tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 24, 2016 2:00am-4:01am EDT
senator kaine: my parents, al and kathy, and they are alive and healthy, and they are happy today, 81 years old, alive, healthy and happy. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: they taught me early lessons that have guided my life, the importance of hard work, of faith and kindness, of following your dreams. my mom once told me, and i will say this. she wasn't much of a lecturer. she just kind of liked to live, and then we were supposed to follow the example, but she once told me this. "tim, you have to decide whether you want to be right or you want to do right. if you want to be right, go ahead and be a pessimist, but if you want to do right, be an optimist." and, folks, i've been an optimist ever since. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: i went to a -- i went to a jesuit boys' school, rockhurst high school in kansas city. >> whoo! senator kaine: and -- all right, some jesuits in the house.
i like that. i like that. [laughter] senator kaine: the motto of my school, this boys' school, was "men for others," and that was the -- that was what we were taught. and that is where my faith, which had important to me because of my parents' example, really grew into something more viable. it became like my north star, the organizing principle for what i wanted to do. even as a young man, because of these great teachers i had and because of my parents' example, i knew that i wanted to do something to devote myself to social justice. and that is why after racing through the university of missouri in three years and starting at harvard law school, i decided to take a year off from school to volunteer with jesuit missionaries in honduras. [speaking spanish] hay hondurenos aqui? hay hondurenos aqui? ok, un poquito, si. [applause] senator kaine: well, when i got to honduras, it turned out that my recently acquired knowledge of constitutional law was pretty useless. [laughter] senator kaine: but the experience of working in my
dad's ironworking shop was actually kind of helpful, so i taught teenagers the basics of carpentry and welding, and they helped me learn spanish, and i tell you -- [applause] senator kaine: my -- my time in honduras changed my life in so many ways. [speaking spanish] aprendi -- aprendi los valores de mi pueblo. fe, familia, y trabajo. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: [speaking spanish] fe, familia, y trabajo. los mismos valores de la comunidad latina aqui en nuestro pais, verdad? [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and here's -- here's something that really stuck with me. i got a firsthand look at a system. this was 1980 and 1981. a dictatorship, where few folks at the top had all of the power, and everybody else got left
behind, and it convinced me that we've got to advance opportunity and equality for everybody, no matter where they come from, how much money they have, what they look like, what accent they have, or who they love. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: in -- in 1970, a republican governor of virginia, linwood holton, believed exactly the same thing. he integrated virginia's public schools after the state had fought for 16 years after brown v. board to keep them segregated. [applause] senator kaine: now in 1970 in virginia, that took political courage, and then he and his wife went even further. they enrolled their own kids, including their daughter, anne, in integrated schools, and it sent a strong signal to the people of virginia that their governor wasn't going to back down, wasn't going to take half
steps, or wasn't going to make rules for others that he would not follow for himself. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: so many years later, that young girl, anne, went to princeton, went to harvard law school, guided by her experience since a youngster in the first generation of integrated virginia schools, and one day in a study group, she met this kind of nerdy guy who had been off teaching kids in honduras. anne and i got married 32 years ago at st. elizabeth's catholic church in the highland park neighborhood of richmond, virginia. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: that is -- that's the parish that we still belong to today. hey, st. e.'s folks. i hope you're watching. we will be there at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. [laughter] senator kaine: marrying anne was and remains the best decision of my life.
[cheers and applause] senator kaine: and -- am i right? am i right? [laughter] senator kaine: and it turns out, she actually learned negotiation a lot better than i did in law school, which is how a kansas city kid ended up in virginia, so -- [laughter] senator kaine: anne and i settled down. we started a family, and we sent our kids -- we sent our kids to those same public schools that her father had opened up to everybody. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: including -- including one school that i helped get built when i was mayor that our school board named the linwood holton elementary school. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: how cool -- how cool was it to see our three kids head out the door with their backpacks on and to walk to a neighborhood school named after their civil-rights hero grandfather? >> whoo!
senator kaine: now -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: lin's example helped inspire me to work as a civil-rights lawyer, representing people who had been turned away from housing either because of the color of their skin or because they were an american with a disability, and this was my civil-rights work for 17 years. i brought dozens of lawsuits when i was in private practice, battling banks, landlords, real-estate firms, insurance companies, and even local governments that had treated people unfairly. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: in 1998, i won an historic verdict against a national insurance company because they had been redlining minority neighborhoods, treating them unfairly in the issuance of homeowners insurance. at the time i won that case, it was the biggest jury verdict ever in a civil-rights case in american history. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: i like to fight
for right! i like to fight for right! [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and i found myself going to city council meetings in richmond to raise the issues that i was dealing with everyday on behalf of my clients, but i was frustrated at the division and infighting, and so, in 1994, i did something that seemed even crazier than what i am doing now. [laughter] senator kaine: i decided to run for local office. man, i was so scared the day i announced, but i wanted to help my city and my community. i knocked on every door in my district. i won my first race beating an incumbent by 94 votes, the first of many nailbiters and squeakers i've had since then. [laughter] senator kaine: and as i've often said, if i'm good at anything in public life, it's good because i started at the local level, listening to people, learning about their lives, and trying to find consensus to solve problems.
[cheers and applause] senator kaine: in the -- in the years that followed, i became mayor of richmond. i was elected lieutenant governor of virginia, and in 2006, i became the 70th governor of the commonwealth of virginia, when -- when we moved into the governor's mansion after the inauguration, my wife became the only person who had ever lived there first as a child and then as an adult. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: we had to make -- we had to make tough decisions when i was in office, because it was the deepest recession since the 1930's, but that didn't stop us from expanding early-childhood education, from building more classrooms and facilities on our college campuses so more could go to school, because we knew that education was a key to everything we wanted to achieve as a state, and it's the key to
everything we want to achieve as a nation. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: we -- we invested in open-space preservation and cleaning up the chesapeake bay because our kids and grandkids deserve to enjoy the beautiful commonwealth that we love, just like you love the beauty of your sunshine state. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and we achieved national recognition for our work in tough times. when i was governor of virginia, best managed state in america, best state for a child to have a successful life, best state for business, one of the lowest unemployment rates, one of the highest bond ratings, one of the highest family incomes. we did that during tough times, and so -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: so, today, i am proud to carry that work forward as a virginia senator, serving on the armed services, foreign relations, and budget committees. they actually just added me to
the aging committee, too. i don't know why they would have done that. [laughter] senator kaine: i'm proud to support my wife's public service. she has been a legal-aid lawyer, juvenile court judge, foster-care reformer, and now she's secretary of education for the commonwealth of virginia. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and -- and anne and i are both so proud of our great commonwealth and of our great nation, and isn't it great already? >> [crowd replies, "yes!"] senator kaine: i mean, isn't it great already? [cheers and applause] senator kaine: what a great country. you know, i -- as i look back over these experiences, what i have learned is that god has created a rich and beautiful tapestry in this country. it is a -- it is a rainbow of cultural diversity that embraces all people -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: regardless of their race or economic status, regardless of their religion or
their gender, regardless of their sexual orientation or where they're from. we've got this beautiful country that should be a country of welcome, that should be a country of inclusion, and i know that that is a fundamental value that hillary clinton shares. you know -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: [speaking spanish] soy catolico, soy catolico. i am a catholic, and hillary is a methodist, but, i tell you, her creed is the same as mine, "do all the good that you can." pretty simple. do all the good that you can. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: measure your life by the positive effect you can have on other people's lives. be of service to one another. now, that's a notion that
americans of every faith tradition and every moral tradition believe in, and it's a message that hillary clinton has taken to heart for her entire life, for her entire life. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: fighting for -- fighting for children and families, like when she was first lady. after she tried, and a recalcitrant congress blocked her in the big advance that we needed on health-care reform, she said, "you know what? i am not stopping. if we can't get it all, can we pass a program to provide health insurance to 8 million more american children?" and that's what she did. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and that's what she did. that's who she fought for. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: fighting for -- fighting for equal rights for african-americans, for latinos, for people with disabilities, for lgbt americans. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, fighting tenaciously to make sure the 9/11 first responders in new york and other localities would
get health benefits. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: now, there are an awful lot of people, an awful lot of people, who have put their trust and their faith in hillary, and she's always, she's always, delivered for them, from working with the children's defense fund to first lady of arkansas to first lady of the united states, to senator, to secretary of state. she has always delivered. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and -- >> hillary! hillary! hillary! hillary! hillary! hillary! senator kaine: and you know what? here's something you can tell about a great leader. she not only delivers in the easy times or the simple times. she delivers in the tough times, and she even delivers when she is on the receiving and of one
attack after another. she never backs down. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: she never backs down. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: hillary -- hillary, whatever the -- whatever the drama, whatever the attack, whatever the situation, stays focused on what matters, helping people. that's -- that's what keeps her going. so here's how hillary and i are going to continue that work with a strong, progressive agenda. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: we're -- we're going to make the american economy work for everybody, not just those at the top, not just those at the top, and we'll do that -- we'll do that by making the largest investment in good-paying jobs since world war ii. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: we will make college debt-free for everybody.
[cheers and applause] senator kaine: we will rewrite the rules so that companies share their profits with workers rather than shift jobs overseas. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and we'll make sure that wall street, corporations, and the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and while we're on the subject of taxes, where are donald trump's tax returns? [booing] senator kaine: raise your hand if you think those returns would show that he has paid his fair share of taxes. i do not see a lot of hands. we're going to fight for paid family leave, equal pay for women, and raising the minimum wage to a living wage.
[cheers and applause] senator kaine: to keep families together, to keep families together, and to bring them out of the shadows in our administration, in our first 100 days, we'll put forward a comprehensive immigration-reform package that includes a path to citizenship. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: [speaking spanish] i will encourage you -- if you haven't done this, go to a naturalization service, where people are becoming u.s. citizens. it is -- how many of you -- raise your hand if you have been
a naturalized citizen. if you -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: yeah. wow. thanks for choosing us. thanks for choosing us. if you haven't -- if you haven't been to one of those services, it's going to be one of the most powerful things you'll ever see. often, after the oath is taken, there's an open mic, and people get to just walk up and say, "here is why i decided that i wanted to become a citizen of the united states," and it will just bring tears to your eyes and a smile to your face when you hear what these people think about the greatness of the united states of america. [cheers and applause] >> usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! senator kaine: and -- and when you -- and when you go to one of these naturalization services, and you see the people's desire to join this great country, you
will -- you'll basically have this pretty amazing thought. [speaking spanish] cualquier persona que ame tanto a los estados unidos, merece estar aqui. senator kaine: anybody who loves america this much deserves to be here, deserves to be here. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: now, there is one last part of hillary's plan that means a lot to me personally, that -- that kind of -- kind of emotional for me, and i bet is emotional for you, how to stem the epidemic of gun violence that kills 33,000 americans every year. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: as governor during one of the most horrible shootings in america's history, this issue is very close to my heart, very close to my heart, and i know that many of you here feel exactly the same way after that tragic shooting in orlando in june.
[cheers and applause] senator kaine: we can do better, folks. we can do better. it was in -- it was in april of 2007, about halfway through my time as governor. i had just arrived in japan on a trade mission to bring jobs back to virginia, had checked into the hotel room, had fallen asleep, when the knock came at my door, and the head of my security detail said, "governor, you've got to turn on the tv. we're going to get on the phone. there's a horrible shooting underway at virginia tech, this wonderful college in blacksburg, virginia, and as jetlagged as i was and just arrived, i said, "take me back to the airport. i'm getting the first plane home." it was 14 hours over. it was 14 hours back. and i walked onto that campus -- [applause] senator kaine: jetlagged and in the wrong time zone, but i knew that, you know, as a leader, even though i didn't have any magic words to say that would take away the horror of the tragedy, i had to bring comfort in some way to the families of
those who had been killed, to the students and professors who had been injured, and also to the first responders who had been there to help them. this -- this -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: april 16, 2007, that was the worst day of my life. it was the worst day of so many people's lives, and for the parents and the loved ones of those kids and professors, that pain never goes away. precious 17-year-olds, a 70-plus-year-old, lithuanian-born holocaust survivor, who was a teacher, who could survive the holocaust, who could survive the soviet takeover of his country, but who fell victim to gun violence because he blocked the door and told his students to climb out
the window as his body was being riddled with bullets, survived the holocaust, survived the soviet takeover of your country, and fall victim in blacksburg, virginia, to the horror of american gun violence? so when the vast majority of americans and even a majority of nra members agree that we have to adopt commonsense gun safety measures, hillary and i will not rest. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: we'll not rest! [cheers and applause] senator kaine: we will not rest. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: until -- [cheers and applause] >> usa! senator kaine: we will not rest. >> hillary! hillary! hillary! senator kaine: we won't rest -- we won't rest until we get universal background checks and close loopholes that put guns in the hands of criminals, terrorists, and dangerous people who should not have them.
it's so easy. the american public wants it. gun owners want it. the nra members want it. we will not rest. now, folks, i know the nra. they are headquartered in my state, in virginia. they campaigned against me in every statewide race that i've ever run, but i have never lost an election. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: i've never lost an election. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: i don't mind. i don't mind powerful groups campaigning against me. that just is like an extra cup of coffee to me, folks. it just gets me more excited. i am 8-0, and i promise you. i'm not about to let that change. especially -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: especially when donald trump stands in the way of progress on every single one of these issues -- [booing] senator kaine: that hillary has laid out as core to her campaign. so now i'm going to wrap this up with three easy questions.
we're at a university. i can give you a test, right? >> [crowd responds, "yes"] senator kaine: i can give a test. these are three questions to ask yourselves. one, do you want a "you're fired" president, or a "you're hired" president? [cheers and applause] senator kaine: of course, you want a "you're hired" president. donald trump is the "you're fired" guy. that's what he's known for, and when this whole campaign is done, and everybody's forgotten it, the one thing they will remember about donald trump is "you're fired." [cheers and applause] senator kaine: bankrupting companies, shifting jobs overseas, stiffing contractors, being against federal minimum wage, being against equal pay for equal work. he is the "you're fired" guy. hey, we've got a "you're hired" president. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: a "you're hired" president. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: let's do -- let's do debt-free college so people can have skills. let's build bridges and roads and airports and ports so people can have jobs.
let's go for equal pay. let's raise the minimum wage. let's bring back the dignity and respect to work. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: a "you're hired" president. all right, you are 1-1. mrs. clinton: [laughs] senator kaine: question number two. do you want a trash-talking president or a bridge-building president? >> [crowd responds, "bridge building!"] senator kaine: of course, you do. donald trump trash talks folks with disabilities, trash talks -- [booing] senator kaine: trash talks -- trash talks mexican americans and latinos, whether they're new immigrants -- [booing] senator kaine: or governors or federal judges. trash talks women, trash talks our allies, calls the military "a disaster." [booing] senator kaine: oh, you're right. he doesn't trash talk everybody. he likes vladimir putin. you're right. [laughter] senator kaine: let's get that straight. but this is a bridge-builder president. as -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: as a --
as a member of the armed services committee, built great ties with our military and military families, as a secretary of state made history, building our relationships around the world and putting central to u.s. foreign policy the treatment of children around the world. she's a bridge builder, and that's what we need. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: and last -- all right. all right, florida international, you are 2-2. do you want a me-first president or a kids-and-families-first president? >> [crowd responds, "kids and families!"] senator kaine: of course. [applause] senator kaine: with donald trump, it's "me first." "i'm not showing you my tax returns." "i'm going to run a university that will take people's money and rip them off." [booing] senator kaine: when -- donald trump was in britain when they cast the brexit vote to leave the eu, and as the british pound, their unit of currency, was getting pummeled, he said, "hey, this could be good news for my golf course." "me first." [booing]
senator kaine: but we've got a -- but we've got a kids-and-families-first president. [cheers and applause] senator kaine: who from -- who from her earliest days has been -- i will tell you something. i will give you a secret about those of us in politics. if you want to try to judge the character of somebody in politics, i'll tell you how to do it, and it's really simple. look at their life and see if they have a passion in their life that they had long before they got into politics, a passion that's not about themselves, a passion that's about somebody else, and then see if they have held onto that passion through thick or thin, in good times or bad, whether winning elections or losing elections, come hell or high water, look to see if they have a passion that's about somebody else, and look to see whether they've held onto it all the time, and that is character, and
that is our "kids and families first" hillary clinton! [cheers and applause] >> hillary! hillary! hillary! hillary! senator kaine: all right. when i -- when i was a kid growing up, my favorite president was another kansas city guy, harry truman. great democratic president, great democratic president. and let me tell you something that harry truman said that could've been written five minutes ago. he said it in the late 1940's, and it is so well put. america was not built on fear. america was built on courage, on imagination, and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. let me tell you that one again.
america was not built on fear! [cheers and applause] senator kaine: america was not built on fear. it was built on courage, on imagination, and on an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. friends, hillary clinton -- [cheers and applause] senator kaine: hillary clinton is filled with that courage. that imagination. and that unbeatable determination. and that's why we trust her to fight for all americans. that's why i am with her. that's why i am with her. are you with her? >> [crowd shouts, "yes!"] senator kaine: that's why we're with her. that's why we're with her. these are tough times for many in our country, but we're tough people. and that's something else i learned from my folks. tough times don't last, but tough people do. and they don't come any tougher or any more compassionate than
hillary clinton, so let's go make history, and elect hillary clinton the 45th president of the united states! [cheers and applause] ♪ >> ♪ listen, baby ain't no mountain high ain't no valley low ain't no river wide enough, baby ♪ >> ♪ if you need me, call me no matter where you are no matter how far just call out my name i'll be there in a hurry you don't have to worry ♪ >> ♪ 'cause, baby ain't no mountain high enough ain't no valley low enough ain't no river wide enough to keep me away from you ♪ >> ♪ remember the day i set you free i told you you could always count on me,
darling and from that day on, i made a vow i'll be there when you want me somehow ♪ >> ♪ ain't no mountain high enough ain't no valley low enough ain't no river wide enough to keep me from getting to you, babe ♪ >> ♪ no wind, no rain >> ♪ i will be there on the go >> ♪ my love is alive way down in my heart though we are far apart ♪ there ain't no mountain high
enough ain't no river wide enough to keep me from getting to you ain't no mountain high enough ain't no valley low enough ain't no river wide enough don't you know that there ain't no mountain high enough ain't no valley low enough eight no river wide enough ♪ ♪ >> one day before the start of convention in philadelphia, here is what we
are covering tomorrow. a news conference with a group of democratic delegates who support bernie sanders. later, they talk about their preparations for hosting the dnc. the chairman of the rnc will be in philadelphia along with donald trump extra campaign chair, paul metaphor. -- paul mannafort. after that a group of journalists talk about their experiences covering the campaign. that is live tomorrow on c-span. it's the first time in our nation's history that a woman will be a major party nominee. >> at the democratic national convention in philadelphia, hillary clinton becomes the first woman nominee for a major political party for president of the united states. live coverage for every minute
of this historic convention begins monday on c-span, the c-span radio app, and c-span.org. >> british defense secretary testified before a house of commons on the conclusion of the nato summit. this is almost two hours. >> good morning, everybody, welcome to this special session of the defense committee considering the 2016 nato summit and the lessons of the chilcote inquiry. welcome to the secretary of state. congratulations on your reconfirmation in your post and
good to the other two guests care to introduce themselves for the record, vice chief? >> general, vice chief of defense. >> peter, director tbem of security. >> thank you very much. indeed. the first question in our first section, which is on the nato summit, comes from ruth smith. >> good morning. it's been a busy few weeks but i wonder if you can outline the new developments that came out of the warsaw summit in terms of our security and that of nato. . >> thank you very much, chairman. this was a successful summit, an opportunity to show british leadership and we made progress on further nato reform and cooperation between nato and the european union. in terms of unity and cohesion we agreed a clear posture on
defense and deterrence that embraces nato's position not simply east but the south. we demonstrated british leadership, of course, by recording our achievement of 2% of a gain of 2% gdp to defense. we noted that i think 18% members of the alliance are now increasing their defense expenditure. we were one of the four countries to commit to leader battalion and arms force presence and agreed to deploy in three baltic states including poland, should we play a leadership role in that and we have -- we saw some success in what we have been encouraging for some time.
further nato work on kinder and hybrid warfare and loser cooperation and it's a key point to the community, between nato and the european union. so this was a successful summit for britain and more important successful submit for the alliance as a whole. >> thank you. >> in summit and challenge to nato posed by russia, you would be west secretary of state but we have just completed our report on russia, you indicated sense of security which stropgly advises an increase understanding with russia and the uk. now, we used to have the soviet study research center that later became the conflict research center. are you considering increasing
-- reinstating such a center. are you considering increasing our understanding russia's defense and security posture? >> well, generally, yes, it was seen in your report. we are looking hard now, but we have improved our understanding of russia, both through our work in russia itself and at home. in russia itself as you will know there being difficulties in bringing the defense section of the industry up to full strength, but working hard to restore that full strength which improves our understanding of russian military but also, of course, helps to underpin a
better relationship between the two militaries. at home, we are looking again at -- at your report particularly focused on this, the number of russian speakers, the number of people we have specializing in intelligence on russia, i can't commit to restoring the center that there was, but you certainly are seeing increased emphasis on russia and analysis generally. may i remove my jacket? >> by all means, yes. >> perhaps if i could just . answer that. >> i think we have said before in the previous session we have considerably considered staff working on russia. we've increased the number of staff and defense intelligence and through organizations like the development concepts and doctrines center and the defense academy and so on, we seek to
increase the access that we have to academic experts and there are a number of particular organizations and individuals in london and elsewhere with whom we are actively engaged. >> can i ask about the assessment center and what's put into that center, is that going to be increased or are you looking at that how to expand russia expand capability? >> the assessment group which used to exist and a long story, you mentioned the soviet research center which became the conflict -- >> i did. >> which become the advance
research and assessment group which was expanded some time ago and as i said in previous, the work that used to be done in that group was done by various organizations so it's more diversity, if you'd like, in giving us more access to a greater input and so on, but, no, we are not plan to go reestablish it. >> before you move onto that subject, can i just check on this point. now, russia has famously been described as a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma, and that does suggest that you really do need a unit or a team of dedicated experts, and that's apparently what you used to have and it's perfectly understandable, but as russia went down in priorities and concerns after 1991 that you broke it up, but russia is now risen back up distinctly and why don't you talk about having its functions distributed around other parts of the defense establishment. is it not time to do a serious study as to whether a dedicated unit of russia experts shouldn't be reconstituted. >> focuses on russia and the
immediately surrounding countries. as i said, we would strengthen the staff in the defense intelligence area, the unit that you refer so didn't used to solely focused on russia. russia was one of its members active in publications and so on. it wasn't purely russia. so my view would be that the arrangements that we have now give us the depth across policy, intelligence and outreach to academia. >> how many staff does this have? >> well, it's growing over time and i think it's about 15 at the home -- moment. >> 15? >> 1-5, yeah. >> how many would be russia specialists? >> what we are seeking to do is to make sure that we make the best use of our specialism,
specialisms so, for example, recent attack in moscow has come back to lead the team dealing with russia inside that unit. we are making best use of the knowledge and experience. >> thank you very much. >> i think it's certainly said to say, we've been caught napping on russia and our understanding, wholecredibility -- caught napping on russia and our understanding, our intelligengce, our whole capability of russia has been left for far too long. i think what the community is saying is that all we are doing -- with the unit we have about
15, the nato russian specialist is becoming increasingly urgent and i just a little worried that replies that i'm getting suggest that the committee is not reflected, can we have some assurance that there is a recognition that there's an urgent need to have that wider and greater understanding of what russia is thinking and why it is acting the way that it is doing. we were certainly caught over ukraine in crimea. >> let me give you that assurance. we need to do more in russia but we are doing more. we are building our capability and our own standing and i certainly -- there's more to be done to continue to focus on what russia's aspirations are
and to better understand how it's likely russia -- russia is likely to react and what its next moves are at home and near abroad and, indeed, in the middle east. >> then what do you expect russia's response both politically and militarily? how severe would implications for security for baltics? do we know, do we have any idea how they're responding? >> russia's reaction has been relatively restraiped but it may not be complete yet. maybe more to come. there's been a meeting of the
nato-russia councils since the summit which i hope help to explain to russia the posture of nato and russia's reaction began in response to previous announcements and in response to the completion of the ballistic missile site in romania back in may. so so far, the reaction has been relatively restraint but there may be more to come. >> thank you very much.
>> just a question, secretary, presumably the expert, what experts we've got link across security forces and are are away across old methods of gaining information intelligence or whatever on russia with the security services, gchq and cbi, my real question is this policy or intelligence these people doing? >> this is much more joined up than we used to do. there are much better links. much closer worker between us and the agencies.
>> well, to answer your question some is actually within my policy staff that have always been some russia experts in area, both strengthen and those the defense secretary says they are extremely and between my staff and experts in office and staff across the globe. >> that's the reassurance i want. >> the russian language courses. i think there's dedicated staff. [inaudible] >> does that take into consideration that the massive cost that you have, not just the issues of language courses and media, twitter, well it be stopped for tv interviews, where it needs to be in russia, the big question, mr. chairman, you know, when it comes to our role, what are the number one issues, is it russia, is it iraq, is it syria? where is the number one priority? >> if i could answer your first question, clearly the staff in
the units are military and personnel and civil servants so they are subject to the normal rules about dealing with the media and so on. so they would not normally speak to the media. but many of the academic experts that we talk to, we share much of the analysis with them and grow analysis from their work. it's clearly developments for russia itself which we discussed in press sessions such as the formation of the national guard and things like that. russia's activities in its immediate neighbor, belarus, ukraine or whatever, russia is very active at the moment in syria. so we are -- and the other thing just so don't you think we are taking our eye, they are looking at russia in asia pacific. we are looking at all aspects of
russian behavior. >> i think it's very welcome mod is using officials in this way but i think committee still feels that there is a role, more independent group of actual experts rather than clever officials who are gaining expertise as they go allot, experts who could actually challenge the orthodoxy that might be prevailing but i think we've got to move on now and so i want to ask douglas to talk about the vocational format that's being put forward for the baltic states. >> thanks very much. mr. chairman, madeline touched on some of the reaction from russia and b obviously russia does not accept that. how are you and how well are you prepared for the rush response for the four new battalions? you want me to repeat the question?
>> please. >> following from madeline's question about the format of the four battalions and how nato claimed that that does not violate the nato-russia act but russia is not accepting that position and how are you going to prepare for the russian response for the four new battalions? >> first of all, very clear, the deployment of this new forward presence does not contribute the act. there's no definition in the act of substantial forces but i
don't think there's any way that you can claim that the rotation of the battalion in each of the baltic states amounts to substantial force, forces. the forces there will be rotational in each of the four nations, they are not going to exceed more than a thousand personnel and you have to set that against russia's decision back in january to form three
new divisions in the west and five new strategic nuclear missile regimes that involve tens of thousands of troops which each deployments will be less than a thousand each. i think it's also important to refer back to the -- one of the key principals of the founding act which parties must respect sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity of all states. we are deploying at the invitation and with the blessing of the government and like wise with the deployment of a company in poland. that obviously can't be said of russian activity either in the crimea or in -- or in eastern ukraine. so as far as deployment itself is concerned, we are deploying two british companies that would be enablers, we will supply as well plus headquarter element and looking to adding to that, some armored vehicles, some antitank guided missiles, various other enabling capabilities, and logistics and then we would expect the other countries that are going to add to our battalion to add on top of that companies of their own and the whole battalion to retain its presence from the spring of next year. [inaudible] >> the reactions would be perceived on the other side of the border from russian source,
but i think our committed report explains very thoroughly some of the discussions need to be had with russia going forward. can you tell us a little bit about the discussions with, for example, the russian embassador, london and direct communications you've had with your numbers -- explain what the intentions are from the summit and how we can avoid any misunderstanding, forces that we need to place there but protective force in terms of the baltic space in poland. >> sure, i don't have regular discussions with the embassador in london, nor do i have regular meetings with my opposite number in russia.
there's dialogue at the very senior level between the prime minister and the russian president and between our foreign secretary and the russian foreign administrator. the direct dialogue is conducted principally through the nato machinery and afterwards the meeting and nato-russia council on the 14th of july which covered the situation in ukraine review of the current of the situation in afghanistan, but was principally devoted and this is the essence of policy to make sure that the steps that we take
to reassure our members or to deter are fully expressed. there's total transparency in order to reduce the risk of misunderstanding or miscalculations, so at that meeting in the 13th of july the alliance explained the various measure that is were adopted. obviously there was a response from russia and a concern about this particularly positioning but, of course, we did not have a proper explanation from russia as to the three new military divisions that it was stationing on nato's flank, what we did have from russia was an openness to further dialogue on risk reduction. russia has proposed deepening the military exchanges there are between the alliance and russia including the proposal by finland that should have that
switched onto prevent any likelihood of accidents or miscalculations. and we welcome that, any russia interest in risk reduction is extremely welcome and important. but i would conclude by emphasizing that although it's important to explain to russia and it's important to keep the pressure on. >> -- russia is concerned, we are not as nato returning to business as usual in russia. what has happened in crimea and ukraine cannot be simply put aside and forgotten and shouldn't be forgotten. >> if i could just interject, i want to bring the vice chief into this and can youexplain to us please, how this rotational system will actually work in terms of the numbers, why it's a rotational system, is this to try and send a signal that there are no sort of great permanence about any particular body of troops but it's just -- would it be troops described what you're trying to do as to make it clear to russia that there is no way in which there will be able to carry out operations in any of the baltic states like what they did in ukraine?
>> on your last point the answer is explicitly yes, it's a show of solidarity, commitment to nation and those nations that feel vulnerable to exactly that sort of threat. we are describing it as a persistent presence and as you say, we are rotating forces around. we think that is the best way to demonstrate solidarity. we are not doing this simply as a show of military force, we are doing this in a way to extract benefits by working with allies and improving and developing the host nation's capabilities as well as our own. so there are all sorts of reasons. >> thank you very much. carry on. >> sometimes nato and obviously
openly expansion of organization, but what would be the effect of montenegro to nato membership and what do they actually bring to the table and from your point of view, what would be the potential concerns? >> well, i wouldn't describe as nato as openly expansionist, we have always made it clear that membership of nato remains open to those countries that can fulfill the membership criteria and the command the unanimous support of all existing members. for example, that requires unanimity. it's not nato opening the doors to any country that fancies membership. equally it's true that russia or
anybody else should have any kind of veto on nato membership, future membership for the members of nato to decide. so far as montenegro is concerned, montenegro has met criteria that are required and attended and its membership, i hope, will be completed by early october. it has to pass through this house as well as the other place and has to be ratified by the other member states including congress in -- in the united states. and it will only be complete when all 28 allies have completed that national ratification processes. you asked me what this meant, i think it does demonstrate that membership is open to those applicants that can satisfy the criteria and also, fairly
obviously sends a strong signal to the western of the alliances, the benefits the membership with the alliance can bring in terms of stability to that much troubled region. any concerns? any concerns about the montenegro? >> no, we have coldheartedly welcomed montenegro as the rest of the alliance and ratification procedures will be completed as quickly as possible. >> thank you.
>> james. >> first of all, we just touched briefly on brexit and brexit for nato and nato eu operation. [inaudible] >> but do what degree will britain's departure from the eu discussed and in what way do you think it'll affect the way nato works or the way the eu works? >> a little discussion as a result of referendum and the margins, one of the major topics and i don't think there's any secret that there was a single member of -- sing of my colleagues who would have -- who wouldn't have wished for a different result. they're all concerned about the security of our continent and they all see membership for those who are members of the european union, they always see membership in the european as complementing. the strengths of the alliance -- they always see membership in the european as complementing the strengths of the alliance itself. so far as our own opposition, in cooperation with the european union is going to remain
important to our shared security interest. those interests haven't changed and we also have a continuing interest on a closer relationship, a closer relationship between nato and the european union. it's been a long-standing. british preoccupation that these two organizations should work better together, should avoid duplicating each other where possible and should, you know, should complement each other's strengths. finally, of course, there are interlocking missions. as far as migration in the mediterranean is concern. there's a nato mission, the european union mission in the central mediterranean. they're doing the same thing -- trying to break the people smuggling models and rescue those whose lives are at risk in the sea and we are contributing navy ships to both operations.
>> presumably we will not take part of the eu operations or trade with anybody else? >> let's be clear, we remain members of the european union until the moment we leave. we will continue to participate in missions and the missions that we contributed to -- >> my question is not now. my question is once we leave the eu, i presumably -- >> well, i'm afraid what is happening now will influence opposition in the future because we participated in these missions because there's a british national interest in these missions. we don't just do it because we want to be good europeans, we have a trading interest in suppressing piracy in africa. we have a strong interest in trying to curve illegal migration from the african literal into europe.
we have an interest in these particular missions. we have invested blood as at least one member of this committee knows in bringing peace. we have an interest in making sure that eu mission is successful. >> absolutely. we won't be members of the european union, but we will have to look carefully at where the british interest in. there are already some examples of non-e.u. members participating in cstp missions. we can get you some examples i think. >> the bay says -- >> before he answers, i want to be clear about one thing. we have not set out or negotiating strategy. that is to be finalized across the government. i am not going to speculate now on whether we are going or not going to join particular cstp
missions. i make the point that we are in -- there is already a british national interest. whatever your there are not. >> just to give you one example, which is a country good i have participated in cstp. it does not inhibit our future cooperation militarily with e.u. military missions, whether in the context of nato or not. >> was not taken a decision here's the new government certainly a few days old. but there's no reason why you should have it is a luckily she bilaterally with our key allies in europe, with the northern groups, with e.u. members were members of the jet. the key alliances with france and germany. there is no reason why it should inhibit future cooperation with missions that iran are direct interested we have not taken a position on any individual miss positions at the moment. we point out that we join me thinks not just to be good europeans. there is a british interests.
agreements. that's not increasing for membership of nato. you will be lessened because we are no longer members of the e.u. presumably that means that our presence in nato will become more important. is a partnership on him and to strengthen american admin to other alliances, whether it is nato or the key relationships we have with the united states bilaterally with france and others and other multinational
relationships we have around the world participation and coalition for participation good to care and the fact that we want also to contribute to the nato alliance is made 0% kind of decent intelligence assessment. >> you are right, general stuart. there is tension between intelligence capability particularly, but those members of the feminist community bring. you know, some of the restrictions on sharing that intelligence because of the way this source, sharing it more widely.
i'm happy to report to you that the warsaw summit the summit did adopt what is called the joint intelligence survey and the initiative which would maximize the resources that the individual members of nato have and enhance the interconnectivity if i could describe it between the different intelligence systems will help improve the training and expertise that the intelligence function in each of the different member states. there are better procedures for information handling information sharing. there is quite a way to go in that as seem drawn attention to pay we did make some progress. >> as a member of the nato parliamentary assembly, i had to resist quite strongly and other british members at the demand by senator parliamentarian in the nato states to actually insist that all intelligence should be shared equally among nato members. this particularly came from countries like belgium. end quote. others were quite robust to say you must be joking. there is a dilemma here. when i served in nato, we recognize that anything classified on it took half an hour for the russian. so there is huge leakage. it's a big problem.
i just raised the matter. i am just raising that for the committee to understand the real dilemma when someone has made a secret comment that's the last bloody thing it is. sorry for the use of the language, but i've seen a bridge so many times. he met quite already. soldier talk no doubt. there is attention and there are more and are members to consider. what i want to assure you both if everybody recognizes the problems not least because of the terrorism members are facing in western europe and a problem is recognizing they have this initiative to try and position.
you have drawn attention to, but we did make some progress. >> as a member of the nato parliamentary strategy i had to resist that the demand i some other parliamentarians in the nato states to insist that all intelligence should be shared equally among nato members, particularly from countries like belgium. i and others were quite robust to say you must be joking. there is a dilemma here. when i served in nato, we recognized that anything classified on it took half an hour for the russians. so there is huge leakage. it's a big problem. i just raised the matter. i am just raising that for the committee to understand the real dilemma when someone has made a
-- when someone says "nato secret," that is the last bloody thing it is. sorry for the use of language, but i have seen it abused so many times. >> that is quite all right. soldier talk, no doubt. there is attention and there are more and are members to consider. what i want to assure you both if everybody recognizes the problems not least because of the terrorism members are facing in western europe and a problem is recognizing they have this initiative to try and position. -- to try and improve the position. >> one soldier to another. >> the office is going to spin on just the one question. warsaw summit communique states, responding to nato. it's adopted a strategy and actionable implementation plan. would you be prepared to share in some broad brush strokes what they are and potentially what
our role in that may be. >> as far as hybrid is concerned, and i think nato in and the individual allies well understand the activity that is designed to introduce uncertainty and ambiguity below the article side threshold is -- article five threshold is becoming a real issue for the allies. the lessons of ukraine have been learned. it is unlikely that the next use of hybrid tactics will be the exact same as the tactics we saw in the ukraine. it is important to develop and the alliance and agility of response to that to be able to respond next time we see these kind of tactics. the strategy of country hybrid workfare at the end of last year, there is an implementation plan.
it is now being agreed and there was a joint declaration at the warsaw summit between the nato secretary-general and president of the european council, and the president of the getting nato, and ae eu, and whether there is role of hybrid warfare, getting them to work much more closely on a coordinated approach between the two different institutions. dealing with prevention and detection and analysis and information sharing of hybrid warfare. cooperating on the response which is strategic messaging. communications. and building better resilience on the harding -- on hardening
the targets. those institutions of our state states that are most likely than -- most likely to be vulnerable to hybrid warfare. >> what is the next potential conflict in europe? >> i missed the first part. >> what is your assessment of the next region of potential conflict within europe? >> they all are. the successes of the nato summit is that we did not exclusively focus on that eastern border where significant reassurance was required and met by the deployment of enhanced forward presence as we've discussed. but we also looked in an entire -- we also looked, and an entire session was devoted to this, on some of the pressures on nato further south. there are rising tensions in at least two parts. one of the black sea region by the militarization of crimea is
causing particular concern in romania and bulgaria. countries that are not that far navalnd seeing increased activity in the black sea area. and of course in the itself where we see enhanced russian activity of -- off the coast of syria. we also see the smuggling of arms from syria along the libyan supply and the french along that coast. very much closer to the nato order. -- nato border. so there are these areas attached. i don't think it would be wise of me to start speculating to -- start speculating when the next conflict is expected to break out, but there are these pressures and it they are what the alliance recognizes.
>> the chairman would like to come in, briefly. bang --onorable [inaudible] >> there is a skeleton structure but no meat. it is lying there and not breathing. talking about intelligence and reconnaissance, i am keen to get your ideas of how to improve it. the crimea is a prime example of where it fell down. many of us feel, how effective is it? see how it can be more effective. >> it needs to be more effective, clearly. leading members of nato failed to predict what would happen in crimea and failed to predict the intensity
of the insurgency that russia fostered in the eastern ukraine. these things were not predicted accurately. so that wasn't there. the response was a little fragmented. i think that was all a wake-up call for the alliance. not only in intelligence, but getting the alliance to look hard again at itself and reverse the decline in defense spending that led to the commitments at the wales summit which led to warsaw. mr. watkins may be able to comment more specifically. >> one of the things we have been arguing for since crimea, since ukraine in 2014 is that nato needs to be calm more -- needs to become more adaptable, more flexible.
it needs to be better able to anticipate and respond to these sorts of events. that affects not just the intelligence arrangements there , but also more broadly. there has been extensive work over the last year or so on improving nato's intelligence arrangements and the initiative that the defense secretary mentioned. it is an area fraught with difficulties for regions that have laid out very eloquently already. we are pushing ahead for this and we are very determined to make it better. >> >> can i ask the vice-chief what specific assessment arrangements do you have within the military? the british and the u.k. military? do you feel in the light of the fact that it was the surprise what happened in the ukraine and crimea, that changes are
ecessary? >> i'll take us back to the first question about how as you yourself said we had drawn down on russian expertise and russian intelligence specialists in the intervening years. that is something we have been addressing for some time. the comments that the secretary made earlier about developing both in the policy area and the intelligence area, they are absolutely valid and an area of considerable investment. i would like to highlight that nato, collectively, is absolutely addressing the challenge, which gets us back to stuart's question on how we can best leverage that. on the more recent question of the effectiveness of our isr and how we can leverage the 29 nations more effectively. there is a precedent there.
we have for many years now committed our century aircraft nato. they have been tasked by nato essentially with those of other nations to the objectives set by -- inen today with support of nato plans. there is a way of doing this. hasof the challenges is, nato patients, many of us are r capabilities but there are many programs to develop that. as we do so, the opportunities for collaboration will grow. >> over to north korea. it was emphasized strongly in the communique from warsaw. i'm wondering if we are preparing for any military confrontation that we might have
with north korea in the south china sea? >> well, there is no direct nato road in korea. obviously, we condemn any ongoing nuclear activity by the people's republic of korea and we continue to emphasize that activity is in violation of the security council resolution and we want north korea to put a stop to these provocations and start re-engaging constructively with the international community and we work as the united kingdom, within the united nations to maintain that pressure. in draftingrumental the latest resolution 2270 and that you will see contains some of the toughest measures yet restricting the transfer of technology and doing more to impede north korea's efforts to develop a deployable nuclear
weapon. there was also the statement by the european union on the 27th of june, which the u.k. supported that, too, condemned the missile test. so those are the foreign weeper -- those are the forms through which we bring our particular influence to bear on what is happening in north korea. >> to you think there will be a point in the future where north korea could be a direct challenge to nato security? ofcertainly its development nuclear weapons is a very direct challenge and yet, another reason why parliament was right yesterday to endorse the replacement for vanguard boats. nucleare too many weapons out there and north korea is a good example of a rogue state developing these weapons in a most dangerous way. why we have to continue to protect ourselves.
indeed. simply stated the comments yesterday were highly given the opportunity to go on what is always going to be a very substantial margin. i look at the summit communique security threat in the black sea region. what would you say the threats that caused nato security in the black sea region? >> first, can i welcome what she yesterday's -- can i welcome what you said about yesterday's vote? it is a debate that we promised before christmas. you know i have been pressing port for white sometime and it is likely delayed because of the referendum. the majority achieved last night
was really have enormous significance, a much bigger majority in the previous vote and sends a very strong signal to our allies around the world. i am sure that mr. chapman would not want to delay my departure this afternoon to washington to be able to convey the full significance of the vote that parliament took yesterday. i want the american administration and all our again,to understand, yet that britain is not stepping back, but stepping up. turning to the black sea, we are seeing increasing militarization of the crimea itself. seeing insurgency activity in the area. of thesouthern part insurgents of the provinces that are affected. threats obviously a real
to romania in particular. we are seeing increased naval .ctivity back and forward that is a concern. it is a concern for romania, a concern for bulgaria, a concern for other countries like greece. it something we need to keep our eye on. i think i was the first defense secretary for some time to visit romania. year, the romanian minister came here for a bilateral meeting earlier this year and we looked to see what further reassurance we can offer countries like romania. nato forward unit based in
romania and we are looking how we can deepen military cooperation with these particular countries. >> before you move on to your next question, i know that james gray has to leave us. you're talking about chilcott, in particular the way that chilcott considered the decision-making process. something i want to ask very briefly is, given that there were three votes prior to the invasion, would you agree with me, is there any merit at all that having parliamentary consideration of troops, in the way we did in two dozen three, -- in 2003, isn't the right thing to do.
one which is a genie out of the bottle that cannot be done, and the other which is the u.k. war powers act under which the prime minister would operate to the act without having to consult parliament in detail? my question is, is there some area of discussion to be had here? >> this is clearly an academic discussion and i noticed that some have published on this particular area. this is something to reflect on again after chilcott. your own question, the genie is out of the bottle and a cannot see a situation arising where parliament would not want to debate. i would not see them wanting to
entertain substantial british warships or troops. leading to it problems about what was being deployed and how significant the deployed had to be and so on. we are in a pedestrian -- in a position where a substantial combat deployment should be onated and should be voted where appropriate. >> we accept there are two risks associated with it. what is that people will vote in favor of certain things, such as iraq and other things, but equally as possible on other
occasions where parliament will vote against something which will turn up to be the right thing to do. voteay remember the syria in 2014. i quite accept your definition and who would want to to become -- want this to become a matter for the courts. but surely it's a question of crafting such a way that allows the executive to act the way they wish to act with the >> i'm always ready to keep thinking but in general terms i prefer conventions that evolved out of in the legalistic approach of trying to define in subparagraph what constitutes a particular mission. i think does leach into difficult and i'm afraid does involve the courts. parliament, i think of the wrong decision in the first syria voter i think of a number of people his boat into chilcot
debate is to believe parliament did the right decision back then although it may have been misled about the information about the intelligence about wmd. i think probably wrong to start off by saying parliament can't or shouldn't debate and decide these matters. >> thank you very much. john. >> yes, before we go to the chilcot can erase the announcement of a the 17th of july -- appointed by the prime minister to conduct a review into use of reserves in the army. that raises the question that with the independent research commission in 2011 and the reserves white paper and 2013, why a new review necessary because we've made considerable progress in recruiting reserves. a lot of focus on that through advertising and encouraging the
regular units to team up with the reserve units in their area and so on. but i think it is right to look more broadly as the reserve numbers have increased particularly into army to look again at the possibilities that open up to how reserves can be used in future. and also whether the boundary between regulars and reserves is the right one. whether it is too artificial, for example, whether there might be ways at different stages, peoples career of encouraging more flexibility and movement. i noticed that when significant numbers of regulars leaving the armed forces who want to be reservists. we may a people who want to move from the reserves to the regulars. is the boundary between the 22 formalized?
that's one of the things that we haven't finalized, we haven't finalized the reference for mr. francoise but that is a lease one area alongside we should use reserves that i think would be useful to have another look at. >> any idea when that is expected to report? >> i think this was only announced a couple of days ago. in terms of reference for mr. francoise and i for mr. francoise at the camp by the way think of anybody better to do this, former armed forces minister. he himself i think serve as a reservist and he is ideally suited to carry this out. >> will we still than half a minister for the reserves in the structure speak was we will have a minister who deals with these personal issues including the
reserves. the minister will be dealing, the new minister will be dealing -- sorry. mr. lancaster will be dealing with armed personnel issues, that includes regular service but it also would include veterans and reserves. so he will be able to look at all these issues together. >> is of this review just look at those issues you just described going forward, or is it reviewing whether, in fact, the number of reserves coming forward has frankly been inadequate to replace the number of those who have been going out over the regular forces? >> i wouldn't a great it has been inadequate. we have some time yet to meet the target that was fixed. the numbers coming in the last two years have gone up and up, and i would like to pay tribute to the former minister of the reserves who did huge amount to drive up recruitment and to focus in this particular area.
no, i want mr. francoise to look forward now to how we can find more opportunities to deploy reserves and as i say, to look at making the boundary between a regular and a reservist more flexible. but i'm not yet actually finalized history of reference so your input at this stage is a very welcomed. >> on that very specific point about terms of reference, as long as the issue, will one of the issues under the report be about women coming in and out, what are the issues we will see women leave the service? it's also possible to return and that instant affecting the number of female senior officers. will also be part of the inquiry? >> that's exactly. exactly that. we needed better entrance in recruiting women into the
reserves and we need to understand women's priorities will change at different points in their career and why we are losing too many people that we would like to retain. can we make it easier, for example, for them to come back again after a short break without losing some of the damage they might have had by staying in all a long? and candid look again at the liabilities -- can we -- could those be more flexible, different stages of somebody's life. that's exactly the kind of area i think we would be willing to look at. >> in the remaining time which is just over half an hour, we would like to focus now on the chilcot report and lessons from it. john, if you would like to start with questions. >> what measures if any would you say the m.o.d. is setting to absorb the lessons and analysis of the chilcot
report? >> first of all we welcomed the report. it tells a very important story about our recent history of the period, a military campaign where we could clearly have done better. it concludes that we did not achieve our strategic objective, however well the troops did fight. clearly we could have done better and we need to learn from that. and establish why we didn't do better at the time. so we are looking at everything chilcot has said about the ministry itself, but some of our own decision-making processes, the way in which advice is tendered both to ministers and from military commanders to very senior ministers.
we are looking again at the armed forces as how we can improve the structures there and the ability of proper, the ability to ensure proper challenge within the armed forces to avoid the dangers of groupthink. and, of course, we'll have another look at our equipment processes, some of which were improved for the afghanistan campaign but there may again be for the lessons in terms of getting the equipment that is needed for particular campaigns to the front more quickly. so there is an awful lot there that we need to pick up on, and i'm quite sure as i said when i spoke in the debate -- last week? thursday. the debate on thursday, we are not at all complacent about this. we believe that ministry has improved since those days but i suspect we have a lot more to do. >> will debate any sort of dedicated unit within the
ministry that will claw through this huge font of the cure in order to extrapolate the lessons and make recommendations? >> the short answer to that is yes. ihave set out the team did exactly that, to go right through the report and to make sure that proper lessons are learned and they are hard at work doing that at the moment. >> would've a chance of its findings be made public, even if slightly redacted form of? >> we can report on how we get on, you know, in the findings. and more importantly how we're implementing the changes that you would like us are expect to see. i'm happy to look about. >> can you tell us who is in charge of unit? >> can adjust perhaps add one thing to your earlier question? has to be a government response to the chilcot report in due
course, and it may be that form, summarizes some of our initial work in how our findings are going to be implemented. >> i just asked that question but that was very helpful. can you tell us who's in charge of the unit that is going to be trawling through the m.o.d.? >> i'm in overall charge of everything. >> i appreciate that but even given your superhuman capacity for work might not extend to how many million words, such as what was your able to tell us who the officials are going to? >> sure. people describe the structure of the team for your. >>basically set up a teen. we have a directorate and the minister of defense, which has been dealing with inquiries, investigation and so on for many years. we have set up a team within a directorate, some of whose members are actually sitting behind us and they are doing
just what the defensive secretary sedney they are trawling through all 2.6 million words. one of the points i think i should make about the report is asactually noticed it doesn't contain a source of simple table of recommendations and conclusions. the findings come to conclusions, the lessons are actually spread not just across the whole report, not just an executive summary but deep and to some of the other rather thick volumes so they're going through it every single volume line by line to pull out all that information. >> maybe they felt they didn't have enough time to prepare a summary. at can you just tell me who is in charge of this team, this unit? doctor hutton and he is sitting behind us. >> was the decision to deploy
and largest go forth, potential combat operations was taken without collective ministerial consideration of the decision and its implications. so if it's not too early to ask, how are the m.o.d. and the government crisis management organizations now better prepared to provide advice assessment, strategic auctions and appraisal of the consequences of potential conflict? in other words, assuming it's not going to be for government next time, how is it going to work a? >> it's already not so for government because in 2010 event partnership established a national security council, which meets every week in june. due to meet this afternoon. it meets every week and comprises in a not the most senior ministers in the government but that's other there is agencies, the chief of
the defense staff, the permanent secretary at the foreign office and all those you would expect, and prepares briefing material is prepared by the national security secretariat for all those who attended that council. so there is no danger of a decision like that of that magnitude ever again being taken on a, by handful of people in the prime minister's study. >> so would you say that this new machinery would be adequate in relation to post-conflict planning and delivery seeing one of the main findings of chilcot is the hopeless inadequacy of preparing for what would take place after the military base, the initial military phase have
been successful? >> international development is a member of the national security council, and one of the lessons of the chilcot which we've already -- stabilization plan has to be in the overall plan right from the outset. we have a cross government a stabilization unit. we see officials from the unit participating out in our exercises and in our training. i think that is one lesson that has been learned from the experience of iraq, that this has to be absolutely certain. that is something we are thinking hard about in respect to libya and syria and, indeed, back in iraq itself. >> you anticipate the next question. if this machinery is -- purpose for new machinery why did things go wrong in libya? why was there apparently insufficient appreciation that removing that dictator in that
country would lead to the same sort of -- removing the previous dictator in iraq the? >> let's be clear that the initial action which was one authorized by the international community and was at the request of the arab league and initial action was to be successful in preventing the massacre that would otherwise have taken place the view at the time, you'll appreciate, i wasn't there at the time but if you at the time was that thereafter we needed to respect the position of the new political authorities in libya who had little appetite for foreign assistance. they didn't require it. they didn't request it. and i think that led the west to overestimate their capacity for establishing the order that was
required and, of course, as you now know they essentially disintegrated into different factions by the middle of 2014. >> is it not the case that the military advice that was given to the national security council i know we are not doing inquiry to libya at the moment, but it was not being asked -- in the strategic interest to remove the dictator and that that was rather rushed aside by prime minister at the time. and what this leads to end it will surprise you because you have heard from this committee before is the question of whether or not the military representation needs strengthening when decisions of this sort being made so that they purely strategic considerations of whether it was
sensible to remove an unpleasant dictator without regard to the chaos that may follow can be more strongly put forward. and that's why, although it does seem a great step forward to having the national security council, this committee has consistently suggested that the chiefs of staff should have an input into its consideration, just as the chief of defense does. >> chiefs of staff have been put through the chief of the defense staff who not only attends national security council but tens of the meeting of officials that preceded in the days leading up to the national security council. so he will always be careful to ensure that he does have the advice of the chiefs of staff. i can't comment on what happened on the particular, leading up to the libyan operation. want i can give is that sitting alongside the chief of defense
staff in the years that i've been on the national security council, i don't think of ever attended a meeting where his advice has been -- what was your phrase? brushed aside? absolutely no. >> something along the lines of you do the fighting and we will do the planning or something of that sort. we will leave it at that for the moment. thank you. i fully appreciate that you were not involved at that time. >> before asked the question, i want the opportunity to wish you well in washington and may be surprised a number of people in the chamber are asking the question -- nuclear deterrent, that we didn't have them yesterday. me because of the to keep to yourself when you're in washington. looking at your face i'm sure you have plenty on your plate.
can i just as the question on chilcot, and the chilcot report just as the government was not -- post-conflict planning and they did not take response accordingly. also the lack of systematic options. a doctrine -- [inaudible] >> i'm not quite clear about your first point as i understood some of the speeches and the debate from scottish representatives. they would've been happy to morally contracted out on nuclear defense to the united states, which is something, i simply comfortably read the debate again but that is simply
i simply couldn't understand why we would want to cower under someone else's nuclear umbrella when we had the power to defend ourselves come at the deterrent already to. that perhaps i will read the debate again. [inaudible] >> let me turn to the question you've asked a yes, we have stabilization unit in that cross government machinery not. in a way that said it wasn't true back in the early 2000. i've already told you that i visited exercises, large-scale exercises such as griffin strike i think it was with the french to validate the combined expeditionary force. when i was in the plenary i saw the stabilization unit representatives already sitting
there working with the french on the implications for post-conflict and what would need to be done in this exercise to help to stabilize security in areas once the fighting had started. but mr.watkins may be able to add to that. >> i would say planning for post-conflict situations and stabilization is not in a much more systematic basis that it was within and clearly the stabilization unit is part of it. but because more broadly than that. we have produced and refreshed our doctrine on this. we have to think of joint doctrine publication 340 on stabilization which is a very good read. i recommend it to you but the point of that document is also was produced by ministry of
defence is actually a cost of doctrine at it reflects the lessons and expenses medal at the ministry of defence but the foreign office, dfid and soldier if anything i would add to that is we must be quite careful about imagining that there's some sort of set of lessons for a precise set a playbook that you can learn and apply in every circumstance. because each circumstance is different. afghanistan was different from a right to libya was different from those do, and so what we have sought to draw out is a generic lessons. the first generic lesson which might seem a little bit glib is just about the importance of planning, planning itself as a real benefit. event there are other lessons about the importance of cross government coordination, about coordination with the local authorities, involvement of local people and so when. all of which are reflected in documents such as the ones i mentioned. >> can i just jump in on the back of the comments that we have collectively learned a
great deal, and we've absolutely accepted there is no generic solution or that we do recognize this is a balance between security, governance and development and getting that right. and will the second point i would make is that this is not just the getting out own national ducks in order. the stabilization community is that in a much more mature place ambition understood place now internationally man it was within. and the third component of this is engagement with ngos which i think is a deeper one with those ngos who are prepared to work with government. i was with a large group
yesterday of ngos taking standings on specific security issues. i think a number of areas we hope improved collection. spent i appreciate there is no one solution in every same situation but does it include things like if it's not -- [inaudible] >> we need to be careful about groupthink so that when you have the planning process not just stabilization but for other things, it is about challenging, it is about introducing alternative viewpoints to ensure that the main street is not the only one being heard. >> one of the key findings in chilcot was validation of the materials derived by as much as to the joint intelligence committee concerned alleged wmd. tell us, are you confident this couldn't happen again? if so, why? and also what methodism's will not ensure that defensive systems -- are properly
analysis of affairs countries and issues that are on the nsc. i think it also is more widely based not. it has more access to other forms of reporting. though i can't see a situation where the advice that we can't of the intelligence that we asked to act on ever limited to such a small number of sources as appears to have been the case in the intelligence. for example, on wmd. >> could you expand on what, this seems be the slightest sort of crazy dichotomy of the moment today of a general public opinion, a lack of willingness to engage in operations and that
seems to be -- an ever-increasing dangerous world that we live in. can you confirm to the committee that there's absolutely no reference whatsoever to do what is required to protect this nation and that the people we are asking to do that have everything that they require and that, that includes the ability to protect themselves were ever we've asked them to deploy? >> in terms of government. let me reassure you, we will deploy what we need to deploy to keep our citizens safe. you will have seen the retiring chief defense staff in the telegraph on saturday where he picks up on exactly this point that we do need to learn the right is from chilcot, that there may be situations where we
intervened in the wrong way but equally we need to avoid the position where we don't intervene again. and that means went to work harder i think to explaining the need for intervention and to get over to the public that many of the issues we face, although these areas may seem far away from our shores, can become unless they are tackled very direct threats. peacekeeping operations done in somalia or south sudan to our continuing presence in afghanistan where you have a transnational terrorist groups that can bring terror to our own streets. so i think as politicians, all of us, yourself included, we have to continue to show to our
constituents that there is a very direct national interest in dealing with these issues that are much further back in helping to stabilize fragile states, aiding states that are affected by insurgency, improving the training of their soldiering. and then professionalizing, reforming their defense ministries and helping to eradicate corruption. all these things are part and parcel further downstream, or is it upstream? upstream, in helping to keep our country safe. >> at the moment with the politicals in a situation we are in, you can confirm between yourself, the traffic of the service chiefs, the decision they can start at the top of government, there's absolutely -- to keep us safe from sort of things we've seen in nice and elsewhere across the globe at this time? >> no.