the study was focused on the verifiability issue. again, as i mentioned, i think it basically accords with what we could see by looking at the physical evidence of what's accumulated since 1999 in the ims system. >> thanks. right here we have a question and then over here. >> thank you. i'd like to ask you about arms trade treaty. >> if you could just identify yourself, please. >> i'm from the european parliament defense committee. and i would like to ask you about the arms trade treaty because it at the european parliament we are debating whether it should be a strong treaty which everybody signs and whether it could be a weaker treaty which everybody signs. now what is the u.s. position and under which conditions would you sign? >> if there's some code word in strong versus weak treaties, i should probably know what it is. but in general the united states would sign up to treaties when they are strong. and i will emphasize that our

view is that it is a treaty that covers arms trade per se. there is a legitimate trade in armaments in conventional arms internationally and so we see a real importance in ensuring that trade is carefully regulated. and so that's the value that we see in an arms trade treaty. we do believe there is a legitimate trade in conventional arms and so would not support if it's treated as more a nonproliferation treaty that we should not have any kind of trade in these weapons. that is not our position. >> and those negotiations as it's called began at the united nations on july 2nd and go for about four weeks and arms control association paying close attention to that. all right. we have another question here and then we're going to go to the back row. so, ben, if you could bring the microphone up to tree in a and then in the back. >> trina for international

studies. you mentioned the nonnuclear weapons in the next step. i was going to ask you, because, as i understand it, it's a russian precondition for even talking about these weapons that they are first withdrawn from europe. so do you have any evidence that perhaps the europeans will be willing to withdraw the weapons from europe in anticipation of arms control negotiations? it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. >> you know, what's very interesting about that russian condition, that has been a condition in place since the soviet union. it's not a new condition. it is a very long-standing condition that tactical nuclear weapons or nonstrategic nuclear weapons must be removed before they'll even talk about reductions in this arena. so like any number of conditions that can be piled up in advanced

of negotiations, i think we have to be very careful about considering them as chicken and egg problems. we just have to work them. the russians rearcally aren't going to come to the negotiating table unless they see a negotiating to be in their national interest. we would not either nor would we expect our nato allies to join us in an effort to negotiate such a treaty unless they, too, joined in seeing it as in their national interest. i just simply don't treat these conditions, and the russians have piled up other conditions on the table. i don't see them as a chicken and egg problem. i see them essentially as issues that must be worked in the runup to negotiations and we'll see where we get. they may see an interest over time in enhanced transparency and understanding further what's going on in, for example, former warsaw pact facilities now closed out and no longer hold nuclear weapons. they may be interested in learning more about that. let's work the issue and see where we get and then we'll see

what we do about a negotiation. but i would just urge us all -- it gets a bit sometimes you scratch your head because you hear some russian commentators piling up what looked like conditions after conditions. i just would be very cautious about treating them as big blockages. we just need to work them is all. >> we're going to move to the lightning round of questions. i think we have time for two or three more, are and i'm going to ask the folks to raise their hands. well, we can take two or three at the same time. ari, you're going to have to -- he has the mike. go ahead, sir, and then we'll go to the next one and rose will take a couple at the same time. >> i'm peter and i worked on and struggled with the issues of the conventional arms control negotiations for about two years ending in 2009. and particularly what to do about cfe in it gates' office.

now that we find barriers to do with the basic structure of the new ret they even which is apparently unacceptable in many respects to russia as well as regional issues that have gotten in the way of our ratification like moldova, georgia, mutual concerns in other areas, this is kind of an unfair question but i'm wondering what sort of paths one might explore whether it's a totally new treaty or whether one begins with small political confidence raising steps perhaps in regions of tension and then builds up to something bigger, and i know you said you were just exploring ideas, so i don't want to put you on the spot but

i'm curious as to what's in play and what one hears, whether the most promising approach is a global solution or a peace meal, more political solution or some combination. >> natalie goldring over here, if you could take the microphone to the right. thank you. >> thank you, hi, rose. natalie goldring. endorse your appreciation of the arms treaty. i would like to ask a question about consensus. the u.s. has insisted on it in the arms treaty process. some of the same skeptics you've encountered in the fmtc process are also present in the arms treaty process and playing the same role. how do you think we can keep the u.s. insistence on consensus and keep the skeptics from using it 0 derail the treaty? >> actually, shall i take those two? let me come straight to natalie's question. you know the reason why it's not

in my top four is as far as my heavy lifting is concerned, at least at the moment, roberto martin has done a fabulous job preparing a way. the reason we're talking about a four-week negotiation is that we think there's a real shot at getting this thing done in four weeks. there are many difficult issues to get through in july. it's not a done deal. but i would say that the ground is very well prepared and, again, it's thanks to the work of the nongovernmental community but also the work of our negotiators that we're in such good shape. it's not because i don't consider it important and significant from a policy perspective. it's because just in terms of my own personal heavy lifting, we'll see. maybe july 31st will come and i'll be up in new york all night long. we'll see what happens. at the moment, i'm very positive about the preparatory work that has gone into it so far. but your question about consensus is a very important

one. for those of you who don't know, the arrangement for decision making in the att negotiations is that as matter of substantive decision making such decisions must be made by consensus, procedural decisions can be made by a majority kind of approach. so it's a different approach. we've been quite hesitant about it although we were willing to see how it works in this context because it's difficult many times to draw a bright line between substance and process and we're concerned about that causing difficulties going forward. but we'll see how it goes. let's see how it goes this july and see where we go from here. that's all i can say to you at the present time on that. as far as the conventional arms control, peter, those questions are very, very good ones. i will say that we're looking at a rather broad spectrum now, so you made some mention of not being able to ratify a treaty or there's -- at the moment we're

taking a very broad ranging look at this arena of conventional arms control. we have a solid foundation and that the conventional forces in europe treaty is still in force according to its forms. given my ex peterson on new start, new start and cfe are much different, obviously. conventional conn i think we have accumulated excellent experience which we need to bear in mind. they've been great in raising confidence and may play a role in the future. but, at the same time, i think we need to look very broadly at what the purpose of conventional arms control in europe is these days. we're not dealing with two alliances ranged against each other. overall the way europe is

handling military forces these days is much different. there's a lot of budget cutting going on. there's a lot of effort at having, you know, shared capabilities across border lines. and so we just need to think, i think, in a very broad ranging way about where we want to go on conventional arms control. that's the effort we have under way in government now, no decisions have been made, but we are taking a very, very serious look at it. i expect this summer we'll be coming to some decisions about how to proceed. so if any of you out there have any ideas on this agenda, we would welcome the chance to talk to you about them. >> an invitation. all right. and speaking of persistence, let's go for a last question to mr. larry weiler in the back there who has persisted on these issues longer than most of us here, for those of you who don't kn know, larry was one of the nonproliferation treaty negotiators. so, larry, your question. >> yes, well, i was negotiating

as i mentioned to you on an earlier occasion, i think, with -- on nonproliferation treaties 57 years ago. time flies. i'm getting older. >> welcome to the club. >> and i have another unpair question. what is your estimate of whether or not we're any closer to getting the necessary votes in the senate than we were three years ago? >> three years ago? >> on which particular -- >> on the c it tb. >> on ctbt? i have had an interesting experience in watching the rat itfication of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty because up until the final week we didn't have any votes aside from -- well, we had the democratic side of the house, we had senator lugar. in terms of specific votes on the republican side of the ledger, we didn't know. you just have to work it.

again, i found that one of the most valuable aspects of the new s.t.a.r.t. ratification debate, the senators were willing to take a serious look at the treaty and to really consider their responsibility under the constitution with regard to the national security of the united states in giving their advice and consent to treaties. to make a long story short, they wanted to hear the details. they delved into the inspection regime in ways i never would have predicted. a lot of attention went to the budget side and the concern about the budget for the national nuclear security administration and so forth. but, to me, it was very impressive how much they wanted to understand the details of the treaty and how it would improve our national security, our confidence with regard to what the russians are doing and their strategic arsenal and overall

enhan enhanced predictability with moscow. so my view is this is the time we need to get the word out there about what the ctbt can do for us, what it will do to enhance our national security. we need to ask all those concerned, both inside and outside of government on capitol hill and elsewhere to take a serious look and be ready to listen, to get some questions answered, and to debate. but we're not asking anybody at the moment to say yea or neigh. i hope people will not but will have an intensive debate on the test ban treaty. >> all right. thank you. i think we are drawing to a close here. i think your time is up. i want to thank you very much for joining us here once again. >> thank you. >> i hope too much you back again. we'll take up your invitation for ideas on the conventional forces in europe treaty. we always have space in arms

control today for more ideas on that long-running issue, and we will promise to persist which is very important admonition from you -- >> and calvin coolidge. >> and calvin coolidge. we'll have to use that one in the future, so thank you very much, rose. [ applause ] coming up here on c-span 3, a press conference by nato secretary-general anders fogh rasmussen. then a discussion on international proposals to transfer control of the internet to the united nations. this is c-span 3 with po politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the

conversation on social media sites. well, over the past four years pulitzer prize winning author david maraniss has been writing his tenth book "barack obama the story." it included traveling the globe and speaking with his relatives in kenya and discovering his african ancestry on the shores of lake victoria. he toured the family home and sites in kansas to find the origins of his mother's family. "barack obama the story" comes out but book tv will give you an early look including our trip to kenya as we traveled with the author in january of 2010. so join us sunday, june 17th, at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. and later at 7:30 that same night your phone calls, e-mails be a tweets for david maraniss on c-span2's book tv. at his monthly briefing in brussels, nato secretary-general highlighted key points from the

nato summit in chicago including troop withdrawals from afghanistan, talks with pakistan, and nato's relationship with russia. this is about half an hour. good morning or, rather, good afternoon. thank you very much for coming. the secretary-general will start with an introductory statement and then he will, as usual, be happy to take your questions. secretary-general? >> good afternoon. at the chicago nato summit two weeks ago, we set ourselves three clear goals. to shape the next status of our engagement in afghanistan, to ensure nato invests smartly in future capabilities even in times of austerity, and to strengthen our relationship with our partners. we achieved those goals.

now we are taking the next steps. in afghanistan we set out a clear path from now until 2014 and beyond and we send out a clear signal afghan army and police are taking the lead for the security of 75% of the population. in the coming weeks more than 100 districts and cities in afghanistan will begin the transition to afghan security responsibility. that is a challenge, but the afghan forces are ready for it. already more than one third of a million afghan soldiers are trained and ready to keep their country secure. 18 afghan army battalions and 65

police units have been certified as capable of operating independently with advisers from isa. at the same time more and more former insurgents are choosing to come back into society. right now around 4,400 former fighters have entered reintegration programs. that is an increase of 40% since december. >> translator: and we will continue to provide the afghan forces with the support and training that they need in order to make sure that progress is irreversible. that is why we have decided that nato and the afghan government

would work together towards establishing a new nato-led mission for the period after the end of transition. we are starting the process of planning our new mission for afghanistan. this will not be a combat mission. and this new mission, the aim will be to train, advise, and assist the afghan security forces. we also made a clear political commitment. we will pay 0 our share of the future funding of these forces. we also heard president karzai restate the commitment of the afghan authorities to live up to their responsibilities when it comes to good governance and

defending human rights. >> we also reached agreement on reverse transit from afghanistan with three central asian partners, kazakhstan, kirigstan and uzbekistan. the network we need, i thank all three kunries for their support and nato will continue to actively engage with afghanistan's neighbors to build wider support for the country's stability. we are also making progress on implementing summit decisions on the other two key areas. in chicago we signed the

contract to acquire an alliance ground surveillance capability on armed drones which will allow our commanders to see what is happening over the horizon at anytime and in any weather. i am pleased to note that denmark has decided to join the acquisition phase of the project. this is a valuable signal of solidarity and of commitment to keeping our lines strong and capab capable. we also declared an interim missile defense capability. that capability has been formally handed over to our headquarters in ramstein in germany, so our preparations are completed. this is a first but significant step towards our longer term goal of providing full coverage and protection for all nato

european populations, territory and forces. i know russia's concerns on this issue, so let me be quite clear. those concerns are groundless. nato missile defense is not directed against russia and will not undermine russia's strategic deterrent. nato wants to build a strategic partnership with russia. last week marked two important a anniversaries in our relationship, on the 27th of may, it was the 15th anniversary of the signature of the nato russia founding acts, are the document which sets out the framework of our relationship. and on the 28th of may we marked

the tenth anniversary of the creation of the nato russia council, the forum where we meet as equals to discuss all topics. we have come a long way since those two agreements. we are building practical cooperation in many areas where we have common interests. afghanistan, counterterrorism, and the fight against piracy to name just three. our goal is to take that corporation to the next stage, to make nato and russia true strategic partners. but to do that, we need to improve the level of trust, transparency, and predictability in our relationship. we welcome our cooperation with russia and we want to strengthen

it, but we are concerned by some reason russian statements including on military deployments close to nato borders. so we intend to raise this with russia. we have pledged to discuss the areas where we disagree as well as the areas where we agree, and that is what we will do. finally at chicago there was a strong message that partnerships are essential to nato's success. our meetings were a recognition of that reality. and an opportunity to discuss with our partners how we work together and how we can improve our cooperation.

we have built up a powerful momentum. now it's vital to keep going. that's why later today i will meet the prime minister of new zealand and next week i will visit australia. countries are making a real difference to 0 our mission in afghanistan. i particularly welcome australia's recent announcement that it will take the main mentoring role. this demonstrates the countries such as australia and new zealand may be far away demographically but they are very close to us in terms of values and commitment. together we will discuss how we can come even closer together. and with that i'm ready to take your questions.

>> okay. we'll start in the first row here. geo-tv. [ inaudible ] >> it seems according to our information it was soft, you had a meeting with pakistan perspective this visit of the president of pakistan was no more than -- it was useless to go to chicago for him. can you comment on that? >> first of all, i appreciate that president sadari attended our meeting in chicago. i called him and invited him to participate in the meeting

because we want a positive dialogue with pakistan. it was definitely not useless. on the contrary the president sadari confirmed it is his clear intention, it is the intention of pakistan to engage positively in finding solutions to the conflict in afghanistan. as you all know, we still have an unsolved problem as regards transit rules through pakistan. i still hope to see a solution to that problem in the very near future. >> german tv? >> a follow-up to the pakistani question before. how far are the talks now? is there any progress? have you just agreed on that you

can use pakistan transit routes 0 to bring the troops home? is it just a matter of money or what is the question you have to deal with here? that is the first question. the second would be, he was in chicago and afghanistan now. is the figure more cler now how many soldiers will he take back now from afghanistan? will this be 1,000 or 2,000 or is it still to be figured out? >> first on pakistan, i'm not going to comment on details in negotiations with pakistan. i will just reiterate that i still hope that a solution can be found in the very near

future. at the same time let me stress that we actually concluded a number of very important transit agreements at the chicago summit and, of course, that will contribute in a very positive way to our operation in afghanistan as we gradually wind down our combat operation to the end of 2014. as regards france, i would leave it to them to comment on concrete figures. i have taken note of the very clear statement from the president also expressed in clear terms at the chicago