great to see so many people in the audience. i welcome all of you. i see many from the diplomatic community. i would like to thank the atlantic council for working on this event and especially thanks for making this possible, and also because under your leadership, the atlantic council has worked tirelessly to promote efforts with the transatlantic cooperation. in today's world, transatlantic cooperation is needed more than ever. nato can focus that cooperation. half of the world's gdp and half of the world's military might in a unique alliance that brings to bear the strengthen unity of north america and europe.

that is what i want to discuss with you today. why it matters. how it is shaping our response to the actions of a more conservative russia, and how it must define the way we tackle challenges. the transatlantic alliance has its roots in common culture and values. these are bonds which carried us through the cold war. today, nato continues to serve the interests of each and every member. security, prosperity, and open societies. none of these values are guaranteed by nato alone, but all would be at great risk without nato. a safer and stronger europe

means a safer and stronger united states. that was the rationale behind the decision to create the alliance, and it is just as valid today. because nato is as much an american organization as it is a european one. this was the spirit in which the alliance responded when the united states was attacked on 9/11. the only time the alliance has invoked article five of the washington treaty, which makes clear that an attack against one

ally is an attack against all. that collective decision led to nato's biggest ever operation in afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands of soldiers from europe, canada, and nato countries have served alongside u.s. forces, and where many have given their lives. without nato, transatlantic cooperation would be weaker, europe and north america less safe, and the world a more dangerous place. take russia. last year, i spoke in washington about its destabilizing behavior. its military buildup and its aggression against ukraine, and i outlined how nato is responding. we are making significant progress.

nato is becoming more agile, and we are increasing our readiness. we are reinforcing our collective defense, the largest collective defense since the end of the cold war. nato's response force is now three times bigger than it was before. we have set up a chain of new headquarters in the eastern part of the alliance, boosting our ability to plan, exercise, and reinforce if needed. the european reassurance initiative launched two years ago has been key. i met with president obama on monday and thanked him for his strong leadership and strong commitment.

i welcome his plan to quadruple funding for the european reassurance initiative. this will increase our ability to strengthen the alliance. this increase of the european reassurance initiative would mean more u.s. troops and equipment on european soil, more opportunities for americans and europeans to participate in joint exercises, more positioned equipment and better infrastructure. together, this bolsters our defense and our ability to respond with strength and speed. but transatlantic security does not rest upon american shoulders alone. europeans play a major role in policing nato's airspace. europeans are providing the majority of forces in the

balkans, and for over a decade have contributed one third of the forces in afghanistan. they are also increasing defense spending after a long decline. in fact, last year, defense cuts in europe came to a halt. 16 european allies spent more on defense than the year before, and they are adding capabilities such as the latest generation fighter aircraft, helicopters, and maritime patrols. these are important first steps

toward fulfilling our pledge to spend a percentage of gdp on defense and the capabilities we need. i determined that all allies make good on that pledge because the burden must rest on all of our shoulders. ladies and gentlemen, we face a new strategic reality, and we must be prepared for the long haul. after the warsaw summit in july, we will seek to further strengthen our collective defense. we will have a multinational force in the eastern part of the alliance to make clear that an

attack against one ally will be met by forces from across the alliance. we will enhance our resilience with hybrid warfare and fighter jets and make sure the nuclear component of our deterrence posture remains credible and effective. we will advance our goal of a europe whole, free, and at peace with montenegro invited to join the alliance.

we will reconfirm our long-term commitment to afghanistan, and we will take measures to respond to north africa. because homeland defense is not just about what we do at home. it is as much about what happens beyond our borders. we have a crisis of a magnitude not seen since world war ii. groups like isil taking hold of spaces and spreading violence across the region and beyond. inciting attacks on our streets from brussels to istanbul, from paris to san bernardino. these are attacks on our open societies, on the values we share, so our response must be strong, and it must be united. the international community is rising to the challenge. i strongly welcome the efforts of the us-led local coalition to counter isil. we must be willing to project stability beyond our borders. if our neighbors are more

stable, we are more secure. to be clear, protecting stability has several elements. to defeat and destroy isil, we need to use force. military action is essential if we are to deprive isil of its strongholds in syria and iraq and stop the horrific violence it is inflicting. but projecting stability also means using armor forces to train others to fight. in the long run, it is more sustainable to enable local forces to protect their countries than it is to deploy large numbers of our own troops. that is an important lesson we have drawn from past operations.

training matters. in the fight against terrorism, building local capacity is one of our best weapons, and earlier we can do it, the better. because a few months can mean the difference between a fragile state and a failed state. so, while nato has to remain an expedition alliance able to deploy forces outside our territory, nato's also become a more effective training alliance. we need to upgrade our capacity building efforts and enhance our cooperation with regional partners. today, i want to put forward three specific ways i believe we

can do that. first, nato needs to strengthen its ability to advise and assist local forces. for that, we need to make training a core capability of the alliance. we have trained local forces across the world for more than 20 years. from sending advisory teams to deploying military and police trainers on the ground, including an dangerous environments. we know how to generate a multinational force of trainers, maximizing every contribution from allies and partners of all sizes. but today, we need a more robust approach, a responsive capability so that we can plan, coordinate, deploy, advise, and support training missions

faster, and bring together the necessary troops for capacity building and training. as we currently are doing in afghanistan. i went to kabul, and i met with the men and women of the air force, pilots and mechanics trained by nato. they were all very proud of what they are doing. i also met a group of remarkable young women who are working hard to become pilots in the african air force. it is that resolve that makes me optimistic about what we can achieve. until a few years ago, there's hardly any afghan air force at

all. last year, the afghan air force flew 20,000 missions, providing transport, resupply, medical support, and engaging the enemy. they are part of the 350,000 strong afghan security forces will do by nato trainers over the years. and they are now responsible for the country's security. we continue to support them, but we have ended our combat mission, and this demonstrates what we can achieve by building local capacity. we also recently launched training and capacity building initiatives in georgia, moldova, and jordan, and we will soon begin advising on counterterrorism and helping to improve the capacity of their armed forces.

with libya, we have an advisory council in tripoli. this is an important step in establishing national accord and setting the conditions for furthering national support. nato also stands ready to assist libya. they will need our help. so, this is clear. nato needs to make training a core capability for the alliance. my second proposal is that nato should step up our support for iraq. the ability of an iraqi government to restore security is critical to the stability of the whole region, and a stable iraq is key to the battle against isil.

last week, nato started training iraqi officers in jordan. our program was developed in close collaboration with the counter isil coalition. we should continue these efforts and, when appropriate, expand them. i met with the prime minister and discussed the challenges his country is facing and why training and capacity building is an essential part of the solution. we should provide that help and we can do that in many different

ways. one example is dealing with improvised explosive devices. improvised explosive devices was the biggest killer of forces when they retook ramadi from isil. our current training program responds to this urgent need, and we should do more for iraq. my third proposal is that we take our cooperation with regional partners and international organizations to a new level. to protect stability in the region, we need to work with those who know the region best. a few weeks ago, the

secretary-general of the gulf cooperation council came to nato headquarters. we discussed the security challenges in the region and what more we could do together. the gulf cooperation council is enhancing its ability to conduct large-scale operations. nato is essential to maintaining a military structure. we are also exploring what more we can do in areas such as counterterrorism, energy, and maritime security, and cyber defense. my aim is to bring forward cooperation with the gcc at the warsaw summit in july. the new nato regional cooperation center in kuwait also provides us with a way to

reinforce our partnerships. the center will be a focal point where nato gulf partners will work together in areas such as military to military cooperation, strategic analysis, and civil emergency planning. the king abdullah special training operations center in jordan is certified, according to nato standards, and this is where the training of iraqi officers is now taking place. we must do more to complement bilateral efforts and to strengthen the capacity of regional organizations. because this is the best way to leverage their expertise, their resources, and their cultural awareness in support of our training missions. and to enable our partners in the middle east and north afca

to play a great role in achieving regional security. everywhere i go in the region, leaders tell me they want more cooperation with nato. we must answer their call. ladies and gentlemen, the challenges from the middle east and north africa pose a direct threat to our security, our common values, and our common interest. we must all work together to respond. we need to strengthen our own defenses and to make our partners stronger as well. the threat from isil and other terrorist organizations will be

with us for a long time, so we must bring all tools to bear, and nato is a powerful tool in which all our nations have made great investments. for almost 70 years, nato has brought europe and north america closer together, providing security for both sides of the atlantic. i know that i can count on continued leadership of the united states. i also know that the regional interests of europe and the united states are best served by a strong north atlantic alliance. because the security of europe and north america is indivisible, and it is only by standing together that we will remain safe and secure.

thank you. [applause] karen: thank you, mr. secretary general. you have given us a lot to think about. nato secretary's general are frequent visitors to washington. i don't think i have ever seen a visit where so much attention was paid. you have had better attendance that has ever happened for a

visiting nato secretary general obviously, it is an important time in the country as americans are trying to figure out who will lead them into the next heart of the 21st century. your remarks on the subject of nato's future addressed key questions of relevance on why it matters, questions that have obviously been front and center in the political debate. i want to talk about some of the specific initiatives you outlined, but first, i would like to ask you, as a european, who spends much time around european leaders, about the debate here. president obama has repeatedly cited growing comes earns posed to him about some of the wackier suggestions being made by presidential candidates. secretary kerry last night said

european leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns to him. many have specifically talked about the transatlantic alliance and suggestions about the value of nato. so, i want to ask you if you have heard the same concerns, and when europeans are sitting around without americans in the room, and you let your hair down, is that what you talk about? how much concern is there? mr. stoltenberg: well, i have lost my hair, so that doesn't happen. [laughter] first, i welcome that there is more attention to nato and nato related issues. that may be because of the election campaign.

i will not be part of the election campaign. for decades, election campaigning was an important part of my life. but that is my previous life. now i am in another kind of business, which is not election campaigns, especially in the united states. it is up to the american people to decide who will be the next president, and i will in no way be part of that discussion or that campaign, but when i can say is that when i travel to different countries in europe, i see a very strong support for transatlantic cooperation and a north atlantic alliance. we understand that in the united states there are concerns that too many europeans are investing

too little in defense, and that is why we have made a decision to increase spending. that is why political leaders and allies and other countries urged that. to not reduce is not a big achievement, but compared to previous defense spending, it is the first step in moving toward the right direction. 2015 is the first up in the right direction after just one year. you asked whether europeans are concerned. they are concerned in that many of them understand they have to contribute more to our collective defense and that we don't have a fair burden sharing now, and that is why all 28 allies agreed to step up in the agreement we made. karen: well said.

obviously, there are concerns in this country as well as in europe about how some of the conversation has been framed about nato. but the overall question, beyond the question of burden sharing, about nato's relevance, is not a new one. i think you have addressed that in your remarks, but more broadly, in the years since the cold war ended, you have had a

lot of foreign-policy experts questioning whether nato should survive, and most of those concerns were based on the end of the soviet union. you spoke of the largest reinforcement of collective defense is the end of the cold war. certainly, some of nato's eastern members argue that the cold war never really ended. a general spoke recently of a shift in nato doctrine from assurance to deterrence, which i think in some ways is arguably a return to the past. i wonder if you could talk a bit about russia and what you think the actual threat is that russia poses to the alliance right now. what are putin's goals? are his actions arguably our

response, as some argued years ago, to nato's expansion right to russia's borders. is there a limit to russia's desire to expand its own sphere of influence, or do you think they see it as a defensive mechanism? mr. stoltenberg: i will say some words about russia in a moment, but i will start a commenting on the introduction to the question, because there is concern whether part of the debate in the united states provides reasons for concern in europe, that the united states is not focused on europe, that the united states is not going to continue to be part of our transatlantic alliance and so on. first of all, i would like to say that the first time i visited the united states was in 1980. i was 21 years old -- no, not 21 years old. i visited the united states with

my father and we traveled for a week around the united states. and then, the main issue then was the concern that the united states was not going to be supportive of europe. we have been concerned for many years, but we are still going strong. it means that of course, we will always be concerned. but the same time, we have to see that we are able to deliver everyday as a strong alliance, the strongest ever in the strongest in the world. we are able to deliver deterrence, able to deliver collective defense, and we are able to stand together when it is really needed. mentionedstance, as i

in my speech, the first time and only time ever, we have invoked the collective defense goals after an attack on the united states and then europeans stepped up to help and support our ally, the united states. forces, asrd of the i said, in afghanistan, they have come from canada, europe, and a european nato countries. and more than 1000 european and canadian soldiers have lost their lives in afghanistan. and many more have been wounded. it is a strong example of european allies. how we stand together when needed with the united states. spendingddress defense , but the alliance is working. the alliance is delivering. differentogether in

operations around the world. we have them a everyday since 1980, since i was concerned the first time. we are primarily concerned, but quite successful. then, about russia, we does the any imminent threat against any nato allied countries, including the countries in the east part of the alliance. but what we see is a more assertive russia. responsible for aggressive actions in ukraine and willing to use military force, not only with russian military capabilities, but the willingness to use th those capabilities to intimidate neighbors, to change borders in europe, annexed crimea, destabilizing eastern ukraine, and having troops in georgia and

moldova and so on. this is of course, of great concern and that is the reason we are responding. and when i say we, i mean the united states and europe together. before, we did not have forces in the eastern part of the alliance. now we have forces there on a rotational basis, and we have substantially increased our ability to redeploy forces if needed. m concerned, but as long as we are able to adapt and because we are able to adapt, we are responding to those concerns and making sure that all nato allied countries are safe because nato is there. karen: but do you have a sense of what the ultimate goal is of russia's actions? as you tried to strategize to provide this deterrent capability and this show of is your sense of

what they are hoping to achieve? mr. stoltenberg: it is always ch,gerous to speculate too mu but what we see is russia trying to reestablish a sphere of influence around its borders. that is why they are behaving as they are in georgia and ukraine. and in moldova. becausenot acceptable they are violating international law, they are not respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the sovereignty of independent nations, countries also the, and that's reason why it is important that we respond. at the same time, and we are responding by the biggest collective defense since the end of the cold war -- but at the same time, i always underline that nato is not seeking confrontation with russia. we will avoid a new cold war.

for aly, we are striving more cooperative and constructive relationship with russia, but we believe that we have to be strong, we have to be predictable to establish the basis for a political engagement and dialogue with russia. mentioned many times before, but my experience as a norwegian politician is that there is no contradiction between strong defense and political dialogue. we arey, as long as strong, we can also engage in political by log and in the long run, russia has to understand that they will gain more from cooperating with us, instead of confronting us. karen: you spoke about a new strategic reality that nato is facing and the primary threat to security right now seems to be violent extremism and the spread of it.

you outlined what is not necessarily a new role for nato, but certainly a broader expansion of that role in making it into a core capability for nato, and that is the training a nd partnership institutional aspects of it, and you set up three ways of doing that. the first one was to build capacities on the front line against violent extremism. obviously, that is what nato has been doing in afghanistan is the end of the combat mission. -- since the end of the combat mission. i wonder if you are concerned now about what is happening in afghanistan. newral nicholson, the commander there, is getting his own recommendations ready for the administration about what the u.s. military presence should be at the beginning of 2017.

as you know, current plans call for it to be almost cut in half, the u.s. presence, but, general nicholson has spoken recently about how the training program really has been set back because of the level of the fighting during 2015, which is one of the worst years that they have had in a long time, not only ground forces, but also forces in the air. --ld you expect nato forces assuming he was forces remain there at the current level -- would you expect those named nato components that are still active in afghanistan to do the same? what do you think is the likelihood that they would be, as some u.s. forces have been, dragged back into the fighting as it becomes more difficult? as the fighting season starts to ramp up again. mr. stoltenberg: the situation in afghanistan is not easy.

it is quite difficult. i visited, as i said, afghanistan just a couple of weeks ago. there is fighting. the afghan national army has good forces and they have lost many soldiers. the taliban is trying to control different parts of the country and we have many other groups -- al qaeda, different terrorist also have isil in afghanistan -- it is in no way an easy situation. having said that, i think it's import to remember that it has not been easy in afghanistan for decades. the starting point was not a peaceful, stable country. the starting point is a country which was a safe haven for international terrorists, with the taliban controlling the country.

was controlling the country. but we have achieved with a presence there for many years is we have been able to build a strong afghan army and security force, which is capable, professional and is strong enough to take responsibility for the entire country. that is my small thing. but is a big thing. thing. is not a small that is a big thing. so, we were able to end our combat mission because we enabled them to do the fighting. i think we should continue to enable them, continue to support them, and therefore, i think it was the right decision of president obama to maintain current force levels through 2016. at the same time, the u.s. and the president have announced 9800 to 5500rom

by the end of the year. but we have not yet decided in nato is what the other allies will do. that is something we will address at the summit in july. regardless of what we finally decide when it comes to the scale and scope of the support already decided we will continue to support the country through 2017. we have not decided on force levels, and we have not decided exactly on the scope of our persons and 2017 and beyond that. so, i am not able to answer you precisely about what our presence will be in 2017, that i but i can say we will continue to support them and continue to train them and fund them. you have to remember that we are supporting the afghan army and security forces in two ways.

we provide training and assistance with troops, but we also fund the national army. with u.s. funds and european funds and japan and south korea and others. nato partners are also contributing. and we are concerned in europe that we are spending less than 2% of gdp on defense. in afghanistan, they spend 25% of gdp on defense, but of course, that is only possible because the main funding is coming from the united states and european allies and partners. so, we will continue to support afghanistan. exactly how we will do it, we will decide at the summit. we will continue to fund them and to have a presence, because i very much believe we have to enable forces in the region to stabilize their own countries, and that is better than deploying a large number of combat troops.

karen: just to continue on the theme of training as a core capability, you spoke about iraq and the expanded role nato could play there. there has been some suggestion that the coalition itself is sort of a coalition of the structure, ad hoc really without the particular structure and that perhaps, this is a role that nato could play, somenato would take over of the organizational aspects of training, as well as putting the various components in place to nato couldhat actually serve in a way that it has in afghanistan, as a kind of secretary for that war. that seems to be what you are suggesting, that this could be

nato -- that nato could undertake a much larger role in addition to direct assistance to iraq, in some ways organizing the activities -- some of the activities at least of the coalition there. could you talk more about that? mr. stoltenberg: the advantage of using nato as a tool is, for instance, building capacity, training, as we have done in afghanistan -- before we continue, if there was anything itng with it in afghanistan, is that we did not start training earlier. we should have started to build capacity earlier and had the afghans take responsibility for their own security earlier. but the advantage of using nato is that nato has the structures and mechanisms for generating forces. we meet regularly several times a year to generate forces for our different missions in

kosovo, africa, and other places. if we want to do training in iraq, we can do that. it is a stronger commitment when you are part of the nato alliance to provide these forces than the commitment to being part of a coalition of the willing. because a coalition of the willing has a question of why you are willing. we have the mechanisms to generate forces. also, we can provide more support for the united states. second, we have the command structures, the different training centers. we have some in europe. we work in jordan. we will soon have a center in kuwait. training, capacity building, everything from building institutions, defense ministries, headquarters, institution building to training

soldiers in a dangerous environment. and third, we have the expertise and the experience. i mentioned improvised explosive devices. nato knows how to counter ied's because we have done that for many years in afghanistan. we can take that experience and apply it in, for instance, iraq. but, of course, nato will only do things which our allies ask us to do, and we have to find a balance between fighting, and i think the coalition should continue to do that, but i think nato can do more coordinated with and complement it with what the coalition is doing when it comes to training.

many small and medium-sized countries, nato allies and partner countries, it is often extremely expensive and difficult to do training on a bilateral basis. for instance, in iraq, because when nato does the training, we have one agreement, one infrastructure. then, small countries can ascend in special operation forces to do some training. in norway, just to negotiate all the legal arrangements you need to deploy forces in iraq, if nato is already there, you can just deploy that framework. it is more cost effective to plug into a nato framework. so yes, i believe we can do

more, but it has to be correlated with the efforts of the coalition and it has to be complementary and done in a way which would serve the purpose of the mission. karen: would you advocate taking over the existing bilateral training programs? the americans obviously have a huge effort there -- excuse me, the canadians, the italians, there are lots of different separate training programs that actually are doing different things with different groups of iraqis to a large extent. mr. stoltenberg: i would rather speak about scaling up what we have started to do. we have started to train the iraqi officers. i would like to scale up that. i think it is important to do this in coordination with the coalition.

i think we should do that, then evaluate the experience and decide if we should do more. the scale of the scope, i think we have to decide step-by-step and then have a pragmatic approach. because i think that, of course, we also need to continue to do airstrikes. i am not arguing that nato should take over the fighting. there are not so many allies doing that, the united states, u.k., france and others, but we need high-end airstrikes to help the iraqi forces liberate mosul, but when that is liberated, how do you hold it?

how do you train to control it? and then you need trained, skilled, professional, local forces, and if that is not nato forces or u.s. forces, french or german forces, it has to be local forces. maybe we should start training them now, not to wait, because if you wait, it becomes more difficult and more expensive. and in more ways, not as good. that's also the case when it comes to another group of countries. iraq, there is a war going on. country, itstable is an island of stability in the sea of instability in the middle east, but jordan is under pressure. tunisia is the same. they are a stable democratic country in modern africa, but they are under heavy pressure from terrorist organizations and we should help them now. we should not wait until they are really into deep trouble and

then help them. prevention is better than intervention. that's a golden rule. we should help them now, not wait until later on. capacity building is also about building capacity before a country slides into conflict or crisis, and then if the country is in crisis, we should help them build capacity to get out of that crisis. as we should do in iraq, and hopefully also, in libya. karen: what about syra? d-- what about syria? do you see any role at all for nato? mr. stoltenberg: it is a great advantage for the coalition that so many nato allies and nato partners have been able to draw

forces because nato has developed what we call interoperability, experience to work together in high-end, dangerous military operations, and we have developed that through nato exercises, nato standardization, and of course, operations like in afghanistan, and this experience, this interoperability developed among nato allies and partners, extremely useful for the coalition in syria now. then, of course, we are also responding to the conflict in syria by supporting turkey, bordering syria and iraq. we have assurance measures, and everything we do to stabilize the region is also relevant to syria.

and yet we don't have a direct role inside syria. karen: i would like to open the floor to questions now. i will call on you. and if you could -- are there microphones? yes. identify yourself. hopefully, ask a quick question so we can have a lot of response here. yes, sir. go ahead. >> i am from csis. pleasure to hear your comments, secretary general. i was wondering -- you talked about how nato can work closer with regional allies. i was wondering, if you see a role for some of nato's partners, thinking of sweden and finland for example, in particular who have unique capabilities. is there a role for them here, and wouldn't that be a way to close the integrate them into nato and even getting them sort of -- persuade them for a

membership in a long-term, rather than having sort of the classic russia debate. would this be a way of making them more closely integrated into the nato network? mr. stoltenberg: i absolutely see a role for sweden and finland, joining our efforts to build capacity in north africa, the wider middle east region. sweden and finland are already contributing, and i welcome that very much. that is one of the advantages of nato. we have proven our ability to mobilize partner countries. in afghanistan, sweden and finland have participated and contributed a lot, so i welcome that very much, and i would like to see more of that. again, this is important for the mission, when sweden and inland -- sweden and finland are participating, but you also have to understand we are developing our ability to work together. interoperability is through big operations like afghanistan and

perhaps also other places. yesterday, i visited fort bragg and met with the 82nd air force division. they told me about how they have been able to develop interoperability, the ability to work together by being stationed in afghanistan and work with nato allies but also sweden and finland. whether this will have an impact on the membership debate in sweden, i don't know. but i have said before that i have lost two references in norway trying to convince unions to join nato. -- trying to convince norwegians to join the european union. so you should not ask me for advice on how to convince the swedes to join nato. [laughter] that is on the level of taxi driving. [laughter] karen: yes, sir.

rahimank you, rashidi with kurdistan tv. what are russia and iran's role in syria? thank you. and your opinion of peshmurga forces in the fight against isis? mr. stoltenberg: the peshmerga forces play an important role, and many allied countries are providing training for peshmerga forces as part of the efforts to degrade and destroy isil. that is an example of how we are building local capacity. we do that already, but what i'm arguing in favor of doing that more and in a more organized name work. -- a more organized framework and with greater impact. russia's role in syria and also iran is with the regime, and

they have declared that very clearly, and they had done that by deploying military forces in syria, and even though there has been some reduction in the russian presence, russia still has substantial military forces in syria -- air forces, ground forces, naval forces. the main role of russia in syria is to support assad. karen: wow, so many of you. yes, ma'am. > i told you nato was a hot topic. >> i'm from gcc. i want to ask you about, how do you evaluate your relationship

with gcc in terms of cooperation? i believe they look for more justnato rather than analyzing their capabilities. can nato assure them stability and security in the region with respect to iran? the other question is how much can you give nato in projecting stability in the region? mr. stoltenberg: well, as i said, i very much believe that we can expand cooperation with the gulf cooperation council. this is the united -- i visited the united arab emirate a couple of weeks ago. i think by helping countries in

the region to stabilize the region, we are also making the country's more secure. the whole idea is if nato task force is more stable, they are more secure and we are more secure. security is not something you get less of if you share it. you get more security if you create security together. so i strongly believe in us working together with the gcc, and i also believe that the gcc countries can help us, working jointly, for instance, with fighting isil, with building capacity in a country like iraq. for me, we have to do many things at the same time, and we have agreed that we will start to step up and, hopefully, we will be able to make decisions related to this in warsaw.

>> you can watch the rest of this and all of our programming online at www.c-span.org. i am a history buff. seeing the fabric of our country and seeing just how they work and how they are made. >> i love american history tv. . had no idea american history tv. they gives you that perspective. >> i am a c-span fan. c-span, a c-span original series. tonight's episode on mapp v. ohio. after that, wrote to the white house coverage continues with newld trump in bethpage,

york and henry clinton that carnegie mellon university in pittsburgh. later, ohio governor john kasich gives his annual state of the state address. collects all persons have a business before the honorable supreme court of the united states admonished to cannot here and give their attention. c-span's cases," series history produced with the national constitution center, explore and the constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. number 759. against wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions, many of