TRANSCRIPT: Will NATO Adapt to Emerging Global Threats? Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's Perspective
Jens Stoltenberg:
A strong NATO is good for Europe, but it's also very good for the United States, because together, we are 50% of the world's military might and 50% of the world's economic might, almost one billion people.
Ian Bremmer:
Hello and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. Here, you'll find extended versions of the interviews from my show on public television. I'm Ian Bremmer, and today we're taking a close look at NATO, asking the big question, is the decades old military and political alliance still relevant, or has it become a Cold War relic?
The world has changed dramatically since NATO was formed, and so have the biggest threats to peace and stability. No doubt, Joe Biden's presidency will have major implications for the international alliance. But today, I want to look at how NATO got to where it is and where it goes from here.
I talk about that and more with NATO's Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. Let's get to it.
Announcer:
The GZERO World Podcast is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, places clients' needs first by providing responsive, relevant, and customized solutions. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.
The GZERO World Podcast is also brought to you by Lennar, America's largest and most innovative home builder, and the number one destination for foreign residential real estate investment in the US. Learn more at www.lennargzero.com. That's L-E-N-N-A-R-G-Z-E-R-O.com.
Ian Bremmer:
I'm here with Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO. Thank you for joining me, sir. Appreciate it.
Jens Stoltenberg:
Thank you so much for having me. It's a great honor.
Ian Bremmer:
Maybe start really big picture, which is that the world has changed an awful lot since NATO was created.
NATO, of course, always engages in reform, but moves more slowly than perhaps the world does. What do you think NATO needs to do, to reflect today's global order and the needs of the allies that are members of it?
Jens Stoltenberg:
Fundamentally, NATO needs to continue to change. And the reason why NATO has succeeded for more than 70 years is that, we have changed every time the world is changing.
And I don't, too, fully agree with you that NATO is changing slowly. When needed, we have proven actually very able to change very quickly. After we follow the Berlin Wall, the reason why NATO was established, the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact didn't exist anymore. And as of few months, years after that, we were able to do something we had never done before to end the conflicts outside our own territory in the Balkans. And then, days, or actually the day after 9/11, we walked our Article 5 clause or Collected Defense clause, and went into the fight against terrorism together with the United States.
Of course, I would always like to see how NATO can adapt and change more quickly, but I think if you look back, we have proven quite able to change. But the challenge is that... One thing is to be able to change in the past, another thing is to be able to change in the future. And that's exactly what we need to focus on now.
I think that, in one way, the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we have strong international institutions and that NATO remains a strong alliance, both military and politically, because I'm always afraid of those people who try to predict exactly what will happen in the future. Those people are always wrong. But what we know is that, if we stand together, if we have a strong, united alliance, then we can manage whatever happens in the future.
So, my main message is that, we need a strong transatlantic bond. We need Europe and North America standing together. And then, come whatever may come, we will be able to deal with that as long as we are united. In short, that's my main message.
Ian Bremmer:
It's been an interesting four years. I think one thing I would like to start with, in terms of my own president is, when he was running for president, he said quite famously, "NATO is obsolete." Now, he almost never admits he's wrong about anything. But on this, he admitted he was wrong. Once he became president, he said, "I thought it was obsolete, but actually I talked to these guys, it's not obsolete. I didn't know anything about this. I'm a real estate guy." What role did you play in convincing him that actually NATO is something that he, as president, should continue to support?
Jens Stoltenberg:
My message to President Trump, as it has been to previous US presidents and in all my meetings with the people from the United States is that, a strong NATO is good for Europe, but it's also very good for United States. It's a unique thing that United States has so many friends and allies as it has in NATO, 29 friends and allies, which actually always stands together with United States, and that is something no other big power has. We saw that after 9/11, but we also see, today, if you're concerned about the rise of China, the economic, the military power of China, then of course it's even more important for United States to stand together with other allies, because together, we are 50% of the world's military might and 50% of the world's economic might, almost one billion people.
Ian Bremmer:
How much of a distraction has it been that the dominant theme that's come out of the United States with NATO in the last four years has been about, the European allies are not spending enough on defense? I mean, you've been a strong proponent of also getting those countries to move and hit their commitments faster, but does that deserve to be issue number one, that's being pushed and certainly being covered when we have NATO summits and the rest?
Jens Stoltenberg:
As a burden of sharing how much we spend on defense is an important topic, and I think it deserves to have a lot of attention because the sharing of the burden inside NATO has not been fair. And therefore, this has been a message from the United States for many, many years, and it was actually President Obama that, at the NATO summit in 2014, pushed to the decision where we agreed, in 2014, that all allies should invest more in defense, and that we should move towards spending 2% of GDP on defense. So, this is a consistent message from the United States over many years.
The good news is that, things are now moving in the right direction. All allies have invested more, all allies modernized their military capabilities, and the majority of NATO allies have plans in place to be at the 2% of GDP for defense spending within a decade, which is exactly in line with what we agreed back in 2014.
I think we have to, in a way, accept that burden sharing is an important part of the discussion. The cohesion, the strength of NATO also is, of course, connected to the fact that we need to carry a fair part of the burden, all of us. And that's exactly what we now are, at least, moving in the right direction to do, and we have seen significant progress over the last years.
Ian Bremmer:
Let me move you to 2030. It's right behind you there, as well. If you have the success with your legacy that you'd like, what's the way that NATO looks most different in 2030 from the way it appears and functions today?
Jens Stoltenberg:
That's not the way I'm thinking. I believe that the best thing I can do is that, NATO remains agile, able to adapt, and then it'll be the people that runs this alliance in 2030 that decides exactly what that means, because I think it's extremely hard to predict how the world will look like in 2030, but I am absolutely certain that, as long as we have a strong alliance, we will be able to deal with whatever happens and whatever challenges we see in 2030.
What I can say is that, my main objectives are the following. First, that we need NATO as a strong military lines, and when we see other countries invest heavily in modern military capabilities, we see new technologies. That means that we need to invest and modernize and increase the readiness of forces. Second, we should become stronger as a political alliance, because NATO is a platform that brings together North America and Europe every day, and we need to use that political strength also to address a lot of other challenges we face together. And thirdly, we should become a more global alliance. NATO should continue to be a regional military alliance, North America and Europe, but we need a global approach because the threats and the challenges we face, they are global, especially with the rise of China. That has security implications for NATO, and that has to be taken into account when we now modernize change a NATO to a new and more challenging security environment.
Ian Bremmer:
Is it time for NATO to establish a military headquarters in the Indo-Pacific?
Jens Stoltenberg:
I don't think so, but what I think is that, it is extremely important that we strengthen our corporation, the way we work together with our partners in the Pacific, in Asia Pacific. And we have four very strong and important partners in that region, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan. They are close partners of NATO. I visited all of them in my capacity as secretary general of NATO, and they want to work more closely with us.
So, I think we can do more, when it comes to sharing information, exercising together, also getting a better understanding of the consequences of the rise of China. China's not an enemy. And actually, the rise of China also have provided a lot of economic opportunities for all NATO allies, trade, market and so on. But at the same time, the rise of China poses some serious challenges to our security in terms of values, in terms of military strength, and also when it comes to resilience.
China is a big power that doesn't share our values. We have seen that in Hong Kong, we have seen in the way they deal with Uyghurs, the minorities, and they actually state clearly that they don't share our democratic Western values. China has now the second-largest defense budget in the world, investing heavily in new modern capabilities, and also using new advanced technologies, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and so on. And thirdly, China is investing heavily in infrastructure in Europe, in NATO-allied countries, telecommunications, 5G, ports, railroads and so on. This poses a challenge to the resilience of our societies, and NATO has to do more when it comes to developing resilient infrastructure societies to be able to deal with also the challenge post by the increased presence of China in our neighborhood, including in cyberspace.
Ian Bremmer:
I mean, the Italians joining Belt and Road as the first G7 country to do so, when you have major NATO allies that are saying, "We'd like to use Huawei, thank you very much." I mean, the United States has been pressing hard against that, but should NATO, as an organization, as an alliance be pressing against that, because it represents a national security threat to the alliance?
Jens Stoltenberg:
NATO should press, for that all allies have a safe and secure telecommunications, 5G, and also in more general safe and secure and reliable infrastructure, civilian infrastructure, because that's important for our societies, but it's also important for military operations.
And that's exactly what we are doing. We have developed something we call baseline requirements for resilience in different areas, including telecommunications, infrastructure, health, continuation of government, and in other areas. And this is a tool we use to make sure that allies take into consideration, for instance, issues related to foreign ownership, foreign control, foreign investment in the, for instance, 5G telecommunications. We don't name specific companies, but we put some standards, and then we expect allies to meet those standards. At least, we have a platform to sit down and assess and analyze when there are concerns among allies about whether all allies meet those standards. We are set in NATO when it comes to resilience.
Ian Bremmer:
So, you mentioned that one of the concerns about China, not that you would define it as an enemy, but rather because they don't share, they clearly don't share democratic values of transparency, rule of law, and you gave sort of a list of the challenges. One could apply that list, and many do, to a NATO ally, to Turkey, and we've got big problems with Turkey right now, the United States. But frankly, a lot of NATO allies do as well. You've seen the fight that's come between French president, Macron, and Turkish president, Erdoğan.
How do you deal with an environment? I mean, the EU has this issue with Hungary, for example, right now. How do you deal with an issue inside NATO when one of the allies is appearing to go a bit rogue?
Jens Stoltenberg:
First, I would like to say that Turkey is an important ally. If you just look at the map, you see the importance of Turkey for the security of Europe. Turkey's the only country bordering Iraq and Syria. They have been extremely important in the fight against ISIS. The fact that we have liberated all the territory that ISIS controlled not so long ago, is very much also because we've used basis infrastructure in Turkey. And no other ally host more refugees than Turkey, and no other ally has suffered more attacks than Turkey.
Having said that, I also admit that we see some serious differences on issues like the Turkish decision to acquire S-400, the Russian air defense system, related to the situation in Libya, Eastern Mediterranean. There are differences between NATO allies, and also on human rights issues. But then, I think the importance of NATO is that, we are a platform where these allies meet every day, and we use those as a platform to address these concerns and these differences.
For instance, when it comes to the Eastern Mediterranean, at least we have been able, here in NATO, to bring Turkey and Greece together, and we have established a mechanism for deconfliction, which-
Ian Bremmer:
You led personal? Oh, that effort-
Jens Stoltenberg:
I initiated the work, but the whole idea was that... But talking to President Erdoğan, by talking to Prime Minister Mitsotakis in Greece, we were able to establish a NATO, a mechanism, a hotline 24/7, and some procedures to reduce the risks for incidents, accidents because we see now more Turkish and Greek in their presence in Eastern Mediterranean, and we need to avoid any incidents and accidents. And if they happen to, at least, make sure that the launch is far out of control. That doesn't solve all the problems, but at least it is a way to reduce tensions, and hopefully also pave the way for the German initiative to start negotiations on the underlying problem dispute in the East Mediterranean.
So, in that way, NATO is a platform that cannot fix all problems, but at least a platform that we can address them and try to find a way forward. And when it comes to issues related to freedom of speech, the rights for journalists to work and so on, these are issues which are close to my heart. I have raised them, expressed my concerns. And actually, these are core values for NATO. We are an alliance based on democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and I've also, of course, raised and underlined that in my meetings in Ankara.
Ian Bremmer:
Given all of that, would you still describe Turkey as a full member, in perfectly good standing in NATO today?
Jens Stoltenberg:
Turkey is a full member of NATO, and as I said-
Ian Bremmer:
I know.
Jens Stoltenberg:
... Turkey is an important member because not least in the fight against ISIS, terrorism, Iraq and Syria, they have played a key role. But there are differences. There are some disagreements on issues. I mentioned some of them, Eastern Mediterranean and another.
But then, NATO, at least, is a platform where we sit down and are able to address them in the open and frank way between allies. And that's much better. Then, the opposite is that, we are not part of an alliance, but really then see a weak alliance because we need Turkey as part of the NATO family.
Ian Bremmer:
The Americans, of course, have had some really challenging wars that haven't gone that well, most particularly in Afghanistan. There's a lot of fatigue in the United States with playing the kind of military role and having the kind of military footprint that the US has had historically. How much are you feeling that potential that the Americans don't want to do as much play, the kind of assertive leadership role in trying to ensure stability and security, with so many of these conflicts happening around the North Atlantic and more broadly?
Jens Stoltenberg:
First of all, all of these conflicts are different. So, you cannot apply one model to all of them. You have to assess them each and every one, individually.
But what they have in common is that, in different ways, they illustrate the big dilemma, the difficulty in deciding when to use military power and when to not use military power. And it's not clear and easy answer to that. When we not intervene, when we decide not to use military power, of course then we are not involved in a conflict. And in one way, that's good. On the other hand, it has a cost not to act because for instance, in Syria, we decided not to intervene. That ended in really a bloody and really, really a difficult civil war. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives. In Iraq, the West, United States, left in 2011. We were forced back again.
So, I admit that the military operations, NATO and the United States have been responsible for in Afghanistan, our presence in Iraq, the Libya operation has not been straightforward, easy operations with a clear win. But on the other hand, not to act also has a prize. We have confronted with that dilemma now in Afghanistan. There is a US-Taliban agreement that we should all be out by May, next year.
And of course, if we leave, we'll be out of Afghanistan after almost 20 years, but then we risk to lose some of the gains we have made. Not least making sure that Afghanistan does not, once again, become a safe haven for international terrorists. But if we continue to stay, of course, we wish to continue to be involved in a long-term conflict without a clear end state.
Ian Bremmer:
And we haven't talked much about Russia, yet. Obviously, Russia has been a principle antagonist of the NATO allies. Even if in different ways, with different countries, their cyber capabilities are serious, the willingness of the Russians to use it is serious. Does NATO have the correct posture today to respond effectively to a Russia that doesn't seem very deterred in a lot of their activities, especially in their own near abroad, but also their willingness to intervene in the sovereignty of NATO allies?
Jens Stoltenberg:
We have, over the last years, since 2014, implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collected defense in the generation. With a combated groups in eastern part of the alliance, the Baltic countries involved for the first time in our history, with a significantly increased readiness of forces, with a new Atlantic command, with more defense spending. For the first time, in many years, actually, allies are investing more in defense. And all of this is very much triggered by Russia's behavior since 2014, the illegal annexation of Crimea, the continued destabilization of Eastern Ukraine, the cyber attacks we have seen, the Russian presence in Syria, and also the way they have tried to interfere in domestic political processes in the United States, in Germany, in many other countries.
So, all of this has led to the strongest reinforcement of our collective defense of NATO for many, many years. It has also led to that, we are now doing more, for instance, when it comes to cyber defense, and also addressing this fact that this is a more blurred line between peace and conflict, and cyber is one example of that.
So, we have stated clearly that a cyber attack can trigger Article 5, as it can trigger our Collective Defense clause. We have established cyber as a military domain alongside air, sea, and land. Cyber is now an independent military domain, and we conduct the most advanced, the biggest cyber exercises in the world to help to improve the way we protect our own networks and NATO networks, but also how allies can protect their networks and increase awareness of risks related to cyber attacks.
Ian Bremmer:
Do you think that cyber attacks are the principal concern that NATO allies are going to have with the Russians over the coming... As we think about 2030, is that the area that the most work needs to be done?
Jens Stoltenberg:
At least, this is one of the important areas where we need to make sure that we are up to the challenge, that we are modernizing and strengthening our capabilities.
But again, I'm a bit afraid of one area because, I think, one of the challenges we face today is that, we have so many different challenges. At the same time, we have a more brutal form of terrorism, with ISIS. We have Russia using military means against Ukraine, grabbing a part of another country, Crimea, and then we have cyber. But for instance, also disinformation. And we help allies when encountering disinformation campaigns, when we see that from Russia, from others.
But the main way to counter this information, is to make sure that we have strong, resilient, healthy societies because they're less vulnerable for this information. And perhaps, the most important thing is to have a free and independent press, which is checking their sources, asking the difficult questions, and makes us all less vulnerable for disinformation campaigns.
Ian Bremmer:
Whether it's the Europeans, the Japanese, even the Chinese, and certainly Joe Biden in the United States, less so Trump, conversations about responding the climate change as the big national security issue, we all have to address collectively our picking up steam. To what extent do you see that as fundamental to NATO's mission? And does it also, for you, seem to be a place where NATO allies can actually reach out and cooperate with countries that are otherwise erstwhile competitors?
Jens Stoltenberg:
Climate change has security implications, and therefore climate change matters for NATO, and therefore NATO has to address climate change. NATO is not the institution where we will negotiate a new climate change agreements like the past accord. That will take place in other institutions like the UN. But NATO has a role to play, partly to understand climate change as a crisis multiplier. With the more extreme weather, with more droughts, with more flooding, then that will affect where people can live. It will increase migration. The number of refugees is a crisis multiplier, and that's the reason why NATO has to understand, to analyze, and take that into account when we do our planning and our preparations for future crisis.
Second, we need to make sure that our soldiers, our personnel can operate in more extreme weather. For instance, all our naval bases are, of course, by nature across the shore, and with rising sea levels, that may affect many of our naval bases.
And thirdly, we need to do what we can to reduce emissions, and therefore we welcome the fact that NATO supports and NATO allies are now engaged in, how can we reduce the resilience on fossil fuels in our missions and operations. Because military operations, they actually burn a lot of fossil fuels and emit CO2. We see how Dutch soldiers are now more and more using solar panels, how Danish army is looking into how they can use beer fuels and other alternative fuels, and we have different projects, we're working on that. And that also sends a message that this is something we do to reduce emissions, but we also do it to reduce the vulnerability of our operations, because the transportation, the supply of fossil fuels has always been a very vulnerable part of any military operation.
So, if we can increase energy efficiency, reduce dependence on the fossil fuels, we help the environment, the climate, but we also make our forces more resilient and less vulnerable. So, that's double reason to be focused on energy efficiency in military operations.
Ian Bremmer:
Decentralization of energy supply, definitely, plays well with national security footprint. There's no question about that.
Last question for you. We've gone through an entire conversation. We haven't mentioned coronavirus once, so I can't stop without asking the role that NATO has had and will have, given the extraordinary logistical challenges of responding to coronavirus. And people aren't even traveling right now. Military exercise is a little challenging in that environment. How hard has it been for you guys to just operate, given this extraordinary pandemic?
Jens Stoltenberg:
The NATO's main task, main responsibility has or is to prevent this health crisis, the pandemic, to become a security crisis. For us, the most important thing has been that, we have been able to ensure that we continue to operate, that our planes are flying in the air, that we do air policing, that our maritime operations are sailing where they should go, and that our missions in the eastern part of the lines and all the other things we do, Iraq, Afghanistan, that all of this is up and running.
And the good news is that, that's the case. Yes, we have adjusted a bit, the way we conduct some of these missions and operations. Yes, we have reduced, scale down, actually also canceled some exercises, but the missions, the deterrence, the activities on NATO has been in place, and we have delivered the turns and offense every day during this pandemic. And we need to continue to do that.
Then, on top of being a military lines operating in the midst of a pandemic, we have also seen the value of the military across alliance, helping the civilian efforts to fight the pandemic. And NATO has been part of that. Our military have been part of that. Transporting critical medical equipment, transporting patients, setting up hundreds of field hospitals, helping to disinfect public spaces.
So, military per personnel from North America, Europe, all over, have been key in supporting the civilian health services in fighting the pandemic, and we are, of course, ready to continue to do so. And we have strengthened the way we coordinate in NATO efforts to support allies in the fight against the pandemic.
Ian Bremmer:
Well, Jens Stoltenberg, you're going to have a busy year in 2021. There's no question about that. I wish you the best of luck.
Jens Stoltenberg:
Thank you so much for having me.
Ian Bremmer:
That's it for today's edition of the GZERO World Podcast. Like what you've heard, come check us out at gzeromedia.com and sign up for our newsletter signal.
Announcer:
The GZERO World Podcast is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, places clients needs first by providing responsive, relevant, and customized solutions. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.
The GZERO World Podcast is also brought to you by Lennar, America's largest and most innovative home builder, and the number one destination for foreign residential real estate investment in the US . Learn more at www.lenargzero.com. That's L-E-N-N-A-R-G-Z-E-R-O.com.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
