>> with that main engine start, four, three, two, one and left off. left off from the 25th space shuttle mission and it is clear the tower.

>> nancy and i are -- the treasures they shuttle challenge. this is truly a national loss.

>> here's what i find interesting about the theater. if you look at records of what the presidents have watched over the years and their tastes are eclectic and everything and they reflect the tastes of the presidents. they reflect the times in which they lived but there was one movie in the quiz section of our evening here. there is one movie that really resonated with more presidents than any other one and guess what that one movie might be? defense secretary ash carter secretary-general and the president of afghanistan talked about global security and hybrid warfare at the world economic forum last week.

from thabo switzerland this is just under 45 minutes. >> a warm welcome to the global security outlook. the outlook session as the name suggests is about thinking where are we heading, what's happening in 2016 and beyond of this panel is on global security. we started the world economic forum and global context session reflecting on a few years that we know we have behind us where we saw two trends developing quickly and dramatically. the first trend is a trend towards increased fragmentation. many societies unable to deal

properly with governance with maintaining political order and maintaining a sense of being in the same boat which of course leads to a number of consequences but in the more extreme version the violent extremism with the option for people to capitalize on this fragility. the opposite trend which seems unrelated that actually is close lately is that we see key powers on the planet and increasing competition over influence. at times that competition meets the area of fertility in such a way that we accept our local national regional and global at the same time collected between these trends. we have a stellar panel with us and i will introduce them as they give their first intervention. i would like to start with jens

stoltenberg. jens stoltenberg the former prime minister of norway has been here several times but it's the first time he is here. happy to have you with us and one thing we discussed in previous sessions which i think is very relevant for this one is what we can call the blurring lines between war and peace come the complexity of understanding for this war and what his piece today. i know you have been thinking about that is it's very relevant for your job now. what is actually happening and what is this hybrid war that we are seeing more and more on the agenda? >> in fact it's what you said before we had an idea that this was either peace or war. more and more countries are living in a state which is somewhere in between. that is about blurred lines between war and peace. we see when we have frozen conflicts in many places in the

world and we say when we have hybrid warfare in ukraine with a mixture of military and nonmilitary means of aggression, with overt and covert actions. of course also a part of a mixture of the peace of the war and especially when it comes to cyber warfare. this is creating new challenges for all of us and especially for nato, because we have to be agile, we have to be prepared to be able to respond to much more conflict and difficult security. what we see is to the east of the alliance actually warfare in ukraine and to the south but the

turmoil and nonstate actors posing -- and nato is responding it's great to sit here together with secretary ash carter because the u.s. is leading. it's great to have the secretary of defense which is so focused on the transatlantic -- so our challenge is to respond to more fragile and more dangerous security. i will refer to ashraf -- a ashraf ghani and probably one of the most complicated jobs in the world but still keeping an optimistic approach. you are in the middle of much of what we are talking about in afghanistan for sleep or the people of afghanistan have been there for quite a while and the

intersection between fragility and competition. what have you learned? what are the things you will tell us about the security outlook from here and into the near future? >> the first thing is we need to understand that with medium term challenges and not short-term challenges. because it is the challenge is not defined in the crib turned we cannot put together plans for containment. second, terrorism is morally reprehensible. we need to understand it as an ecology where there is competition and cooperation. it has a distinctive -- and it's directed. the attack on paris and istanbul what is the purpose?

to prevent freedom of travel to make suspicious our neighbors to call into question -- and lastly it changes the facts. it learns the techniques are transferable. in this environment, the other side of the ledger, the state system is weak. we are very privileged and i would like to thank both of secretary-general and secretary carter. international level of understanding its remarkable and let me pay tribute to all the men and women from 14 countries but particularly from the united states you paid it ultimate

tribute, we are there but the regional dimension as missing in action. unless all the states in the region realize that this is a common thread, and we need to get the rules and the need to cooperate with each other we will be exacerbating. what cannot be permitted is for states to behave like non-state actors or to sponsor maligned state actors played the last point, we are people of her zillions. and we will overcome. afghanistan will be the bearing grounded da'ish. don't challenge us. we have a proverb, revenge is the sweetest when it takes place in 100 years. >> thank you very much and before we go on what you see as the prospects for getting this regional alignment to deal with issues which are fundamentally transporting can only be dealt

with if countries cooperate. >> the first issue is at the global level the news is good paid 40 countries under the leadership of the secretary-general and secretary carter have renewed their commitment in afghanistan and uncertainty as an enemy. lester part of our problem was that we had uncertainty. once we have extended the horizon and the staying power is determined strategies can be focused. second, there's the question of differentiation. we need to differentiate each of the elements, each of the drivers of insecurity and be able to deal with it. thirdly, it is absolutely necessary to focus on the people we cannot have corruption, we not -- cannot have mismanagement. we cannot they collect the poor and excluded. anything that perpetuates bad

governance or exacerbates poverty and hear markets are missing. the greatest missing element of the strategy of counterterrorism is the role of the market. our greatest weakness is we can market institutions and prosperity cannot be generated just from the top down. needs to be done with the functioning institution so the private sector, my message to the private sector is you can be great workers in this effort to create stability, to create prosperity. >> thank you very much mr. president. let's move to the southeast to singapore to minister tharman shanmugaratnam. singapore is seen as one of the most stable countries in the region but you are not immune to the challenges that you are seeing and we were just discussing even in singapore.

>> singapore is the most religiously diverse nation in the world. we have every major religion. the largest is only one third of the population. we have every major religion that is at conflict with another globally. within our 70020 square kilometers. for us multiculturalism, multi-religious compact, has been part of our activity. part of the rules of the game from the time we became a country because if we didn't have that we wouldn't have survived. we wouldn't have survived. but we are not immune and we are now having to work harder than ever before to preserve that compact, to keep that spirit of peace, tolerance and more than peace and tolerance that spirit of respect that wanting to engage with each other in

day-to-day life. the problem will be with us for a long time to come. i believe it can't be wide-eyed about this. even with the best majority of muslims in our region not just in singapore but our reach in the vast majority fighting terrorism abhorrent and wanting to live in a multicultural context. even with that being the case we will face terrorism and that threat for a long time to come because 0.01% off 230 million people in the region is 23,000 people. we know what 23 people can do. south asia about 350 million just taking the muslims alone and we are not counting the hindus. that's 35,000 people so the problem will be with us for a while despite the fact that the vast majority find it at boards

against their beliefs and the way they want to live their lives. plus i think we have to accept the fact that many of those who have been converted to terrorist causes are now coming from the most advanced countries from western liberal democracies and we are living with the legacy of decades of segregation and the culture of exclusion. rules can be changed but culture can't be changed quickly. this will be with us for a while and it means that we have to take this is a long game, build resilience. we need to strengthen our defenses and that's not just talking about the military, that's talking about the state needs strong powers of surveillance surveillance. needs powers of preventive detention and you need clear rules against hate speech. those are compromises to preserve the larger liberty of living in an open society. it needs some compromises back by judicial authority of course,

to preserve the larger liberty of living in a liberal society, open the process i.d.s but far more fundamental defect to find ways of integrating people from the time their kids to the time they're in the workplace, where they live and everyone having that hope for the future. that's been subject to our strategies and we are working even harder at it. mixed neighborhoods are critical a workplace where you don't have an insider outsider problem is critical and most of labor markets globally now still have an insider outsider problem and is not as economists would say just about incumbent first -- workers versus the workers. the outsiders of a young immigrant settlement and if you were young and immigrant and a woman you are completely out. so the insider outsider labor market is completely a contradiction with integration we have to resolve that problem.

neighbors said have to be mixed in job markets have to be open and education has to be educational for people in the same classroom together. >> thank you very much mr. prime minister. secretary carter can we come back to the fun on on of hybrid workweeks how his work changed? i think with a few less tears were peers is a different phenomenon. >> first of all i agree with everything my distinguished colleagues have said here and in another era in times past perhaps the u.s. secretary of defense or security officials secretary-general of nato we are worried about and committed to preventing and succeeding if it came to that state to state conflict and we still face that and the threat of that in many places. a great peninsulas is one

immediate example but as has been said here and i don't expect the state to end as society grows more complex and interconnected and therefore essentially more vulnerable and has destructive power falls into the hands of smaller and smaller groups of humanity this problem of the few against the many is a security issue and expect to be with us for a long time. so as i think about the future of the u.s. department of defense as i do all the time and addition to current operations, that is going to be a preoccupation of my successors and our job is to deliver security to the people in the face of that fact. it takes as two aspects to it as has been said. one is terrorism which is substate actors willing that destructive power. unfortunately there are also

states that use the same as she mentioned the same vulnerabilities for more traditional purposes and that is true whether it's ukraine were to be blunt about it in something we have objected to actors in china stealing intellectual property and not being apprehended and stopped from doing it. in china to the iranian government contributing to as balao, this kind of thing also. that's what hybrid warfare is so there is terrorism substate of hybrid warfare. both of these are part of the security landscape and we can be vulnerable to either of those. when it comes to state actors one has some more traditional tools available and liked our nato alliance we have to do things differently. we have a new playbook for an nato.

it has to stand strong for covered with peer to expect this to be part of our responsibilities for a long time. it is what leo where people. that is why we are here and we can do it but it's a very different kind of job from the way my predecessors way back needed to do. >> thank you mr. secretary. think there's a common thread in the destructive power of relatively few people and they think in the last session in your conversation you were touching on technology as a driver of that. i think we have seen in the book that he refer do we have pointed out exactly this point that technology makes it possible to create much more damage without having either a big army are

particularly sophisticated organization and that means once upon a time if he had the biggest army are the strongest, a large army would win over the weak army as long as the other one was not particularly sophisticated tactics announces changes and that changes the authority of the state over other people. think that's a major development across-the-board. i think the other one is exact at this point that i think president ghani said, states taking on elements of nonstate actor behavior while at the same time we see nonstate actors taking on certain behaviors like states as the so-called da'ish and this of course creates a picture where looking into defense just like defense means is increasingly visible and what does that mean for the alliance? what does it mean for allies that is meant to military alliance with political postures?

>> for instance we have to improve intelligence. we have to improve our situational awareness. we have to improve our surveillance to be able to define exactly when we are under attack. it was obvious. it was an idea of tanks rolling over from the soviet and. there was no doubt at all that now would we have cyber attacks and different kinds of hybrid warfare, then just to define when are we under attack requires more intelligence, more situational awareness and we have much less warning time. so one way of responding to this line between war and peace is increased readiness, special

forces and more intelligence. that's exact weight what we are investing in. i'm not saying that is the whole answer but that is part of the answer. the other part of the answers to of course be willing and able to do voip a large number of combat forces in military operations as we are doing in afghanistan and the baltics and many other places in the world but in addition to be able to do that in the future we are focusing more on how can we build local capacity or how countries which are affected themselves to increase their ability to defend themselves. that is exactly what we are now doing in afghanistan. nato has ended our combat mission so we now have 12,000 troops in afghanistan who advise, train and assist afghans in the long run it's better that the afghans themselves take care

of their own security and they are in the frontline and the afghans have taken responsibility for their own security themselves. we would do the same. we will start to train iraqi soldiers. we give support to jordan and tunisia and based on the same idea. assure projects ability not only by deploying our own forces but by training local forces in the region and made enable them to defend themselves. therefore it's very inspiring to see the leadership of president ghani and the tireless effort to make afghanistan a better place and i'm pressed -- i'm impressed over time i listen to you. >> president ghani the argument that secretary stoltenberg was capacity and that was your key

before he became president or academic that round. what could be better at when it comes to building states that deliver not only security but also the cohesion the absence of which is the root cause of some of these problems and i'm not necessarily think in afghanistan. >> well the first thing is really to put the citizens front and center. what are her needs and time deliberately picking my gender right. because as long as we have exclusion of women there are not going to get stability. it is imperative to understand that if you were going to have peace it cannot be at the exclusion of women. second is to make the efficiency argument.

most state institutions are inefficient and this is not acceptable. terrorist organizations are learning organizations. why are we failing to make date institutions into learning organizations? we are slow. we are bureaucratic in the wrong sense of the term. we are not responsive. we are not adapting quickly so the first we need to analyze their weaknesses vis-à-vis the enemy that we confront and mustard lives go well. political will is not the abstraction, it's the complete set of steps to make choices between difficult options. it's not a bad strategy. it's not a bad projection. it's about moving the process

forward generating momentum. the other part of this regional cooperation is an absolute must economically. we are delighted for instance to have a neighbor like the united states who is wagering on our future. afghanistan is putting billions of its own money to build up pipeline to afghanistan. that is the type of situation that makes an immense difference afghanistan offers examples of how from the depths of poverty that the collapsing soviet system lifted them. we need to appreciate and have the clarity of purpose to be able to learn from real examples and again the key is to engage the citizens in an inclusive

dialogue. i am engaging continuously in town hall meetings across the provinces of afghanistan what i have learned in a single town hall meeting in a province is hundreds of meetings in kabul. government has to be taken out to the public page we need to take risks. if we hide ourselves behind walls people will say -- the same way is to open the government. i think in this regard capacity and i would like to make one other point. capacity is not an abstraction so a lot of the capacity of programs have been wrongheaded because they focus on not on what exists, they focus on an abstract analysis. if we mobilize, instead of

coming with plans that are made for norway we have to come a planned third deliverable in afghanistan are kenya or somewhere else. singapore provides remarkable examples to start as to how they built the housing authority from scratch and building institution after institution to make this delivery work. >> thank you very much mr. president that i would like to return to -- but i would also like us to move from this theme of fertility and state weakness to the opposite end of the scale where you have strong states that competing to be given more and some of that competition is happening in your neighborhood. not exactly in singapore but southeast asian asia and east asian neighbors where we see rising china and also other powers trying to balance the rise of china. some people have argued that these are in principle more

dangerous developments. the point is how do we keep them away from going wrong and asked u.n. secretary carter on that issue. >> just to follow on from your last point it is much lower probability conflict in the south china sea between different powers, much lower probability but if it happens at this major consequence where's the problem we were talking about earlier on terrorism is not a low probability. it's a very distinct probability and we also have a major consequence for social cohesion for a long time to come but it happens. asia is saying a new balance of power. it's evolving year by year, decade by decade and its inevitable principally because the chinese economy is now much larger. ' the dominant trading partner

for almost every east asian country. he is to be united states announced china. this evolution and the balance of power especially between china and the united states has so far been a peaceful rebalancing. it will be uncomfortable at times and especially because we do not yet have trust between the united states and china and that trust takes time to build. it takes time to build. it doesn't come because we signed agreements. it takes time to build interaction by testing each other knowing how each reacts in overtime knowing that both sides deeply believe in peaceful coexistence. there are from time to time and this may be inevitable some unilateral association of power

without regard to international norms and rules. every time that happens we have to shine a light on it and we have to insist on these matters being taken to international courts or international arbitration. there are much smaller than united states and china better interests are very deeply for it peaceful balance and the balance of power that preserves peace in the region. our role is not just to be neutral but to be actively neutral. to be actively neutral which means shining a light when there are are unilateral sanctions that go against international law and requiring that disputes be taken to the international conference. >> secretary carter it's an old military concept to establish facts on the ground in east asia

and now some actors have taken to the next step which is to build the ground itself like building on islands and so on. balance of power or an upcoming confrontation? >> i just want to commend the two preceding speakers because if i may the concept of helping others is critical. a critical tool that we have this hardening other states so that they can protect themselves that in a sentence is what we have been working with the afghan security forces. president goni -- it's critical not that we only be effective but seen as being affected and to get to asia and the south china sea. everything that is said is very

true. there is, china's rise is a major factor. it is a welcome factor to united states in almost every way and i'm not one of those people who believes that conflict between the united states and china is inevitable. it's certainly not desirable. i don't think it's likely that these things are not automatic big enough to work for them and china's rise by the way is not the only rise going on in asia. it can be a it's a rising of military power and japan is a rising military power and there are other things that are doing things, vietnam, philippines and so forth. our point of view on that, the u.s. point of view is the same one we have had long-standing which is we welcome that. we have tried to create an environment there and i said earlier we were the pivotal

factor in making this so in which over seven decades essentially everybody could follow their own destiny towards prosperity and that includes china. we have never tried to obstruct china's economic rise in the listing of hundreds of millions of people out already. we have welcome back nor any of these other states we have talked about. at the same time one has to, we don't want to ruin a good thing which is a system peace and stability so we intend to stick up for that. we are not separate, we are not dividing the region and we don't seek to ask people to take sides. we do know that people are coming to us increasingly increasingly. why is that? it's because china is taking some steps that i think herself isolating that are driving people towards a result but none of us want which is people coming to us and being excluded. one of those is when you say.

just to be clear china stop the only one that is making claims that we do not agree with and they are not the only ones that are military outposts. we oppose all of that and for our part we have said everybody, not just china but everybody is doing that should stop and not militarize. and second for our part, we are going to keep doing what we have always done. we will fly, we will sail, we will operate everywhere international law permits in the south china sea. the united states navy and air force is going to do it so we will react and we are reacting. we will make investments that are intended to sustain our military position despite these developments. and we are helping other countries. they are all coming to us for assistance in their maritime security. our alliances are strengthening

with japan, with south korea, with the philippines, and we are building new. i've been to india, vietnam recently and we want to have good relations with them and we are not asking people to take sides. i respect the position of strong in fanciful neutrality. the little singapore which is way above its weight morally in terms of influence in the region occupies and i think their position is basically right which is we want everybody to be able to do what they're doing and we don't want to to pick sides. america does want to have sides either. the same time i think you have to recognize self-isolating behavior. when china engages in self isolating behavior that is what is going to occur. for our part and you will see this reflected in the investments, the largest enterprise in the world as klaus earlier said it was makes in

coming years and its budget and i'm preparing this budget's now are specifically intended to deal with these challenges. so we will react but is not our preferred course to see self-isolating behavior by china and yes dialogue is the way to do this and we hope for a better result. i actually as i said i'm not somebody who is fatalistic. at the same time we have to work for good results and i looked over to working with all of my colleagues including the chinese to get an outcome that is win, win, win for everybody. that is what we have always stood for. everybody rises, that's our philosophy. >> sounds good. secretary general stoltenberg when you ask your colleagues who are the prime minister defense minister foreign minister are discussing where to go how do you properly judge between the

issues and i'm referring here to the point there are certain challenges that are there everyday. terrorism reminds us on a big basis and they have these potential threats which are not occurring which we may end up forgetting because they are not happening and only when they happen we deeply regret that we didn't think about them. how can the political lines in the proper way to think beyond the bull while managing the ongoing crisis? >> well i think nato has been quite successful in doing exactly that for more than six decades. we have both focused on managing crisis and then balkans and afghanistan and other places we have managed in a crisis. at the same time the long-term perspective of being able to adapt as the security environment changes but also address the unthinkable, nuclear war. deterrence and to be strong is

part of what nato is doing because we believe if we stay strong then we are able to deter and actually prevent war. the reason why we want to be strong is not because we want to find war, it's because they want to prevent war by being so strong that any attack on any nato allies is doomed to fail. so that's the reason why we are adapting and i mentioned some of that already but let me for my do the following facts. we have the size -- establish a new spearhead joint task force which is able to move on short notice. we have increased our military presence in the eastern part of the alliance as a response to russia and we are really focusing now on the new threats in cyber and hybrid.

.. >> >> you will see in the

program otherworldly economic forum to place a much higher of and the agenda. the reason behind that is that we do feel all these issues are heavily linked with societal and economic development you cannot say any things without a also understanding a major understandings. >> with a compliment of to fantastic partners with the enormous dialogue