NSN NATO Press Call Transcript 051512

7/31/2019 NSN NATO Press Call Transcript 051512

1/22

NATOSara Du Bois

National Security Network05/15/12

10:00 am ETPage 1

NATO

Sara Du BoisNational Security Network

05/15/12

10:00 am ET

Operator: Good day, everyone, and welcome to todays program. At this time, all

participants are in a listen-only mode. Later you will have the opportunity to

ask questions during the question and answer session. You may register to

ask a question at anytime by pressing the star and one on your touchtone

phone. You may withdraw yourself from the question queue by pressing thepound key. Please note this call may be recorded and I will be standing by

should you need any assistance. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to

Ms. Sara Du Bois. Ma'am, go ahead.

Sara Du Bois: Thank you so much. Good morning. My name is Sara Du Bois. I am the

Communications Director at the National Security Network. Thank you for

joining us today for this call to preview the NATO summit this weekend in

Chicago. Today, we will hear first from Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New

Hampshire, who will be attending the summit to conduct bilateral meetings

and participate in other summit events. Senator Shaheen is the chair of the

Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs. Last week, she

also participated and oversaw a summit foreign relations committee hearing

on the NATO summit, Chicago and beyond. Following Senator Shaheen, we

will hear from Ambassador James Dobbins. He is the director of the RAND

International Security and Defense Policy Center. He has also held State

Department and White House posts, including Assistant Secretary of State for

Europe, Special Assistant to the President, Special Adviser to the President

and Secretary of State for the Balkans, and Ambassador to the European

Community. He also served as George W. Bushs special envoy for

Afghanistan. Following Ambassador Dobbins, well hear from James


2/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 2

Goldgeier. He is the Dean of the School of International Service at the

American University. His expertise there is on contemporary international

relations, American foreign policy, and transatlantic security. In addition, he

authored a 2010 Council and Foreign Relations Special Report on the future

of NATO. Finally, just a reminder that this call is being recorded, so by being

on this call, you are consenting to be recorded. The audio will be available

later today and we will post soon in the next day on nsnetwork.org. If you

have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at (202) 289-5999 or you

can e-mail me at [email protected]. With that, Senator Shaheen, I turnit over to you.

Jeanne Shaheen: Thank you, Sara. Im really pleased to be able to join you, NSN, Ambassador

Dobbins, and Dean Goldgeier to talk about the importance of the upcoming

NATO summit. This is the first time NATO will be convening a summit in

the United States since 1997, the first time outside of Washington DC. So,

this is obviously a critical opportunity to reaffirm the importance of NATO to

the United States interests and to recognize its continuing influence around

the globe. It really is the most important institution in influencing events

around the globe. This is a summit that the Obama administration has laid

strong groundwork for on many fronts. Its got critical issues that its going to

be addressing as I think people who have been paying attention know that the

biggest priority coming up at the summit will be to finalize the plan for a

responsible drawdown of the war in Afghanistan, both in the transition period

between now and 2014, but also post 2014. I thought it was important that

Ambassador Crocker said this week that getting this right is key to keeping us

off the path to another 9/11. So, clearly this will be a huge focus for the

summit in Chicago. Outside of Afghanistan, we also need to talk about the

issue of burden sharing, how we will continue to fund NATO as were looking

at declining defense budgets in Europe and the United States. The concern is


3/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 3

how we can continue to ensure our mutual security, but recognize that were

going to have less funds in order to be able to do that. Obviously, the United

States has borne an overwhelming share of the NATO defense costs and as

European nations are facing their current budget challenges, the concern is

that they continue to step up and, I think, NATOs smart defense initiative,

which will be unveiled in Chicago, is going to be critical to ensuring that we

get the most for our dollars, but we also need to continue to engage Europe on

making sure that theyre spending their fair share of the cost of NATO. I

assume there will be some conversation about the successful action in Libya.It really was a very successful NATO operation, but it also revealed some

areas where there needs to be more work and more investment by some of our

NATO partners. One of the other topics that will be not on the front burner,

because everyone has pointed out this is not an enlargement summit, but

clearly the question of other potential NATO members will be discussed.

There are four countries who are hoping to have NATO membership in the

foreseeable future and I think this will be an opportunity to lay out for them a

process whereby they will be able to see a path forward to joining NATO

and thats important. Finally, one of the other opportunities the summit

provides for NATO is to look at how their partnerships around the globe allow

them to continue to address security challenges that are rapidly evolving.

Obviously, we know were all in a global environment today and that unrest in

one part of the world tends to spill over in other parts of the world and Europe

and the United States and so we need a global response that clearly NATO

cant be everywhere, and so looking at those partnerships that allow NATO to

operate effectively and efficiently around the world is very important. So, I

think theres a lot on the agenda for NATO. Its going to be very exciting and

I think, again, a real opportunity for us to point out that NATO has been the

most successful military and security alliance in modern history and that it

continues to have that role; and for those who question whether its still


4/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 4

functional, whether we have continue to have interest in our transatlantic

partnership with Europe, I think its an opportunity to recommit and reconfirm

the importance of those relationships. So, Im now going to turn it over to

Ambassador Dobbins. Ambassador?

James Dobbins: Thank you very much, Senator. Let me go into a little more detail on a couple

of the items that the senator mentioned, specifically the issues respecting

Afghanistan and the Middle East that are likely to arise during the summit.

Afghanistan is likely to be the major focus. Theres been a good deal of work.I suspect that some of the results are already pre-packaged, but that there are

still a few issues that are being negotiated. The focus will be on both the

drawdown in NATO forces between now and 2014, and in particular on the

pace of that drawdown, and then on what kind of role NATO and its members

will have in Afghanistan after 2014. In terms of the drawdown, one thing to

look forward is the French position. As I think most of you know, President

Sarkozy had announced an acceleration of French withdrawal to 2013 and his

successor as president in the campaign said he would accelerate that even

further to 2012. Itll be interesting to see whether thats reaffirmed or whether

theres some wiggle room in that. I would guess other NATO members will

be encouraging the French not to withdraw quite so quickly, lest a bandwagon

to that effect developed. The intent is to withdraw NATO combat forces by

the end of 2014. Theres been a little confusion in public statements,

including in administration public statements, as to when responsibility for

combat will be fully turned over to the Afghans, and I think that this will

probably be clarified to some degree in the NATO communiqu and in

statements that accompany it. As I understand it, the intent is to have turned

responsibility over to the Afghans by 2013, but to remain in Afghanistan in

considerable strength; that is to have NATO forces and American forces

remain in considerable strength for another year beyond that to ensure that the


5/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 5

Afghanto back the Afghans up essentially and to ensure that they succeed in

taking over these responsibilities. Thats my understanding of where the trend

is going in terms of the handover and one hopes that that will be somewhat

clarified. Theres also the issue of what kind of presence will exist after 2014.

The United States has signed a bilateral agreement indicating its commitment

to maintain both a military presence and an aid relationship beyond 2014. A

couple of other countries, I believe, are negotiating similar agreements with

the Afghans, as is NATO; so therell be some further clarification on that. I

wouldnt expect it to include numbers. I dont think the US is prepared at thispoint to elaborate what strength and what kind of military presence it

envisages, other than to say itll be a much smaller one than the current one;

and I suspect other countries wont, but itll be interesting whether NATO, as

a whole, commits to some military presence beyond 2014. Theres also the

issue of funding Afghan national security forces. This is a pretty hefty bill,

although vastly smaller than the cost of retaining American and NATO troop

presence there. There have been negotiations on a reduction in the size of the

Afghan security forces in order to make them more affordable. This is

something thats still apparently under negotiation. The last I heard, the plan

was to reduce the Afghan national security forces from something in the area

of 360,000 to something closer to 230,000 by 2018. So, they would remain

fairly robust and large through 2014, and then largely through a process of

attrition rather than actually releasing people, gradually reduce to a smaller

and more affordable force. My understanding is that the bill for that force is

going to run about $4 billion a year and the question is how to distribute that

responsibility. Its expected the US will take the bulk of it, but it will want

other donors to pick up a significant amount of it and also a significant

amount come out of the Afghan budget, and so I think Im not sure how

much precision therell be in the NATO agreement and NATO communiqu,

but therell be some mention of this and some generalized commitment.


6/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 6

Other issues are likely that NATO has existing partnership arrangements with

both Mediterranean countries and Persian Gulf countries. These arrangements

were not very substantive in the years preceding the Libya operation; they

were largely talk fests. Theres now, I think, a recognition in the aftermath of

the Libya operation which was specifically requested by the Arab League

and which had at least two Arab states participating militarily in the operation

that these partnerships may be more substantive in the future. I think

therell be an interest in giving a more concrete content to them in terms of

joint training and exercises as well as just the kind of talk fests that haveoccurred in the past, and I would expect to see some emphasis on those

partnerships in whatever emerges from it. Finally, itll be interesting

whether anything at all is said about Syria. Itll certainly play heavily in the

corridors, I would think. I doubt NATO will say anything about a possible

NATO role in Syria, but it might say something general about the importance

of a peaceful outcome and a transition in power there. On the other hand, it

may duck the issue altogether since at this point, there is certainly no

agreement among NATO members or in any other form about any form in

military action there. I think Ill wrap up my section now and turn this over to

Jim Goldgeier. Jim?

James Goldgeier:Great! Thank you. Well, its such an honor to be here with Senator Shaheen

and Ambassador Dobbins. I just wanted to start by noting that Libya

reminded us that there just arent any other organizations out there like

NATO. We remember that when the international community authorized the

use of force to prevent the atrocities in Benghazi, NATO was the only

institution that was available to do this action. So, theres always a lot of

criticism of NATO, we talk a lot, of course, about the burden sharing issues

and NATO capabilities, and so on, but I think its important to remember that

for all the criticism, it is the only institution like it in the world to deal with the


7/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 7

kinds of things that we saw a year ago in Libya. Also, as both the Senator and

Ambassador Dobbins mentioned, whenever were talking about these types of

humanitarian operations, like Libya, or operations to defend against threats to

Alliance members, the NATO seat of operation is likely to be outside of

Europe and thats why both of the previous speakers mentioned the

importance of the partnerships. NATO has to build up partnerships with other

countries, especially other like-minded countries. In part, thats to share the

burden, but its also for the purpose of legitimacy, because as NATO

continues to act outside of the transatlantic area, since its a group of westerncountries, its very important to have other countries, in whatever region

NATO is operating, join the effort for the purpose of greater legitimacy and

so, for example, as Ambassador Dobbins mentioned, we had two countries

from the Arab world participate in the Libyan operation and I think that in any

other part of the world that NATO operates in, its very important that it has

countriesthat they partner with countries from that region for the purpose of

legitimacy. The other aspect of partnership is that since so many of the threats

thats faced the NATO members, either our non-military nature or sort of

some mix of, lets say, for example, police work and military operations,

NATO also really needs to work with other institutional partners out there; the

most important of which is the European Union. Closer NATO EU

collaboration is very important going forward, because of the tremendous

civilian capacity that the European Union has in taking actions, whether were

talking about issues related to counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation or

things like dealing with cyber security; its going to be important for NATO to

work with the European Union. Now, we know that the joint ability of these

countries to contribute to common defense is important if their alliance is to

have any meaning. We also know that a lot more defense spending in Europe

is unlikely and I think given that, whats most important which is why were

talking about smart defenseis greater efficiency; and I do think I would just


8/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 8

add to what Ambassador Dobbins said, which is the need to make these other

partnerships, these partners for example, he was mentioning with the

Mediterranean dialogue, the need to make these partnerships substantive and

not just talk fests. Then my last point would just be to just think about how

different things are since the last NATO summit in the United States at the

50th anniversary in Washington in 1999. At that time, Poland, Hungary, and

the Czech Republic had just joined the Alliance. It was the first post Cold

War enlargement into Central Europe. NATO was at war at that time over

Kosovo, and remember how controversial that operation was as an out-of-areaoperation? I mean now that NATOs been to so many other places, its hard

to think of Kosovo as far from home, but that was seen as a real major step for

the alliance, because it wasnt on the territory of a NATO member state and so

it really is an alliance that has adapted tremendously, both in terms of taking

on new members and taking on new missions, since the last time there was a

NATO summit in the United States. With that, Ill turn it back to Sara.

Sara Du Bois: Thank you, all. So, at this time, we will take some questions. Just a note,

Senator Shaheen will have to drop at 10:30, so if there are questions for

Senator Shaheen, we are looking to take those first. If youre already in the

queue and your questions not for Senator Shaheen, you can press the pound

sign and then well get back to those questions after the fact. To register a

question, you can press star/one. So well wait just a moment. Again, lets

first take questions for Senator Shaheen and then we will get back; and if your

question is not for her, press the pound sign. Thanks so much. Operator, lets

start with the first question, please.

Operator: Certainly. Our first question will come from James Kitfield, National Journal

magazine. Go ahead. Your line is open.


9/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 9

James Kitfield: Thank you for doing this, and maybe Jim and Dean Goldgeier could answer

this after Senator Shaheen leaves, but Id like her comment, too. I mean it

was at NATOs ministerials where former Defense Secretary Gates was

saying the Alliance could face a dismal future if it doesnt turn around defense

spending and burden sharing, and since that time nothing has suggested to me

and Im curious about your views that NATO has done anything other

than to talk about smart defense, which sounds like a rationalization for doing

[more than less], to me. So, what has NATO done in the last year, even as it

sort of accelerates its withdrawal from Afghanistan and defense budgets arestill being cut? What has it done to sort of get off this path [of it] towards a

dismal future that Secretary Gates was talking about?

Jeanne Shaheen: Well, certainly, I think if we go back to Libya that the UK and France really

after that mission ramped up, they really took the lead in Libya. Now, I did

point out some of the shortcomings in terms of operational capacity, but the

fact that they took the lead, I think, was an important diversion, really, from

some ofcertainly from the operation in Afghanistan. If we look at whats

being talked about and done at NATO now, to think about how to really do

smart defenseand we had this conversation with the Secretary General last

week when he came and met with the Foreign Relations Committee, and there

was a fair amount of back and forth on this, but as he pointed out, theyre

doing Strategic Airlift Capability; it was one of the concerns that we saw with

the Libyan operation, but 12 nations are procuring and operating C-17

transports; so I think thats important. Again, as we think about how do we

better cooperate? The whole Baltic air policing mission is another example of

trying to pool resources to more effectively fulfill the national security

mission that they have. So, I think the analysis is correct; were not going to

see significant increases in the foreseeable future and what Europe is spending

on defense, which is why we need to think about ways in which we can better


10/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 10

and more effectively use the resources that we have and thinking about how to

pool efforts as the C-17 transport effort shows and the air policing mission

shows is one way to better do that.

Operator: For our next question, well go to Emily Cadei, Congressional Quarterly. Go

ahead. Your line is open.

Emily Cadei: Hi, Senator! I have a quick question for you on expansion, and I know you

mentioned that briefly, although everyones reiterated that this is not anexpansion conference. Theres been quite a bit of lobbying from some of the

[Afghans], like Macedonia and Georgia, some of the former Yugoslavian

countries, and Im just curious if you can talk a little bit more about the

discussions you think will take place on expansion potentially, especially with

Macedonia and how you see that moving forward in the future, if not at this

conference?

Jeanne Shaheen: Well, one of the things that I think is important for this summit is to make it

very clear that there is a path forward for that was as foreign countries that

the door is still open because it provides very important incentives for those

countries to continue to do the internal reforms that are important as theyre

moving towards democracy and as theyre joining, whether its the EU

thinking about the EU or NATO; I think thoseits important for them to see

that there is an open door and an opportunity to join NATO and so I have, as

have some other members of the Senate, argued that its very important to

send a clear signal at this summit that there is going to be a continued open

door policy and that those countries, Georgia, Macedonia, Bosnia,

Herzegovina, and Montenegro do have an opening; and as you all know, they

haveparticularly Georgiahave been very important in contributing to the


11/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 11

NATO mission in Afghanistan. So, they need to be recognized for those

efforts and they need to be clear that there is a path forward for membership.

Operator: For our next question, well go to Adam Aigner, CNN. Go ahead. Your line

is open.

Adam Aigner: Thank you, Senator. I know you only have like a minute left roughly but

my first question involves the news this morning that NATO will be inviting

Pakistan to the summit and also the sort of the effect that might have on the, Iguess, somewhat rocky relationship weve had with Pakistan recently, and sort

of the need for them to participate in conversations regarding the path forward

in Afghanistan.

Jeanne Shaheen: Well, as we all have been following for several years now, what happens in

Pakistan is critical to continued stability in Afghanistan and being able to have

Afghanistan take over the security of their own country, and so I think that

was very smart to include Pakistan, because they have an ongoing very

important role in what happens. Its a very critical region of the countryor

of the world, not just Afghanistan, but Pakistan and so engaging them in what

happens, I think, we cant do too much of that. Thank you, all. Im going to

drop off and I just wanted to acknowledge JimDean Goldgeier corrected my

misspeaking on the last time the summit was in the US, so I appreciate that;

and it was nice to be with all of you this morning.

Operator: For our next question, well go to Emmanuel Parisse at AFP.

Emmanuel Parisse: Hello?

Operator: Go ahead. Your line is open.


12/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 12

Emmanuel Parisse: Yes. Hi! Thank you for taking my question. I will ask the Ambassador,

[for instance], if is it a concern about NATOs plan in Afghan istan that the

French president decided to end combat troop earlier, and do you think that

NATO all the nations, the US and other nations in NATO, should ask

[Israel] to reconsider?

James Dobbins: Well, I think people will regret an early French withdrawal. I think they

probably will urge him to reconsider. I dont know that theyll do it formallyin fact, Im pretty sure they wont do it formally; theyll do it bilaterally and

individually. France will not be the first country to pull its troops out early.

Other countries have come and gone over the years, but France is a major

participant there and has made quite a successful contribution, and I think its

participation will be missed. So, yes, I would anticipate urging that he

reconsider or at least find some way of slowing down that withdrawal. I dont

know how possible that is within the framework of French politics; and if

France leaves, it wont collapse the NATO mission, but it certainly would set

an unfortunate precedent and it will put pressure on other allies.

Operator: For our next question, well go to Roxana Tiron in Bloomberg News. Go

ahead. Your line is open.

Roxana Tiron: Yes. Hi! I was wondering whether there is any concern, whatsoever, that the

United States is going to be able to raise $1.3 billion that they are at least

looking to get from the NATO members and some of the other allies, to fund

the Afghan forces after 2014. It sounds like the United States has been having

some trouble raising that money and what do you expect would happen,

considering the budgetary concerns both in the United States and in Europe?


13/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 13

James Dobbins: Well, Jim may want to add something to this. No country, including the

United States, can make firm commitments beyond a year or so in advance,

because of the budgetary cycles and the legislative oversight, so the

commitments are bound to be general and statements of intention, rather than

firm binding commitments. I think the USand commitments that are talking

about three or four years for now will obviously depend their fulfillment

will depend a lot on the general state of the European and American

economies, the politics in these countries. So, the commitment is going to be

a soft commitment, but my guess is that recognizing that the commitment is asomewhat soft one, the US probably will secure adequate promises to be able

for the summit to be able to, with reasonable confidence, state that the

funding requirement will be met.

Roxana Tiron: Okay. Who was speaking? Im sorry.

James Dobbins: Thats James Dobbins.

Roxana Tiron: Thank you so much, Ambassador.

Operator: Our next question will come from the side of Andrew Lubin at the Gazette.

Go ahead. Your line is open.

Andrew Lubin: Mr. Ambassador, Andrew Lubin from Marine Corps magazine, the Gazette.

Sir, what kind of NATO do you envision in the future with Mr. Sarkozy

departing, the Germans who dont are not very proactive, the British arent

proactive, and our policy nowadays seems to be want to do things in

partnership? Do you see us drifting or justwould you see an opportunity, if

necessary, to do another Libyan type operation?


14/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 14

James Dobbins: I mean I think NATO will continue to react to events. I mean NATO didnt

want to go to Afghanistan. It didnt want to go to Libya. It was forced by

events; by 9/11, by the prospect of the human rights tragedy in Libya; and

were now facing similar kinds of situations elsewhere. Syria, for instance

Im not necessarily predicting that NATO will go to Syria, but I certainly

wouldnt exclude it if the Arab League would ask for it, if the Syrian

opposition would ask for it; if Turkey were prepared to take the lead in such

an operation, I could well see other NATO countries participating in some

kind of humanitarian operation in Syria. So, I think that NATO will continueto be the most powerful and most cohesive of large alliances and an

instrument which will be employed when the occasion arises. I dont think

that the particular change from Sarkozy to Hollande will make a big

difference; maybe France will be a little less enthusiastic about NATO.

Sarkozy went a long way toward reintegrating French forces in NATO. I

dont think theyre going to withdraw; I dont think Hollande has any

intention of doing that. The British are certainly continue to be very

proactive. Germany has, because of its history, always been sort of one step

behind in terms of its willingness to commit forces abroad, but its moved a

long way since 1989 in that respect and I expect it to continue to move. The

defense budgets are going down since Secretary Gates made his speech that

was referred to earlier. Almost all countries, including the United States, have

announced major defense cuts, but its important to remember that the US

defense budget is still about half of the total world defense budget and the

largest defense budget after the US defense budget continue to be the budget

of the rest of NATO combined, which is considerably larger than, for

instance, the next size budget which would be China. So, even at reduced

levels of spending, the US and NATO are going to remain the most powerful

military instruments on Earth.


15/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 15

James Goldgeier:Can I just add just a couple of things to that, which is I just would come back

to the point I made at the outset? This is Jim Goldgeier. There isnt another

institution out there that the international community can turn to. So, again

we can look at the problems that NATOs having and the defense spending,

and comments like Secretary Gatess about a dismal future, but then you look

at the rest of the world, you think, Well, who else is there that can act when

action needs to be taken? So, it may not be all that we hoped it will be, but

its more than anybody else has. Were always going to be disappointed with

the defense spending coming from our allies in Europe; and Mr. Kitfieldraised the question about whether smart defense is an effort to do more with

less and, yes, sure, but I think thats okay and its about as good as were

going to get. So, I think we just need to be realistic in our expectations.

Operator: For our next question, well go to the side of [Jo Bedell] at [AOC]. Go ahead.

Your line is open.

[Jo Bedell]: Good morning. Thank you very much for taking my call. I wanted to return

to the issue of smart defense, if I may, and specifically some of the projects

that are likely to be unveiled in Chicago. I understand one of them would be

some kind of joint management of munitions, and Im wondering if you could

talk to that and how far down the line the NATO alliances [and actually]

[unintelligible] [some of the] framework agreement, and what sort of

timetable are we talking about, and what kind of munitions, and whether

theres even been a country yet which has been chosen, if you like, as the host

of the joint storage?

James Dobbins: Jim, do you want to take that?


16/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 16

James Goldgeier:Well, [Ione of the details and Ithen I do] I mean I would just say that

this initiative was really first hinted at by the agreement that Britain and

France reached a couple of years ago on pooling their resources and trying not

to duplicate what each other was doing, and to try to see if they could try to

combine and get more from working together; and I think weve seen these

initiatives develop from necessity, basically; and I dont have any specific

information on specific policies that are going to be announced this week, but

I think the larger issue is this commitment to a recognition that pooling

resources is the only way forward for an alliance in which defense spending isdropping.

James Dobbins: Yes, Id just add this is Jim Dobbins that theres a difference between

pooling resources and establishing division sensible divisions of labor and

collective procurement. Multinational production and procurement efforts

tend to be a good deal more expensive on average than the national ones, and

the more countries you add to the process, the more expensive they tend to

become. So, I think that the NATO thrust to this will be to endorse bilateral

and trilateral initiatives for the most part, rather than to try to do NATO-wide

arrangements. I also think that to some degree, it means countries agreeing to

buy a particular item from a single supplier, rather than to try to actually

produce that item multinationally, which almost always adds significantly to

the cost. Some of the agreements, like that between Britain and France, may

also be agreements in which one country will decide not to retain a certain

capability an aircraft carrier, for instance while the other country will

commit to provide that asset should it be necessary. So, I see those as the

areas that NATO is likely to focus on.

[Jo Bedell]: Okay. Thank you very much.


17/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 17

Operator: For our next question, well go to Paul Adams at BBC. Go ahead, sir. Your

line is open.

Paul Adams: Thank you very much, gentlemen. This was a question originally aimed to the

senator, but Id be interested in getting your thoughts anyway, just coming

back to the whole issue of funding in Afghanistan post 2014. Im just sort of

wondering whether in an atmosphere where theres a huge debate over

sequestration and the impact on defense spending, when troops are coming out

and people are beginning to think that our job is done in Afghanistan, whenthe connection with 9/11 feels a bit distant in other words, that people

identify threats as coming from places other than Afghanistan, I just wonder

whether those cant be an appetite among legislators here in the US for this

enormous continued bill.

James Dobbins: Well, $4 billion isnt enormous compared to $100 billion, and $100 billion is

what were paying now. So, I think youre right to raise the question; $4

billion is still pretty significant for any bilateral aid program. If the US part of

that was $2 billion, it wouldnt be much more than what we already provide

and have provided for years to Egypt and Israel. So, it wouldnt be

completely out of proportion to the other two largest American military

assistance programs, but those programs have constituencies in the US, which

Afghanistan probably lacks. So, I mean I think you raised good questions. I

think its entirely appropriate to speculate about the appetite and the

willingness to continue this level of funding. I think you can make good

arguments why its a sensible investment and I think those arguments will be

made. I think both Republicans and Democrats will at this stage, in an

election year, commit themselves to sustaining the effort in Afghanistan. I

dont see any real debate between the parties; if anything, the Republicans are

going to criticize Obama for cutting his costs too far in Afghanistan, rather


18/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 18

than the reverse; but in the longer sight, I think it is right to speculatebut at

this point, all you can do is speculate.

James Goldgeier:Again, this is Jim Goldgeier. I would just add that the argument is going to be

made and I think you are correct, the appetite for doing much longer is going

to diminish rapidly, but the counter-argument thats going to be made is the

United States lost interest in the affairs of Afghanistan after 1989 and look

what happened on September 11, 2001. So, I think its going to be, I think,

those who support continuing to try to create stability in Afghanistan aregoing to hearken back to that earlier period and just warn those who would

leave entirely that the consequences of not paying attention to Afghanistan

can be quite great.

Operator: For our next question, well go to Denise Chrispim at O Estado. Go ahead.

Your line is open.

Denise Chrispim:Oh, thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. I wanted to know if it might

be discussed in Chicago on the extent of a NATO operation to South America.

James Dobbins: Im not sure what you mean by a NATO operation. I dont know of any

Denise Chrispim:Not operation, but I mean it was said last year, especially, that NATO could

have more attention could get more attention to the South Atlantic and so

this was an issue of concern by the governments of Brazil and Argentina and

others. I wanted to know if this is still an issue for NATO.

James Dobbins: Well, I mean I think if the countries of South America or Latin America are

generally were interested in a relationship with NATO a partnership

relationship, I think NATO would probably be responsive. I havent seen any


19/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 19

signs of that and I suspect that the continued differences between Argentina

and the UK over the Falklands would be a significant impediment to any such

relationship in the near term.

Denise Chrispim:Thank you.

Operator: For our next question, well go to Clayton Jones with the Christian Science

Monitor. Go ahead, sir. Your line is open.

Clayton Jones: Thank you for doing this. I assume that the Russian objections to the Missile

Defense Program will come up at some point in the summit and if so, Im

trying to understand what the real Russian objections are. Do they want to

retain a first strike capability on Europe or a second strike? What do you see

as their strategic motive in objecting to the program?

James Goldgeier:Wellthis is Jim Goldgeier. I think the Russian objections have to be put in a

larger context, which is continued Russian resentment of the past 20 years

about what they see as western, particularly United States, efforts to take

advantage of the end of the Cold War and expand western influence. Russias

nuclear capability is what enables it to maintain its major power status as one

of the two leading nuclear powers. Its part of what creates its ability to claim

a major status in world affairs and I think no matter what the United States

says about where the missile defense is directed and the limited nature of it

and the effort to combat a short-medium range threat coming from Iran, that

the Russians are going to continue to see this as something that the United

States is attempting to foist on the region and on a Russia thats weaker than it

was 20 years ago. Weve been through conversations with the Russians since

1992 on efforts to find some kind of common ground on working together on

missile defense, and the Russians seemed to continue to be stuck in a mindset


20/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 20

on this issue that is from an earlier period. No one can tell another country

how to define its interests, but it just seems to me that when Russia looks out

at the world and thinks about the things that are of concern to it, its hard to

see how a missile defense shield against short and medium range missiles

coming from Iran would be high on the list of things to worry about.

James Dobbins: Yes, I mean I think that the American argument for missile defense in Europe

raises questions for the Russians. The US has argued for missile defense in

Europe on the grounds that its needed to defend against Iranian missilethreats, but one would only want to invest the amount thats being invested in

this if one were talking about Iranian nuclear arm missile threats. The

amounts being spent for missile defense would be astronomically out of

proportion if all you were worried about was Iranian missiles with

conventional warheads. On the other hand, the United States has said that its

not going to permit Iran to have nuclear weapons. Obama has recently said

that he rejects containment as an alternative and therefore, theres a certain

lack of logic in spending a huge amount of money against the threat that you

also have a policy of never allowing to eventuate. Therefore, the Russians

say, Well, maybe Iran isnt a threat, and certainly, there are some of the

supporters in the US political system for missile defense do have larger

ambitions for such missile defense, and the Russians are aware of that, too.

So, the Russians concerns are not illogical, even if they are perhaps

somewhat exaggerated. The Russians want a couple of things, which the US

and NATO havent been willing to give them so far; they want much more

access to the technologies involved, so theyd understand it better and could

defend against it, if necessary; and they want some role in the command and

control, and so the negotiation over collaborative missile defense is a

negotiation over those kinds of issues, and those are very difficult issues on

which to reach a mutual accommodation.


21/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 21

Operator: For our final question, well go to Ed Krayewski with Reason.com. Go ahead,

sir. Your line is open.

Ed Krayewski: Hi, gentlemen! Thanks for doing this today. My question, I guess, is if

whether with the human rights watch report coming out the other day it

seemed that 72 civilians were killed in NATO air strikes in Libya [Ill ask

you] what are the chances that that might come up in the summit this weekend

in terms of how do you prevent that from happening again or what might havehappened wrong, or any kind of self-evaluation?

James Dobbins: Well, if only 72 civilians were killed in eight or nine months of NATO air

strikes in Libya, that would be a remarkably low number and theyd probably

be congratulating themselves on having the least collateral damage of any

similar operation in world history. So, I think theres always an effort to

reduce those kinds of casualties and I think they have been reduced very

dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years, as the result of more precision

weapons, advances in international war and in conformity to international law

by western states; and I think if you compare those figures even to the figures

of, say, 10 or 12 years ago in Kosovo, youll probably find that there have

been significant advances. I would expect that to continue, but I dont see a

lot of breastfeeding at the NATO summit over this.

Ed Krayewski: Right. Thank you.

Operator: That will conclude the question and answer session. Ill now turn the call

back over to Ms. Du Bois for any closing remarks.


22/22

NATOSara Du Bois


10:00 am ETPage 22

Sara Du Bois: Thank you so much. Id like to, again, thank our speakers for joining us

today: Senator Shaheen, Ambassador Dobbins, and Dean Goldgeier. Thank

you, too, to all the reporters and the other participants. Again, we will have a

recording of this available, which we will put on the NSN website. You can

find it at nsnetwork.org. If you have any other questions for the participants,

other issues, please let me know. You can contact me at (202) 289-5999 or

you can get me on e-mail at [email protected]. NSN will also be

providing additional materials in the lead-up to the NATO summit, so if there

are other issues that you would like more information on, either those thatwere covered or those that were not, please dont hesitate to let me know.

Thank you so much and have a great day.

END

Documents

NSN NATO Press Call Transcript 051512