tv [untitled] May 11, 2012 10:30am-11:00am EDT
standing when she got married. >> tour the jamestown island colony date. since the rediscovery of the colony, it has yielded more than 1.5 million artifacts. visit the lab at 2:00 with the senior curator. join in the conversation. live saturday at 2:30 p.m. eastern. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. nato will hold its summit in chicago later this month. next, u.s. ambassador to nato ivo daalder talks about the summit. the council on foreign relations hosted this one-hour event.
>> welcome, everybody. to tonight's council on foreign relations meeting. i want to go through our standard stuff here, but remind you to please completely turn off all your -- not just put them on vibrate, but cell phones and all wireless devices to avoid interference with the sound system. i remind you this is an "on the record" session. before we begin with the program, the council is pleased to announce the roll out of a report of the council-sponsored innocent task force on turkey and copies of the task force's report will be released at a meeting in new york tomorrow and here in washington this wednesday, may 9th. for more information on upcoming events, refer to the insert in the back of tonight's program.
also tomorrow night in new york, our guest is going to be on "the daily show." you can tune in there, if you like. anyway, this is another well-timed council session. not only do we have the u.s. ambassador to nato with us, just two weeks before the nato summit gets under way in chicago, but we have a newly-elected president of france. francois hollande. he may become a factor in brussels and afghanistan. you always have ambassador daalder's biography. i'm sure you have met him or heard him on one occasion or the other. he's been a prominent figure in u.s. government and international affairs, but also with the council. equally important to those of us outside of government, he has
been a remains in his official capacity an important public voice. a frequent writer and explainer and debater on issues of great importance to american national security and global security. so, mr. ambassador, we will, of course, all want to know this evening your sense of whether nato, like everyone else, will manage to lose the blues in chicago -- but first, let me go straight to the news of the day. there are a couple of stories that are news worthy today about our topic this evening. and ask your views about the election in france. mr. hollande, i'm sure you know, has suggested he was not happy with his predecessors taking france back into nato. he said he would likely withdraw france's 2,500 troops from
afghanistan this year rather than next. although he has tilted toward less austerity, he has also talked about defense spending needing to be cut further. so, i know you will probably say, well, we have to wait and see what the post-election realities are, but since we are here and on stage and you are such a good source on this, how do you analyze this? >> of course, we have to wait and see. [ laughter ] >> but i think one of the unique features of nato is it's an organization of 28 democracies. so this is partly the first time a government has changed while i've been there or, indeed, which is happening all the time. 27 governments have changed in the time i have been here. the french socialists are not strangers for the united states. they shouldn't be strangers.
it has been true that it has been 17 years since the socialists were in power at the presidency. of course, they ran the government about a decade ago when spauo was in power. we have always had a very good relationship with any government that is there in france. i am confident we will have a good relationship with this government in france. we do have to see how this government is going to deal with the issues of the day. it's one thing to be campaigning. it is always something different to be governing. it is not me. it is not my job to predict how this will evolve. i will note that francoi francois hollande campaigned to keep france in the military structure. that was a remarkable statement
after nicolas sarkozy to come back into the structure. i think france learned in the libya operation that being integrated in the command structure gives you a voice and say over what happens in the internal affairs of the military operation. that's important. you learn there are benefits from being fully integrated. i suspect this is a benefit that will remain even if there may be differences of degree as policies go on. that's what elections are about. it is a lot to enable the people to express themselves and vote in new governments who will then have to decide how they want to pursue policy. on the big foreign policy issues, i expect more continuity than change. >> so, he takes office very soon. the nato summit is very soon. do you see any risk that the
program in afghanistan, both in terms of troop levels and in terms of financial support for the afghan army, that that could erode before you're at the finish line here? >> no, i don't, actually. i think what is remarkable about afghanistan in the last three years is the degree of unity within the alliance and among the 50 countries that contribute troops to isaf. that has persisted throughout the time i have been there and i think remains solid. when we get to chicago, we will see this is a solid coalition committed to a strategy that was agreed. in the last nato summit in lisbon, we would try gradually and over time build up the afghan security forces to
provide for the security of the country. by the end of 2014, it is the responsibility of the forces to ensure security throughout the entire country. that strategy, i think, has been proven to work. we will get together in chicago in a few weeks where we will reaffirm the centrality of that strategy. we will announce that as things are moving on, we believe that in 2013, it will be possible for all of afghanistan to be in a situation where the afghan security forces are in the lead for security and the nato and isaf mission will slowly shift from a lead focus on combat to lead focus on supporting the afghan security forces. then over the next 2013 until the end of 2014, be in a position to ensure that
afghanistan will be secured by afghan forces rather than by international forces. that's a strategy i think every country is committed. so far, no one has left. we are committed to an in-together/out-together strategy. some have decided to change focus from combat to training. that is their decision. we accept that. for now, i think we will get to chicago fully committed to the strategy and united and implementing. >> you would also be optimistic there won't be any french troop withdrawals beyond the ones that are different from what has been forecast by sarkozy? >> we will have to await to see how a new french government will relate to that. i do think french troops will remain in afghanistan until the end of 2014. >> combat troops?
>> we'll see. remember the dutch don't have combat troops. the canadians don't have combat troops. they make important contributions by training the afghan forces. there are many jobs to be done in afghanistan. individual countries will make decisions of how they want to contribute. they need to and are committed to the strategy we have all agreed to. >> let me turn you to other news today. vladimir putin took office in moscow. among the things he said was that russia will also seek a predictable relationship with the united states. will adhere to the nuclear arms treaty and push the guarantees that the missile shield in europe will not be directed against russia. is that something that he wants in writing or is that a trust, but verify type of thing?
what does that mean? >> we had a discussion with russia since lisbon where the nato allies agreed for the first time to deploy a nato territory al defense missile system to provide protection for nato terrorists and forces against the growing ballistic missile threat from outside europe. that was not directed at russia nor were the systems that were going to be deployed capable of undermining with russia or undermine the nuclear deterrent of russia. we have been saying this for three years. we are more than happy to put it in writing because we have already done so. we will be happy to do it in the future. russia -- the second thing we
did in lisbon was invite russia to cooperate with us on defense missile that could be used as separate systems to cooperate and be combined to provide a better defense to nato and russia against the growing ballistic missile threat. we have been in discussions for the last 18 months with the russi russians. they continue. they are, frankly, not moving forward because of a russian demand that guarantees be legally binding. not only the guarantee that it is directed against russia, but objective criteria and limits, therefore on the nature of the system we would be deploying to provide those guarantees. we have made very clear that since the system is not designed or directed against russia, it makes very little sense for us to have a legally binding
agreement with russia and the limits of the capability on that system that have nothing to do with russia, but have to do with the threat we are facing. what we made clear is if we sit together and cooperate together, they could find over time, that in fact our system is not designed to deal with the russian threat. and through the kinds of confidence-building measures and cooperation we could engage in, could make clear that they don't need a guarantee because they can see for themselves that the system is not capable of undermining their strategic deterrent. that discussion is ongoing. we are willing to continue that discussion and hopefully one day we will hope to convince them. >> how do you feel about it is repeated today? >> it is the standard russian line. we will see it before. in the meantime, we are continuing with the deployment of the system. we will announce in chicago that a nato will have reached an
interim capability that will have agreed to the tools to enable nato to command and take control of the ballistic missile capabilities that the united states and other countries provide. we think the threat warrants that kind of system. anybody who looks at what is the threat from the middle east is like, that is growing and not getting any less, will know that this is a response that is necessary as well as all the other steps we're trying to take to reduce that threat. >> when president obama had the open mic situation with medvedev a couple of months ago, he talked about flexibility after the election. what did that mean? >> you would have to ask him. [ laughter ] >> you talked to him about that, i'm sure. >> i think what he was reflecting was the reality that
the last six months of the presidential campaign usually aren't the easiest to have serious international negotiatio negotiations, particularly those that are politically sensitive. that was just a truism. that is recognized by the russians and recognized by us. we have committed to continue the dialogue which is continuing right now with the political level and over time, maybe focused on the technical level until such time the political situation allows a more thorough discussion about these issues. >> well the russians are not going to be in chicago. i want to ask you about other countries that are not going to be there. the whole group, as you know, smaller european states that want in under the open-door policy. as far as i can tell, enlargement is not on the table.
and i was wondering where these expansion possibilities stand for countries like bosnia and macedonia and serbia and georgia and kosovo. where does that stand? >> of the list, there are four countries that have declared they would like to become members of nato. bosnia, macedonia and georgia. all four will be in chicago because all four are contributors of the mission in afghanistan. we, from the united states perspective, and i think i can speak for the other 27 allies, remain committed to an open door under article 10 of the washington treaty, we can have membership of the european member states whose membership in nato can contribute to the treaty. these four countries declared they would like to be members of
nato. we are working actively with them. we as nato and we as the united states, to foster these circumstances and ability for them to become members, sooner rather than later. the time is not yet for various reasons and each country is unique and each country will have to be dealt with separately. the time will not be yet in chicago for them to be invited. either because there remain differences with other member states. in the case of macedonia, we remain committed as soon as the satisfactory issue of the name has been resolved with greece. we are working hard with montenegra and bosnia to resolve internal issues. we work with georgia on a day-to-day basis.
georgia will, by october, be the largest non-nato contributor to isaf. remarkable of over 1,700 troops. not just in the north and west, but south in hellmond province. georgia has an election later this year. we will work to ensure those are democratic elections. and that, too, will be another step on the road to membership, which won't happen in chicago, but we are committed to have happen as soon as possible. >> thank you. one of the themes of the major theme of the election was this approach of a less austere approach to the economic crisis. i was wondering whether there is a sense that that could also have some affect on defense spending. not with the french, probably, but perhaps with others in terms
of loosening some of the restrictions on the nato defense budgets. >> austerity hasn't been good for defense spending. i think that is true. some say austerity hasn't been good for a lot of things. it certainly hasn't been good for defense spending. i don't see loosening the austerity constraints that currently exist will now lead to a massive increase in european defense spending. it is clear we need more defense spending. if you look at just at two statistics. a decade ago, europe still spent 50% of the total amount that nato spends on defense. even today, after the cuts of the united states, 70% of u.s. spending and 30% -- part of it is because the united states expanded the defense spending in the last decade, but the other part is europe has been cutting.
there will come a time when if you continue that operate together in military operations becomes so constrained, that -- that there is a real need to start thinking about how do we meet the ability of the europeans to -- to be -- good partners, strong partners as we saw in libya. they can be. but continue to be open in the future. that will require not only spending more, but it also will require europeans to spending better and smarter. one of the issues and initiatives that secretary-general rasmussen has been pushing a notion of having what he calls smart defense, having europeans working together to appropriate cure
critical capabilities that alone they couldn't afford but together that they could. we will encourage all europeans to dupe more of that so that even if they don't spend necessarily more in dollars or euros or cronin or whatever it is they're spending, the output of that spending will be larger and better. >> you've talked and written about how effective the nato campaign in libya was, how many lives it saved for those who were trapped in the struggle. as you also know, the "new york times" reported last month on a lengthy confidential postaction nato report that highlighted just how poorly and staffed are many of the nato allies and that they would basically have been unable to sustain combat operations for very long, even against such a weak opponent as the libyans were without very crucial u.s. assistance in a whole range of basic contemporary warfare and smart
weapons, intelligence gathering, aerial refueling. that story really does make one wonder about the real world, military capabilities of nato. if against a weak opponent like that they were really all the shortcomings. was there a reaction to it? >> no, actually, first, of course, i can't comment on classified reports, but what i can do is point people to reading the foreign affairs article that i wrote with jim stravidus, the supreme allied commander in europe, which said most the same thing. so in that sense it's not surprising. we -- there's two pars to the european contribution in libya. there's a good news story and there's a not-so-good news
story. good news story is that the europeans led by president sarkozy and prime minister cameron decided to take the lead in much of the military campaign, including in particular in the military -- in the bombing campaign in libya. the statistic that we cite in the foreign affairs article that, that really point, makes that clear is in the kosovo war, 90% of all precision-guided missiles dropped on serbia and kosovo were american. 10% were european. in the libyan war, it was exactly the opposite. 90% was european. 10% was american. that said, there were critical capabilities, these gaps that i mentioned before, that were exposed by the libyan war. most importantly, intelligence surveillance, reconnaissance, where between 70%, 80% of the isr effect was provided by the united states.
aerial refueling were 75% of the aerial -- of the tankers were flown by the united states. the capability to do strategic targeting, precision-guided targeting to take the information you get and turn that into precise targets that was necessary to have a low-casualty, kind of low-collateral damage kind of strategic bombing campaign that we saw in libya was provided by the united states. so it exposed those weaknesses. the good news is that as a result of libya, the europeans are now trying to focus on how to close down these gaps. so in chicago we will sign an agreement where 13 nations will procure what's called the alliance ground surveillance system. five most advanced kind of drones that will provide the capability that was so evident
in libya, we need it to have radar capability, look what's going on on the ground, which will be procured by 13 nations and will be owned and operated by nato. aerial refueling. the europeans have decided within the european union they need to invest the capabilities to bring these at the same times together and do more. there is a lesson learned here. and that's in fact reported in "the new york times" was a lessons-learned report. it exposed the problems that existed within nato, and we're now addressing them by making the investments in those kinds of activities that are particularly important and the shortfalls that were demonstrated to start to fill that and overcome these gaps. >> is that reason why -- i mean, the current shortcomings. is that a reason why nato has not been involved in the syrian operation in the sense that it would have to be -- the united states is a much more formidable
opponent there, and the united states would have to be more involved? just in terms of capabilities. >> the reality is that syria is a very different kind of situation than libya both in terms of the military capability that is there and, therefore, would require a very different kind of engagement. but that isn't the main reason. the main reason is that there is no legal basis right now for a foreign intervention, which was -- which did exist in libya and would be important for nato as 28 countries to come to consensus to act. there is no desire within the region for foreign intervention. quite to the contrary, the arab league has made clear that this is not something that they seek at this time. again, in the libya case, the arab league was the body that asked for the u.n. to impose a no-fly zone.
those are two fundamental reasons and one of the elemental reasons of why american democracies, which operate on the basis of consensus, would find it at the moment difficult is if not impossible to have the consensus possible to endure. >> okay. we're going to now invite audience members to join in the is cushion. let me get the ground rules out first. please wait for the microphone, speak directly into it, stand up, state your name, tell us your affiliation, and keep your questions and comments concise so we can get as many as possible. yes, sir? wait for the mike. >> thank you very much, josh rogan, "foreign policy magazine." thank you for taking the time and thank you for your service. i wanted to ask you about your mentioning of an announcement in chicago about interim milestones
towards the 2014 full transfer of power over to afghan hands as per the lisbon treaty. i'm wondering, is that the same announcement that defense secretary leon panetta made on the plane to brussels in february and then clarified at the munich security conference? we were told that announcement by leon panetta in february was made because he accidentally read his internal talking points instead of the press points to the reporters on the plane. and i guess i'm wondering since that -- if that announcement was scheduled for chicago before secretary panetta accidentally blurted it out, i'm wondering if that's going to be the same thing or something different or you're going to add meat to the bone or is it going to be something new and if it's new, what's new besides what we already heard? thank you. >> this history of when, how,
what i will leave to the historians to dig out of. but as the president said at bagram air base, as he said in his press conference with prime minister cameron when prime minister cameron was here, we are committed to the strategy that we adopted in lisbon, which was to have a transition starting in 2011, complete it by the end of 2014, in which afghan forces would over time take more and more responsibility for security so that by the end of 2014 they would be fully responsible for security throughout the country. in 2013 there will come a period where the afghans will have lead responsibility throughout the country for security, at which point we will shift the main focus, the main effort of the nato and isaf contribution from combat to support, as the president also announced in june of 2011 that we would do.