>> ladies and gentlemen, please stay in your places for a few minutes. the c-span bus is in iowa ahead of monday's caucuses to spread the word about c-span. c-span, all hands on deck as we prepare for our coverage of the iowa caucuses. democratic presidential candidate martin o'malley stopped by and met simpson college students who tweeted this, simpson college students and professor hang out in the c-span bus while martin o'malley is interviewed. republican presidential candidate mike huckabee visited the bus. and marco rubio supporters

tweeted this. hello from iowa state university. chatting with marco rubio supporters here. traveling with the c-span bus. now a discussion from the world economic forum in switzerland. this is 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, a warm welcome to the global security outlook. the outlook sessions, as the name suggests, is about what's happening in 2016 and beyond and this is on global security. we had, as we started, the world

economic forum global security session, and reflecting on a few years that we now had behind us, where we saw two trends develop ing developing quickly and dramatically. the first trend is the trend towards increased fragmentation. lots of trust, lots of social cohesion, lots of 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 rise of violent extremism or the option for people with violent intent to capitalize on this fragility. and the opposite trend which seems unrelated but actually is closely linked is that we see between key powers on the planet, an increasing competition over influence. at times that competition meets the areas of fragility in such a

way that we see conflicts that are local, national, regional and global at the same time. connected between these two 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 the secretary-general of nato. former prime minister of norway has been here several times but it's the first time he's here as the secretary-general of nato. happy to have you with us. and one thing that we discussed in previous session which i think is very relevant for this one is what we can call the blurring lines between war and peace. the complexity of actually understanding what is war and what is peace today. and i know you have been thinking about that as this is very relevant for your job now. what's actually happening, and what is this word "hybrid war" that we're seeing more and more

on the agenda? >> i think what's actually happening is exactly what you said. before we had some kind of idea that it was either peace or war. but now more and more countries are living in a state which is in some way in between. and that is about this blurring line between war and peace. we see when we have frozen conflicts, many places in the world, we see it when we have hybrid warfare as we have seen, for instance, in ukraine, with a mixture of military and nonmilitary means of aggression with deception, with overt and covert actions. and, of course, also terrorist attacks is also a part -- a mixture of peace and war, and especially when it comes to cyber warfare, it's actually possible to wage war in a time of peace. and this is really creating some new challenges for all of us and especially for nato. because we have to be agile.

we have to be prepared. we have to be ready to be able to respond to a much more complex and difficult security environment. and what we see is to the east of the alliance, we see a more assertive russia. actually using hybrid warfare in ukraine and to the south of the lines, we see turmoil, terror, nonstate actors posing also a great threat to all allied nations. and nato is responding, and it's also great to see that together with secretary ash carter because the u.s. is leading, and it's great to have a secretary of defense that is so focused on the transatlantic bond which nato represents. so our challenge is to respond to a more fragile and more dangerous security environment.

>> i will move to the president of afghanistan, old friend of the forum, and a person occupying probably one of the most complicated jobs in the world but still keeping an optimist approach. you are just in the middle of much of what we're talking about. and afghanistan, unfortunately, for the people of afghanistan, has been there quite a while in this 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? >> thank you. well, the first thing is we need to understand that we are dealing with medium-term challenges, not short-term challenges. because if the challenge is not defined in the correct term, we cannot put together strategies for containment for overcoming.

second, terrorism morally reprehensible has become a psychological system. we need to understand it as an ecology where there's both competition and cooperation. third, it has a distinctive pathology. and it is directed towards theater. the attack on paris, istanbul, the rest what's the purpose? to prevent us from freedom of travel, to make us suspicious of our neighbors, to call into question the very bond between the state where the state protects the citizens. and lastly, it has a morphology. it changes very fast. it learns the techniques are transferable. in this environment, what is the other side of the ledger? the state system is weak. we're very privileged, and i'd like to thank both the

secretary-general and secretary carter. the national level of understanding is remarkable. and let me pay tribute to all the men and women from 40 countries but particularly from the united states who paid the ultimate tribute, we honor them. but the regional dimension is missing in action. region realize that this is a common threat, and we need to get the rules and we need to cooperate with each other, we will be exacerbating. what cannot be permitted is for states to behave like nonstate actors or to sponsor maligned nonstate actors. last point, we're a people of resilience. and we will overcome. afghanistan will be the burying ground of daesh and all the rest of them. don't challenge us. we have a proverb. revenge is sweetest when it

takes place a hundred years. >> thank you very much. before we go on, what do you see as the prospect for getting this regional alignment to deal with issues which are fundamentally transborder and can only be dealt with when countries cooperate? what are you doing? >> the first issue is at the global level, the news is good. 40 countries under the leadership of the secretary-general and secretary carter have renewed their commitment in afghanistan. uncertainty is an enemy. last year part of our problem was that we had uncertainty. once we've 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 them.

thirdly, it is absolutely necessary to focus on the people. we cannot have corruption. we cannot have mismanagement. we cannot neglect the poor and the excluded. anything that exacerbates poverty, in here, markets are missing. the greatest missing element in the strategy of counterterrorism is the role of the market. our greatest weakness is weak market institutions. and prosperity cannot be generated just from top down. it needs to be done with functioning institutions. so the private sector, you can be great partners in this effort to create stability, to creating prosperity. >> thank you very much, mr. president. let's move -- let's stay in asia but move to the southeast asia to singapore.

deputy minister tarman. quite to the contrast of where afghanistan comes from, singapore is one of the most stable countries in the region. but you are for the immune to the challenges that you are seeing, as we were just discussing, even in singapore. >> well, singapore is the most religiously diverse nation in the world. we have every major religion, the largest one-third of the population. we have every major religion that is at conflict with another globally. within our 720 square kilometers. for us, multiculturalism, multireligious compact has been part of our identity. and part of the rules of the game from the time we became a country, because if we didn't have it, we wouldn't have survived. we would never 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 think we can't be wide-eyed about this. it will be with us because even with the vast majority of muslims in our region, not just in singapore but in our region, with the vast majority finding 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% of 230 million people in our region is 23,000 people. and we know what 23 people can do.

south asia, about 350 million. if you're just taking the muslims alone and we're 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 abhorrent 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 a 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 as 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. it 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. we need some compromises backed by judicial authority, of course, not untram led state power, to preserve the larger liberty of living in a liberal society, open liberal societies. but more than that, far more fundamental, we've got to find ways of integrating people from the time they are kids to the time they are in the workplace, where they live, and everyone having that shared hope in the future. that's been central to our strategies, and we're 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 our labor markets globally now still have an insider/outsider problem. and it's not, as the economists would say, just about incumbent

workers versus new workers. the outsiders are the young immigrants and women. and if you're young and an immigrant and a woman, you're completely out. so the insider/outsider labor market is completely at contradiction with immigration, and we have to resolve that problem. neighborhoods have to be mixed. job markets have to be open. and education has to be education for people, kids in the same classroom together. >> thank you very much, deputy prime minister. secretary carter, can we come back to the phenomenon of hybrid war? >> sure. >> how has war changed? i think even over the very few last years, war appears somewhat different phenomenon than what we used to read about in the history books. >> yeah. first of all, i'm in agreement with everything my extinguished colleagues have said here. and in another era in times past, you know, perhaps a u.s. secretary of defense or a security official or secretary-general of nato were 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. the korean peninsula is one immediate example. but as has been said here, and i don't expect this day to end, as society grows more complex and interconnected and therefore essentially more vulnerable and as destructive power falls into the hands of smaller and smaller groups of humanity, this problem of the few against the many as a security issue i expect to be with us for a long time. and so as i think about the future of the u.s. department of defense as i do all the time in addition to current operations, that's going to be a preoccupation of my successors, and our job is to deliver security to the people in the

face of that fact. for you, it kind of takes two -- has two aspects to it, as has been said. one is terrorism, which is substate actors wielding that destructive power. unfortunately there are also states that use the same instruments and the same vulnerabilities for more traditional purposes. and that's true whether it's little green men in ukraine or, as to be blunt about it and something we've objected to, actors in china stealing intellectual property and not being apprehended and stopped from doing it in china to the iranian government aiding houthis or contributing to hezbollah. that's what hybrid warfare is. there's terrorism, substate and hybrid warfare, both of these are part of the security landscape, and we can't be vulnerable to either of those. now, when it comes to state

actors, one has some more traditional tools available. and like our nato alliance, we have to do things differently. we have a new playbook for nato. it's not going to look like it did during the cold war days but still has to stand strong for common defense. but i expect this to be part of our responsibilities for a long time. it is what we owe our people. that's why we're 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 my job and these gentlemen needed to do their jobs. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i think there's a common thread, actually, in much of what we just heard, which is about the destructive power of relatively few people. and i think in the last session, in your conversation with the professor, you were touching on technology as the driver of that.

and i think we have seen, in the book that he referred to, we have pointed out exactly this point, that technology makes it possible to inflict much more damage. without having neither a big army nor a particularly sophisticated organization. and that means that, you know, once upon a time, if you had the biggest army, you were the strongest. so a large army would win over the weak army as long as the other one was not particularly sophisticated in tactics. now this is changing. and that changes the authority of the state over other people. and i think that's a major development across the board. and i think the other one is exactly this point that i think the president ghani said first, that 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 self-proclaimed islamic state, or daesh. and this, of course, creates a picture where looking into the defense just by defense means is

increasingly difficult. what does that mean for the alliance, for instance? what does it mean that it's basically a military alliance with political masters? >> it means that we have to adapt, and that's really what we are doing, and we have actually been doing that for some time now. and for instance, we have to improve our 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. because in the understanding of an attack, it was obvious. it was about the idea of as tanks rolling over from the soviet union attacking west europe. then it was no doubt at all. but now when we have cyber attacks and we have different kinds of hybrid warfare, little green men, then just to define when are we under attack? it inquires more intelligence, more situational intelligence, and we will have much less

warning time. so one way of responding to this more blurred line between war and peace is increased readiness, special operations forces, and more intelligence. and that's exactly what we are investing in. i'm not saying that that's the whole answer, but that's part of the answer. another part of the answer is to, of course, be willing and able to deploy large number of combat forces in big military operations. as we have done in afghanistan, in the balkans and many other places in the world before. but in addition to be able to do that, also in the future, we are focusing more and more on how can we build local capacity. or how countries which are affected themselves to increase their ability to defend themselves. and that's actually exactly what we now are doing in afghanistan. because now nato has ended our combat mission.

so we now have 12,000 troops in afghanistan who advise, train and assist the afghans because in the long run, it's better than the afghans themselves, take care of their own security. we support them, but they are in the front line, and actually for over one year now, the afghans have taken responsibility for their own security themselves. we will do the same, as we will start to train iraqi soldiers. we give support to jordan, to tunisia, exactly based on the same idea, we should project stability, not always by deploying our own combat forces but by training local forces, countries in the region and enable them to defend themselves. and therefore, it's very inspiring to see the leadership of president ghani and your tireless effort to make afghanistan a better place. and i'm impressed every time i

listen to you. >> president ghani, the argument that secretary-general was just making is the argument for state capacity. and i think that has been your key them from long before you game president also in your academic background. what could we be better at when it comes to building states that actually deliver not only security but also the social cohesion at the absence of which is the root cause of so many of these problems? >> and i'm not thinking necessarily afghanistan but global. >> absolutely. well, the first thing is really to put the citizen front and center. what are her needs? and i'm deliberate picking my gender right. because as long as we have exclusion of women, we're not going to get stability. it is imperative to understand that if you're going to have peace and we must have peace, it

cannot be at the exclusion of our women. second is to make the efficiency argument. singapore is a remarkable example of efficiency. but most state institutions are inefficient. and this is not acceptable. terrorist organizations are learning organizations. why are we failing to make state 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 first point, a lesson of honesty. we need to analyze our weaknesses vis-a-vis the enemy that we confront. and muster the political will. the political way is not an abstraction.

it's a concrete set of steps to make choices between difficult options. it's not about strategy. it's not about rosy projections. it is about moving the process forward, generating momentum. the other part of this, regional cooperation is an absolute must economically. we're delighted, for instance, to have a neighbor like afghanistan who is wagering on our future, it's just putting billions of its own money to build a pipeline to afghanistan. that is the type of situation that makes an immense difference. and the other is to learn. both offer examples of how, from the depths of poverty, that the soviet, the collapsing soviet system, lifted them. they've gone towards paths of stability.

we need to appreciate and have the clarity of purpose to be able to learn from real examples. and again, key is to engage the citizens if an inclusive dialogue. i'm engaging continuously in town hall meetings across the provinces of afghanistan. and what i learn in a single town hall meeting in a province is more than hundreds of meetings in kabul. so government has to be taken out to the public. we need to take risks. if we hide ourselves behind walls, people will say, but they're away from us. the way -- the same way that they cannot build fortresses around our country. the same way is to open the government. and you think in this capacity -- one other point. capacity is not an abstraction. so a lot of the capacity building programs have been

wrong-headed. because they have focused not on what exists. they have focused on an abstract analysis of what does not exist. if we mobilize, instead of coming with plans that are made for norway, we have to come with plans that are deliverable in afghanistan or kenya or somewhere else. then you can really build. and singapore provides remarkable examples historically as to how they built a housing authority from scratch and kept building institution after institution to make this delivery point. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i would like to return to deputy prime minister tarman. but i'd also like us to move from this theme of fragility and state weakness to the opposite end of the scale where you have strong states that compete and maybe compete even more. and some of that competition is happening in your neighborhood, not exactly in singapore, but in

the southeast asian and east asian neighborhood where we see a rising china and also other powers trying to balance the rise of china. and some people have argued that these are, in principle, more t these are in principle more dangerous developments than the developments it goes first if they go wrong so the point is how do we keep them away from going wrong? i'll ask you and secretary carter on this irish. >> well, it's just just to follow on to the last point, it's much lower probability event conflict in the south china sea or in asia between different powers, much lower probability but if it happens, it has major consequences. but as the problem earlier of terrorism is not a very low probability, it is a distinct probability and will also have major consequence for social cohesion for a long time to come when it happens. asia is seeing a new balance of

power. it's evolvie ining year by year decade by decade and principally because the chinese economy is now much larger. in fact, it is the dominant trading partner for virtually every ease asian country. it used to be the united states. it is now 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. 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 sign agreements. it takes time to build through interaction, by testing each other and knowing how we each react and over time knowing that both sides deeply believe in

peaceful coexistence. there are from time to time and this may be inevitable, some unilateral assertions of power. without regard to international norms and rules. and every time that happens, we have to shine the light on it and we have to insist on these matters being taken to international courts for international arbitration. that's the role of asean. much smaller than the united states and china but our sbra interests are very deeply for a paceful balance, a continued presence of the united states and a balance of power that preserves peace in the region. and our role is not just to be neutral. but to be actively neutral. we are not passive. actively neutral. shining a light when there's assertions that go against

international law or norms and requiring disputes be taken to the international courts. >> thank you. secretary carter, it's an old military concept to establish facts on the ground. in east asia, now some actors have taken it to the next step which is to be on the ground itself, like building on islands and so on. balance of power or upcoming confrontation? >> let me address that in a minute. i want to commend the two proceeding speakers just if i may on the -- the concept of helping others. that's critical. one -- our -- a critical tool that we have is hardening other states so that they can protect themselves. that in a sentence is what we've been working with the afghan security forces and president ghani for the idea of agility and efficiency in public.

it's really kate call. and that's why -- one of the reasons i'm here. critical not only to be effective but be seen as being effective. now i get to asia and the south china sea. everything that's been said is very true. there is -- china's rise is a major factor. it is a welcomed factor to the united states in almost every way. an i'm not one of those people who believes that conflict between the united states and china is inevitable. certainly not desirable. i don't think it's likely. but this is -- these things are not automatic. you have to work for them. and china's rise is by the way not the only rise going on in asia. india's a rising military power. japan if you vice president noticed is a rising military power. and there are other who is are doing things. vietnam, philippines and so

forth. now, our point of view on that, the u.s. point of view is the same one we have longstanding which is we welcome that. we have tried to create an environment there, as i said earlier, i think we were the pivotal factor making this so, which over seven decades essentially everybody could follow their own destiny towards prosperity. and that includes choo that. and we have never tried to obstruct china's economic rise and the lifting of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. we have welcomed that. 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 of peace and stability there. so we intend to stick up for that. we're not guiding the region. we don't seek to ask people to take sides. we do know that people are coming to us increasingly. why is that?

it's because china is taking some steps i think are self isolating, driving people towards a result that none of us wants which is people coming to us and then feeling and being excluded. one of those is the one you say. now, i should just to be clear, chi china's not the only one making claims we don't agree with and not the only ones with military outposts. we oppose all of that. for our part we have said everybody, not just china, but everybody who's doing that should stop and not militarize. that's -- and second, for our part, we're 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 will do what it's done. the united states air force will do what -- so we'll react and we are reacting. we'll make investments that are intended to sustain our military

position despite these developments. and we're helping other countries. they're all coming to us for assistance in maritime security. our alliances are strengthening with japan, with south korea, with the philippines, with other -- and we're building relationships. i have been to india, vietnam, recently. we want to have good relations with them. we're not asking people to take sides and i respect the position of strong and principled neutrality. little singapore which is drk punches way above its weight morally in terms of influence in that region occupies and i think their position is basically right which is we want everybody to be keep doing what they're doing and not pick sides. america doesn't want to have sides either. at the same time i think you have to recognize self-isolating behavior and when china engages in self-isolating behavior, that

is what is going to occur. but for our part and you will see this reflected in the investments, the largest enterprise in the world as claus earlier said it is. namely mines. makes in come years and budget and i'm preparing the budgets now are specifically intended to deal with these challenges. so we will react. but it's not our preferred course to see self-isolated behavior by china. and yes, dialogue is the way to do this. we hope for a better result and i actually -- as i said, i'm not somebody who's fatalistic about things. we have to work for good results and look forward to working with all my colleagues in the region, including chinese, to get an outcome that's win-win-win-win for everybody. that's what we have always stood for. everybody rises. that's our philosophy. >> sounds good.

secretary-general, when you either as secretary-general of nato or colleagues who are prime minister, defense minister, foreign minister discussing where to go, how do you properly judge between the issues? and i'm referring here to the deputy prime minister's point that there are certain challenges which are there every day. terrorism reminds of its existence on a weekly basis and then you have these potential threats which are normally not occurring. which one may end up forgetting and when they happen, you deeply regret you didn't think about them. how can a political alliance and proper way think the unthinkable and managing the ongoing crisises? >> well, i think nato has been quite successful in doing exactly that for more than six decades because we have both focused on managing crisis and been in balkans and afghanistan and many other places managing immediate crisis here and now.

but the same time always had a long-term perspective of both being able to adapt as the security environment changes but also in a way address and think about, like for insurance, nuclear war. deterrence to be strong is part of what nato is doing because we believe that if we stay strong then we are able to deter and actually prevent war. the reason why we want to be strong is not to -- because we want to fight a war. it's because we want to prevent wars by being so strong that any adversary will understand any attack on a nato ally is doomed to fail. so, so that's the reason we are adapting. i mentioned some of that adaptation and let me remind you on the following facts. we have tripled the size of the nato response force. we have established a new spearhe spearhead task to move on a short notice.

we have increased our military presence in the eastern part of the alliance as a response to a more assertive russia. and we are really focusing now on the new threats in cyber and other kinds of, you know, hybrid threats. so, so actually, i have been secretary-general for a bit more than a year and i'm impressed by the alliance. its ability to adapt. its ability to respond to changing security environment. and that's also reason why this is very successful alliance. and at the core of that alliance is the unity. 28 democratic nations. we have different views. many discussions but we are able to then by consensus reach agreement and then there are very strong conclusions when we reach them in a united way. >> can i say something that he can't say and needs to be said? it takes a really great

secretary-general and he's fantastic and we all love following his leadership. >> thank you very much. unfortunately, i think our time is up. if one of you have a final take you're burning to make, i'll give you a last chance. doesn't sound like that. that's a leading question. you know? well, i just want to say you will see in the program of the world economic forum and meeting and the other activities that we placed this issue much higher on the agenda than we used to do some years ago. and the reason behind that is not stim pli that we find it interesting but we do feel that all the issues we just discussed are so heavily interlinked with societial development, with economic development that you cannot really say anything meaningful about where the world is heading without also understanding the major security trends and thanks to the four of you for helping us to see that a little bit clearer and that should conclude this session.

mr. president ghani? >> just pay compliment. you know? partnerships are built on capacity for listening and here i have had two fantastic partners who have had enormously productive dialogue where we focus on both definition of the problems and their solutions. and indeed, under their leadership, we have been able to forge a way forward to see that we are not stuck in the past but that we really have a pathway to the future. so again, compliments and let's give them a big hand. >> all. >> to all of you. session closed.

>> thank you for attending this session. we value your feedback. please share your comments on session via our session page on the app. thank you once again.

the issue that i'm interested in is border control. i think we got too many illegal aliens and too many problems in this country right now to continue to have this type of thing. >> i'm here supporting governor chris christie. he's -- keeps recognizing all over the state of iowa the rule of power program and the co-ops and very proud of his effort on our behalf and just glad he ekzs all of these efforts as we try to fight the clean power plan and come up with a better solution, all of the above. including nuclear and other non-carbon resources. the national commission on the fut