs. and so we will continue to do what civilized nations must do, protect their own interest but also to find wise diplomatic smart resolutions to differences. i think my remarks are pretty clear on where i think the responsibility lies in this particular case. >> last question in front. >> mr. secretary i am the police ambassador to portugal on the other side of the atlantic. i very much appreciated your comments. ..

we both remember howard when did this time. this is something that created a completely knew opportunities. it was meant to be that a guarantee of our security, but it was also -- and until today the public opinion post indicated about 60% of folks believe that it was made of that

would support and defend. however, believe that what has changed is that the very concept in which nato was operating loss for many years i would say this is a concept of the prisoner's dilemma, presuming you have two people that are sort of lock in the same tale. whether they will cooperate and not, they would have their result. no of leave the question is the one of those entities is no longer in the same jail. to believe that this requires completely new strategic concepts. my question is how would you address it. [laughter] >> well, it's a very simple question. you deserve a simple answer. i noted that my remarks that we have sphere the nato summit of

heads of state coming up in september. this obviously your question in everything that revolves around it will be much the centerpiece of the indigent for obvious reasons. i referenced on a number of occasions in more general terms of my remarks about strategic shifts in allies and commitments and not only financial commitments but other strategic issues, and on the chin specifically the relationship with russia. always is when they have to be reexamined. institutions that don't ever stay status quo. yesterday is gone. we each get a day older. so on and so on. institutions of this i'm white.

institutions must remain relevant to the challenge which is much of the theme of my point, as you all know. irrelevance to address the challenges there are before us and we anticipate will be in the future. that is constantly a reassessment of strategic interest assets, the strength of alliances, the strength of all the nation's assets, not just the military. we can separate stability and security from prosperity. you can't have one without the other. and so, yes, we are going to go through the process. i think in the world is so hair trigger as we are living in today where there's very little margin for real bad decisions, not like it was 20 years ago, certainly for your 50 years ago. so we have to be very wise, stay

from but was and how we implement our tremendous powers thinking not just about today and not tomorrow but how this all works out, where we want to end of little economic anything. that is going to require more and more alliance relationships. every nation will respond in its own self-interest. that's predictable. in no nation should be held captive to the institution they belong to. edna every nation must protect its own interest. those interests are now wide and varied where they include the true interest which i referenced wise leaders on both sides of the it lifted after world war to understand that. in perfect, flaunt, can solve the problems. with examine the record here.

in a expand this out. we haven't done too badly. there is not a world war three. i think on balance their more nations with more possibilities for freedom and trade. still want to do, absolutely. as imperfect and what does the mistakes we make, on balance, we should not dismiss once going right and how we get the right things. the costs of evaluation of strategic interest. we very much appreciate what your country is doing and continues to do. frank carlucci is a very dear friend. i have often said that frank things that i exaggerate.

former senators every century. an usher and portugal would in turn the in that immediate time the way it did in 1980 and 1979. he's amazing and a great public servants. thank you. >> please join me in thanking secretary hazel. [applause] >> the next part of the program begins right now. >> as jane harman and secretary he go in raided this morning, i

will just remind you that we are here to look at really 20 years ago this fateful decision was taken in january of '94 which was at a nato summit to offer something called the partnership for peace to russia, warsaw pact states, anyone that would like to have a closer relationship. as everybody on this panel who are will introduce in a minute at the time poland and czechoslovakia, the czech republic and hungary were clamoring for new memberships. this was a compromise. sure enough beginning in 97 native started off the. the day of course it is 12 country's larger than it was given the 60 members of was of the time. this obviously sticks and% bid from. in his four hour telethon, i don't know how many of you watched this may talk about

repeatedly. we were promised that after germany's unification than it would not spread eastward. a started expanding and incorporating former warsaw treaty countries. we heard in response this does not concern you. nations and countries have the war to choose the way of ensuring the security. that's true, but it's also true when the infrastructure of the military bloc approaches our borders we have grounds for apprehension question. no one could deny as this right. he went on to say have been no and western leaders have long many times tsongas, made decisions behind the back of price wars and accomplished fact some today we want to examine whether in natal and the newly expanded nato alliance is now reaping the whirlwind of that decision and the ukraine. the of a very distinguished

panel of people here today who are essentially present at the creation in one way or another. you will have biographies, but briefly the former foreign minister and actually first prime minister and then foreign minister of poland, going to make the your first name. on my immediate left, prime minister of poland in 97 when, in fact, poland was first invited to join nato. annexes on draco room, the foreign minister in the waning days of the soviet union an olive from 901 through 96 and was deeply involved in this entire drama. wolfgang, many of you knew and

gas and ambassador to the united states for many years in the 2000's, but he was on the policy planning staff. as i recall during the indication of native discussions he was deeply involved in all of this. cheryl cross who is now director of the asman ski center at st. edward's university in austin, big for 20 years you were at the george marshall european center for security studies in germany. a close student of everything from the partnership for peace to russian and western relations. finally of very familiar face to many of us who covered the cosimo or. mr. scherer has been at beta for many, many years an island of important positions driven director policy planning what is best known perhaps as an ever-present spokesman for nato

explaining what they were doing throughout the 90's and that early 2000's. analysts aren't with the ambassador. let's go back to this painful decision in january of '94 to begin this partnership for peace. was it frawley, as many critics suggested, as ms. harbin said or has what has happened in the ukraine proof that it was necessary. >> thank you for bringing this together. it's a wonderful opportunity. my view is that if one imagined a world in which we had not taken these decisions in '94 and

and going forward a few years the first round of nato enlargement or poland was invited into other countries and subsequently if we had not done that what kind of curious could possibly exist in europe today on new lines of division. the very idea hollins how could we resist the interests of newly independent countries like our immediate neighbor to the east was, can we be part of your club ? if we wanted to create a overtime and durable.

united. think it was with of alternative the question was, did we use the right method, communicate perfectly with the russian hot. that is a big question. i believe the decision in '94 and subsequently 97 was absolutely without a turning point. >> minister, how was the scene in russia? how would you answer that question marks are would answer it today as i answered at that time. basically and would like to answer also the question of one of my russian combat truants about d-day because it's actually celebrated in russia on may 9th.

in the west it's usually made it so what happened after that? once a part of the answer to your questions and participated in the aggression in the 1939 together with hitler when the system in russia remained, and that was the course of the cold war in proper terms, not in technical terms. and then what happens today, the main problem is the pressure has not yet parted with this past.

stalin is referred to in government groups or endorsed for children as and able the operator, as an able manager. could you believe what happened in germany with hitler was referred to as an able manager. so that is basically what happens. that is basically at the root of the problem today with the ukraine establishment is still there. gene and what happened in 1994? that russia believed that the

ruling class, those who benefited the most from privatized actions and the results of the democratic revolution of 1991 commander had not seen in humans and the so-called white house when we were standing in against the coup on august 1991. but they were quick to privatize actually the cash flow from the auto and gas exports which is still the base of the economy. and then they mostly moved with nato's own themselves. it's amazing. the russian elite today is mostly based in the nation's own that's the answer to the questions. if native poland extended his

country russian elites, but left russia supposed soviet propaganda with is what we're facing today. >> and let me ask. >> and sarkozy. it's very painful for me is a these things. >> at the time in 94 was poland's bitterly disappointed or did you know is that this was going to be a backdoor way toward into eventual pathways to a nato and even though at the time it was painted in a different fashion? >> on be very frank. to explain that that me tell you the reasons accreting applied data. that happened in december 91.

for the first time members of the polish government began talking about nato in february to march of '92. a first there was a problem. we were a threat of potential instability. later that was confirmed by the way the political problem was solved with the use of tanks and shelling. we were weakness and instability in russia. eventual consequences of potential conflict that already erupted in many places. that is what we were interested in fast joining nato. but i can also said it that, of course, there was a lot of negative in our way of thinking

because we believe that was almost 100 percent political decision. we did not understand that your states have much we had to do ourselves, or make a personal, and such. so in 94 we reacted with disappointment. that was the kind of take. not fair. but from my perspective it was a wise decision. we really had the duologue, which we later on found. we did our homework pretty well. that is why we could then becomes a reliable. >> let me go to jimmy because you were there at the time. inside the in a council was it seemed as many americans political figures portrayed it

as something that would afford independence and the democratic identity for new members, helped them solve the disputes and door was of still and against it possibly research russian. >> well, thank you very much for allowing me to appear through the magic of the bbc. the first thing to say is that nato did not receive an enlargement which happened only in 1999 several years out to the end of the cold war. put in place a comprehensive or euro and led to a security system which included russia. for example, you mentioned that

we did not try to see nato enlargement as nato expanding eastward. very much in responding to the legitimate aspirations of european countries to be part of the euro atlantic family that had worked so well for us for so many years. why would we refuse that? does the prime minister referred to, countries themselves have demonstrated, well received protection. they failed to share the burdens of. for example, by the time that nato became deeply involved in and out of area operations will be on the tradition of article five defense and bosnia and peacekeeping. the country's have to understand that it was a two-way street

that would receive protection but also had to contribute to nato extending their protections as well as the second thing which we have to remember. before nato alliance or participated very actively in this or of the secretary-general's on that negotiated for months, the russian foreign minister of the bitter russian action medically of laboratory and large they were seeing these numbers. closer to nato and giving russia a seat at the table. serve but to the out a framework in. once this was in place we could go forward with nato. what was it about? it was all about tonnages

century and even 19th century your. the the sovereignty and foreign policy independence of large countries. challenger determines your place in history, what was bound to be repeated. one of the reasons why native canada was because some of the earlier antaeus for confederation in europe struck people as going back to the loosely of nations where everybody happy. quite rightly there was a natural rebellion politically against that kind of idea. the point i want to make is that we this before. bringing russia and as we went

along. >> you reserving all of the lessons are, these people. how much snow was given to potential blow back? in other words, from your observation point was there really a sincere desire or at least intention that of pressure involved in a certain line that it could become part of this community? >> i think it is a consistent record on the part of nato with a close visit of the secretary general of for you and the collapse of the soviet union to reach out in a spirit of cooperation which is what made the case. they have the partnership. the permanent joint council negotiating and in a natal

russia, some. i think it is sincere and at your of security requires corporations hands and just returned from almost a decade of the other side of the atlantic working, and i can't imagine what the circumstances which have been in terms of the practical support without the institutions of the european union, but at the same time we have to recognize that it's reasonable to be concerned about nato's movement increasingly to russian borders some. no matter how many insurance

isn't many just don't accept ana . has been consistent opposition. i think the challenge remains given the vast area, security and the importance of the security relationship that we have to anticipate. the russians have talked about consistently that they draw this line and we can go only so far. they are nervous and concerned. it is too bad it has turned into a contest hidden hive. really the best and wisest strategy for their long chair access and democratization would be to pursue ties with russia

and. >> you wanted to jump inhere. >> i would just like and be a german jew. when some of us in a german government who were supposed to move forward and natal in large, inviting the first group of countries that chancellor kohl that the time and hesitated. i remember a meeting where he said don't do anything. and it came back and said it will have to do this in and a range. if it can be a pillar, but has to be and equally substantial.

the relationship h'm. so that's the way to keep everybody maybe not happy with a tolerant and to deal with the concerns that you share when which certainly were legitimate. the second observation, when a look at the debate are having been seen to be falling behind her when tsongas would it make sense to invite russia to make later on to over 13 years ago

that question. now obviously the russian response was the and not really interested to have hawks since some of the ideas hidden that were followed bifurcate simply were not ahead designed to be susceptible says. it was just not doing the work he.

we have reached a point where hopefully once the dust to settle we will need to take a sharp look again at how we can overtime concerts a european that is good for us but also a okay for russia. >> was their feeling that the west was taking a vantage? in the airline 90's the economy when, the internal political situation was quite chaotic. is the a feeling that the west was moving ahead?

>> it is difficult to speak with her in the country as a whole much more unfortunately. if and those who were in government like myself as a way of democratic movement in russia there was a rainbow of opporunity for russians are really part. it was revolutionary. and fundamental change from basically stalin's system to a democratic system. this opportunity, nato is very much in the center of the

problem. [inaudible question] agree more that we wanted to use which closed very soon, not because of nato. it closed basically because of domestic tendencies in russia that our government the problem

of other countries in eastern europe since including george. and nuclear superpower. it's still unclear. we're still targeted by russian missiles be. that's very important point. >> my own system. [laughter] >> just to be sure. so it's -- i don't to it's funny

one year and the government and russia will have to take into account, and my constituency, and was their first for the elections when there were elections, and they have 14 contenders. you know it's still the naval base for russian strategically. that's for the submarines are and the missiles on submarines when you run the elections in naval base you had to call to me to the office which you can and

at least immediately a probably not any cyber. we have china and different geography. so it was much more difficult than just becoming a member but i have to agree with president that in technical terms, in technical terms your's some choose to release of. basically it problem of russian nonperforming enough. there were consultations with nato because they failed to heed it took me to use tear originally with warren christopher and was my

counterpart in the united states so that he started to concentrate the on the probable aggression even invited as a new member and could not do that and probably cannot know even if it was today a fully democratic country just because of the geography. when he started to address a in 95 it was probably already too late. even more interest in the details of will that read my memoirists in technical terms we

have a lot of promises. tell you, and to promises of have economic in negotiating real problems rather than just a general discussion is even dwarfs the and the threat. >> this trip to the present and ukraine what would you say they impossibly did but. >> this is a serious situation.

over to the case and we believe in democratic west have had so far not reacted in a proper way of way which is a risky tactic. when do not stop the aggressive policy requiring more efforts, more risk, and taking more high risk and so on. after solving the crisis with the ukraine and drive in santa?

to of the ukrainian state, country that was stolen. really believe in is serious about the values and principles of international law who we have no other option than to say crumby must be given back. it seems to be unrealistic and we have to find answers to this question. hence, which is one sentence. of course mega-to react in this instance the security reality in your became different. but the most important answer

should be given in another era ahead. >> that may bring in changing. looking at it covering this it does appear other than trying to reassure the article five cover rumors its that there is very hot little nato as an organization can do or is willing to do. greeks i think there for aspects of dealing with this crisis. the on happen to be insulated the first thing, nato has successfully reassured the new members tenths when, but we have a serious article five defense reassurance.

have sending 600 troops for exercise is to increase in the ability to make it clear as was pointed out that we take the offensive wellesz very seriously. who at least we can put limits on how far this crisis can go. will we can do to help ukraine. economically, and governments, corruption, political. everyone needs to do their utmost to improve and mrs. lahood. the weekend clear rule in helping to revitalize, reform and restructuring the canadian armed forces. offhand the first thing to do is

to make it clear russia there are consequences. pressure of the annexation of crimea. it would wait to read through with. we would go back to business. we have seen many interests economic her otherwise. so far the u.s., the european union, the united nations, everybody has shown remarkable consistency ahu and the russian economy is starting to impact. i was fascinated. i was in london yesterday. the entire 44 have been taken over by russian forces because where so many russians living in london, where millions of

russians now living outside russia. the enormous living standards, connected through europe and the united states, the international trading system and a way that the ruble has lost about 10% of its value. came down toward the zero. they openly address the issue to be palette of strength to of the ways that masks a motion, but it's not going to be long before they stop by. the final thing is only a doing in native is keeping the door open. we have not torn up the nato

russia or room declaration. russia is so integrated into your. when the russians talk of nato enlargement is something that is excluded from your. the russians are of the council of europe. and before the crisis there were going to join the economic corporation developed. we are keeping those mechanisms for what it was recalling the future european security open hoping that senator later it would come to their senses and realize they had procured a short term through of nationalist exuberant somehow.

>> how the russian president has asserted the right of pressure to intervene. some of the baltic states. is there any doubt who at the fresh surtout invade or even try to destabilize and is an, one of the minimum restates that an article five mutual defense full for the defense for would be the reaction? >> the problem is a big part of the public opinion those knives into this in. >> they could be sure and we need to keep an unambiguous

there is still concern. >> the central europe. the of the barnabases if you look at the complex set of strategy it becomes much less clear what constitutes an invasion. these issues that will have to be discussed hamas be on about public opinion had had? enhance access ahead of him one of these.

>> no harm. the clear answer is no. don't think the u.s. public would support a military response. and talking about if this were to be followed in native states. >> i misunderstood you. of course that would be beamed had the him be the let me say this, i think that as we look at

the situation to have surf is important to remind that demonizing president from gambling as a necessary and terrible, demonizing in imposing sanctions does not amount to a strategy. what we need is a strategy and one alma half for. one priority ahead unless to understand our first priority ought to be in the sure the ukraine can be turned her of fully overtime. it won't happen at the push of a button from what is essentially a dysfunctions the tax and to a

prosperous state will require a lot of money. the eu has already devoted 11 billion. united states may some resources available. his we will need to help ukraine have politically, economically and just the military issue. that's important. a second observation, you know, i don't need to explain to this audience how many times over the last decade or so we have allowed ourselves, i mean americans and europeans to be split in the management of crises. remember iraq. remember libya. i believe so far we can be quite

proud that even though there are differences here and they're both within and between we have managed to keep things together. i believe we would be operating -- offering of victory on a silver platter if he allowed us either within the eu or in the trans-atlantic community to be divided about the response. i mean that only half seriously then do we should say thank you, mr. president, the reminding is that there is a need to have a vibrant and active nato. some people in europe are beginning to think that maybe after afghanistan we don't need this organization that much

anymore. thank you, mr. president, for reminding us that it is a good idea for europe to look at how to diversify our energy sources such. thank you, mr. president, for also reminding us that it is totally essential as an objective for the european union to speak with one voice, not only when things are called bud particularly at times of crises. i believe you have given us enough. i was hoping we would not need this. it gave us up pretty good like a call. >> the question is what kind of wake-up call. the secretary said whatever u.s. defense secretary has been saying since the end of the cold war which is that the european countries have to spend more on defense. instead the opposite is happening. and in this country do you think there will be any change in that dynamic falls apart?

>> when i look at this situation to me like a call should be that what we were pursuing, the pivot or rebalance to my think the situation has only reinforced how important relationships in europe are for the united states in many ways that conservative basis and the foundation for the very turbulent and challenging world reface. and so i think of this in terms not only of military engagement but equally and perhaps even more important at the political, diplomatic level engagement with societies. this has to be a prayer resource prior ready for the united states always sippar. >> it is also a military element. >> of course. among the public, a taste for spending more on common defense, on defense that is part of an integrated nato complement to

restructure that is military. >> to have a chance for that we need to speak very serious. in many countries it is being neglected. let's not expect that it will be convincing to the public opinion to support more spending. and that is why i believe, i agree strategies, it's a matter of wisdom. the we also should understand how important it is to react in the very clear, very familiar know, tough way south to what is and elemental crime and it's not to, you know, demonize the russian president or humiliate russia. they did something, the worst of what can happen in europe.

and we have to be consistent and the political issues. the only way people, unfortunately unfortunately there is a time when we have again to spend more. >> to you see any prospect that anything the west is doing right now would turn him from his current path in eastern ukraine? >> it is not that -- it is not up to us to do these things. very dependent on the west. democratic forces both in the ukraine and russia have to stand up. so the west there was always, as i mentioned the ninth time, the oil price was so low.

we had nine the kind of money they have now. into promises which we have prioritized xbox, our work is counterproductive. >> do you think there's anything now that can be done? >> i agree with the prime minister. if you feel that it was aggression and you call it that way, so the work should mean something. otherwise it is totally counterproductive. they speak of the legal decisions, for instance, of russia's parliamentary in support of what they call aggression now. yet members of russian parliament and will often need

when i come back. they're now coming for their spring vacation. you don't go even to london. you get to miami. you go to new york and you will see those people are members of the parliament. in their own budgets the of 15 and 20 people are somehow selected. i don't challenge this. but what i'm saying, they should be in agreement there should be consistent. if you threaten something you do something. if you don't do, if you have not prepared to deprive yourself which i fully understand. of course there billions of dollars in london, new york,

miami, french riviera. people are waiting now for those people to come. and not speaking of oligarchs. and not speaking of businesses. hamas speaking of the russians i don't have millions of dollars. and speaking of people and actually wanted. they should've been told something consistent if they did something wrong. and you want to introduce sanctions. they should see that it be otherwise they come here, very have communication. they come back. what is the conclusion? the conclusion is that the west is corrupt, probably as corrupt as anything they have back,. there is no consistency. it is in to work, and into words are corrupt the more than empty promises and no less than absolute power.

those two things was corrupt. so i'm not arguing for prohibiting those people to come necessarily, but that would, of course, be very painful. people next time mike remember. next time now but probably think twice whether i should vote for something or i should go to miami to my villa. the choice is not bad. you have to keep your opinion and find different words. i mean, russia at least and ukraine today particularly because the blood is spilled their more in the ukraine and fortunately because i saw the yugoslavian. also, with milosevic with corporations.

so that was unfortunate for it. it would be bloody. .. so, i mean, they should be some consistency. so i agree with the ambassador. at least it's a