Adapting to a More Dangerous World

Thank you very much, Marton, for that very kind introduction. It’s a great day here in Budapest. Beautiful, it’s still grey and rainy in Brussels, so it’s great to be here for that reason. But also to have an opportunity to visit the Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, which I know has a, a long history that is very much attached to the modern Hungarian state. And so it’s a great honour to be here have the opportunity to speak with you and to share some thoughts on NATO and where it is going. Also I just wanted to say how glad I was to see so many representatives of the universities here in Budapest, signed up to be here today. I see some younger faces in the audience. I hope you won’t be shy about asking questions. And in fact I want to keep my remark short, so we have plenty of time for questions.

Let me begin by thanking not only the Institute and the team here, but thanking the people and government of Hungary for being such a strong and committed NATO Ally. Your nation has made significant contributions to our collective defence, to the fight against terrorism and to reducing instability beyond our borders. I would like to share a few specifics. Last November, we established a small but important headquarters here in Hungary, one of our new NATO Force Integration Units. And the director already mentioned that: We now have eight of these small headquarters in the eastern part of the Alliance. The others are in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. This network in central and Eastern Europe performs several critically important functions for NATO and our collective security – in military planning, exercises, and facilitating reinforcements, if they are needed.

More broadly, they symbolize NATO’s solidarity and commitment to collective defence. To the idea that we are united and will defend one another. Hungary is also one of the largest contributors of forces to our KFOR mission in Kosovo. That ensures a safe and secure environment for all the people of Kosovo, in a region which is central to Europe’s security.

In Afghanistan, Hungarian forces serve with bravery and professionalism as part of NATO’s mission to train, advice and assist Afghan forces. They in this way can secure their country and deny safe haven to international terrorists. Later this year, Hungarian troops will deploy to the Baltics as part of our ongoing Assurance Measures. Hungary will also support our Multinational Framework Brigade in Romania as part of our tailored Forward Presence in the Black Sea region. Your country has contributed to NATO trust funds for cyber-defence and medical rehabilitation as part of our support for Ukraine.

So, now comes the big question of the day, the defence burden sharing. And I wanted also to say a word of thanks to Hungary for increasing defence spending.

At our Wales Summit in 2014, Hungary and all NATO Allies agreed to the Defence Spending Pledge – committing Allies to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP within a decade. Since then Hungary has stopped the cuts in the defence budget and has increased defence spending in real terms. We welcome this very much. We are also encouraging Hungary to maintain the momentum going forward. Because in a more dangerous world, we need to invest in our security to keep our nations safe.

I wanted to underscore that, you know of course President Trump coming into the White House throughout his campaign, then in recent months made defence burden sharing an important priority and talked about it rather in strong terms. But it is really important to recollect that the decisions in this regard were reached at the Wales summit in 2014 and since that time the cuts have stopped across the NATO alliance and the numbers are starting to come up.

We can return to this in our discussion period if you wish.

Now, let’s say a few words about NATOs adaptability. That’s the very purpose of my visit to Budapest today and the NATO transformation seminar. For almost 70 years, NATO has kept the peace in Europe. We have been successful because we have been able to change as the world has changed.  During the Cold War, our focus was collective defence and deterrence. But after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we adapted to the changed circumstances. Our focus broadened to include crisis management beyond our borders. Going out-of-area was a paradigm shift for the Alliance. In the 1990s, we embraced change and helped to stop large-scale bloodshed in the Western Balkans. Before the 1990s, NATO did not work with any partner countries. Now we work with a network of 41 partners in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Asia – and beyond. Thank you.

I wanted to take note that we have a new partner now, Columbia. As our most recent partner and our first in Latin America. So we are truly looking for ways to provide a wide ranging partnership opportunities to countries that can help to increase security in their regions and across the world as a whole. So we welcome this very very much.

As a result of working effectively with our partners, today NATO is smarter and a more agile alliance. By the way we also have international partnerships with international organizations as diverses the UN and the EU on one side and the International Red Cross on the other. So it’s not only country partnerships but also with some international organizations.

Our evolution also included the addition of 12 new NATO members between 1999 and 2009 – beginning with Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. This infusion of new members and new perspectives has spurred organizational change and new thinking. After the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, we invoked article 5 for the first time – that is our collective defence clause. We deployed AWACS to patrol American skies.

And we deployed our largest combat mission in Afghanistan, to ensure that it would never again become a safe haven for international terrorists planning to attack our countries.  The pace of NATO’s transformation has increased over the past few years. 2014 was a major watershed in NATO’s recent evolution. In response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the rise of ISIL, it became clear that NATO must engage in both enhancing collective defence and also projecting greater stability beyond our borders – we must do both at the same time. And indeed those were the core objectives that emerged from the Warsaw summit in July of 2016. So we are pursuing a two-track approach to Russia – combining strong defence and deterrence, with openness for dialogue. Indeed, when tensions are high, we need dialogue more than ever. To reduce risks and increase transparency and mutual predictability and confidence. NATO is a defensive alliance. Everything that we do is defensive, proportionate and fully in line with our international commitments. Our forces do not pose a threat to any country. Our goal is to prevent conflict, not to provoke conflict.

All of NATO’s defensive actions are designed to ensure the safety and security of our countries and to uphold the shared values on which NATO was founded are upheld–every Ally needs to respect and promote those principles: democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. We are working closely with our network of partners to increase stability to the South and the East. Because if our neighbours are more stable, we are more secure. We are working closely with partners to the east such as Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Our training and defence-capacity building efforts in these countries have made a difference, helping them defend their independence and better face external threats, while strengthening their own institutions and fighting corruption, which is an endemic problem in many places.

NATO and the EU are now taking our level of cooperation to a new level. We recently agreed on more than forty proposals in several key areas, including dealing with hybrid and cyber threats and building the capacity of our partners.

We recognize that each organization – working alone – does not have all of the tools and resources needed to effectively address all of the challenges we face – both military and non-military. By working together, we can build and leverage our capabilities. We like to say that neither the EU nor NATO has all the tools in the tool box, but when we put them together we form a coherent whole.    We do have to avoid duplication however. We must complement each other – and not compete with each other. And that’s exactly what we are doing. So NATO, supported by our network of partners, has been involved in a great deal – to enhance our collective defense and also to project greater stability to the South and East.

So, concluding thoughts: For almost 70 years, NATO’s unique bond between Europe and North America has helped to ensure peace and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. Today, NATO is as vital as ever. Our Alliance is strong and continues to adapt. That has been a major theme at our seminar here in Budapest, and will remain a major theme when NATO leaders meet in Brussels at the end of May. And you may have seen that, that it’s been announced by not only SecGens Stoltenberg, who is in Washington but also by the Trump White House. That there will be a leaders meeting on May 25th in Brussels. So we will continue very much to rely on Hungary’s contribution to our mutual efforts and truly look forward to working with you going forward. I think there is so much that we can do together and we have to be constantly mindful of the better ways that we can work together. So thank you very much for attention again it’s good to see so many old friends and colleagues in the audience as well as so many new faces and young faces. So I look forward to our discussion very very much.

Thank you.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: Thank you very much Madame, NATO Deputy Secretary General. And just a short note before we get started with the questions and answers is that, I know that many of you from the press corps are here. We will reserve ten to fifteen minutes for you to ask questions at the end of this session. So we’re expecting questions from the audience before that but I know that you’re looking at answers for your questions so you will not be forgotten. And with that I would like to monopolize on my position as the moderator of the event for today. And I would like to ask you that if I look at the new frame policy concept of Russia. It’s not so friendly towards NATO if I can say and also many people argue that right now we’re experiencing something like a new Cold War even though this might be a little bit overstretched concept for the current situation but I was just wondering what is NATO’s position on cooperation with Russia? And how we could just deconstruct the current level of misunderstanding and distrust between these two great entities?

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER (NATO Deputy Secretary General): Well that’s you know the question of the moment and we grapple with it every day but I mentioned during my remarks that we’re pursuing a dual track approach and we’ve been very very focused on that since really since the Warsaw Summit. And that means we have to be prepared to deter and defend if necessary and I focus on deter and defend, but we also must be open for dialogue. And there’s a very important reason for that it is in our view, it is in everybody’s national security interest that goes for the NATO allies and that goes for Russia as well. It is in our mutual national security interest to ensure that accidents or incidents do not spiral out of control, turn into crisis and eventually escalate to conflict. So there’s some very very practical reasons why we need to engage in dialogue and it’s important in uncertain times to ensure that that dialogue is as rich, as productive and as pragmatic as possible. So there is no contradiction there from the perspective of NATO policy and for many countries around the room as well. It makes a great deal of sense. Now let me address forth your question about whether we’re facing a new Cold War. We’re all concerned about the situation between Russia and the countries of this Alliance. It does seem often that you know that there is potential for you know very complicated situations to develop. And we are all very concerned as I mentioned in my remarks about about Russia’s aggressive actions in ceasing Crimean territory, Ukrainian territory in 2014. So we have to continue to try to resolve that problem, the Minsk Agreements must be fully implemented. We need to keep the pressure on to do that through the sanctions regime and through our national policies overall. But at the same time I look back to the Cold War years where my career began in the mid-1970’s and I remember a much different time and the most I would say practical difference is to do with lines of communication. You know during the Cold War we had very very few lines of communication with the Kremlin and with the Soviet Union overall. I know for for Hungary and the, at that time Warsaw Pact, states you could describe a little bit different circumstance I’m quite sure but for the countries who were at that time members of NATO and my own country, the United States, there were very limited way to keep the lines of communication open with the Kremlin and with the U.S.S.R. overall. So nowadays I see a much much different circumstance where lines of communication are open not only at an official level but also at the level of public’s and in the media realm as well. Again we’re all concerned about media disinformation, the you know problems that have emerged in the context of the recent election campaigns and so forth so we have to be we have to be mindful of disinformation and propaganda but at the same time I welcome very much that they’re just so many potential avenues of communication now and I think that is a major and significant difference with the Cold War era.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: Thank you very much and before we really open up for questions and I would also like to get our third microphone up and running. I was just wondering that considering President Donald Trump and his comments on NATO and whether the European Allies are sharing the burdens of collective defense, I’m always wondering that if I look at his Cabinet if I look at Secretary of Defense James Mattis for example he’s a great friend of NATO I think we can say that but especially when President Trump goes on Twitter I start to have doubts whether the U.S. is still fully supporting NATO and I was just wondering that especially with the 2 percent requirement is we, are we seeing the same old comments from the U.S. that everybody should spend more on defense like old wines in new bottles like put it in a Donald Trump way or are we really experiencing a change in U.S. policy towards NATO?

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: Well first of all I’m going to underscore a message that my boss Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, constantly is underscoring and that these goals were out there well before Mr. Trump even ran for President. So beginning in Wales in 2014 we were at that time seeing a turnaround in the level of defense spending. At that point in 2015 we saw that the, as we put it, the bleeding had stopped, the defense budgets were beginning across the NATO Alliance to rise above the line into plus territory. And then in 2016 we actually saw a 3.8 percent increase, again across the Alliance which amounted to about $10 billion dollars. So we saw this effect occurring again as a result of that watershed year of 2014, where we were all so concerned about what was happening in Ukraine and what was happening with the rise of ISIL. So the trend was in the right direction before Mr. Trump arrived in office. But Jens Stoltenberg likes to stress as do I that Mr. Trump has lent a boost to these efforts and lent some real momentum to them and it’s I think led to a lot of the country’s across the Alliance taking a serious and solid look at what they can do to up their commitments to defense spending. So we actually consider Mr. Trump a great ally in this effort.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: Well if I look at defense spending I can only agree with that. But with this I would like to open up the Q&A session to the audience. So if anybody has any questions please raise your hand, introduce yourself briefly and ask a really short and to the point question if possible. We have the lady here in the front and then the second one in the back.

Q: Thank you [away from microphone]. It was a very interesting presentation. I have two short questions. The first one is that as mentioned in the Times Star (inaudible) there are certain changes going around and what I mean is the coming Brexit. Do you expect any changes or impacts of Brexit on the NATO situation? My second question is about the so-called (inaudible). Can we expect something in near future like the May meeting (inaudible) with NATO?

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: I’ll take that one first. We are in fact looking forward to welcoming our 29^th member of NATO Montenegro and we hope that we will be able to do it at the time of the meeting on May 25^th. So it will be absolutely great if we can raise the Montenegrin flag with the other flags of the 28 nations now in the NATO Alliance in front of our new headquarters. So that is the goal, clearly you know we cannot answer for processes in different countries in the Parliaments, in the U.S. Senate for example. Most of the allies now have completed their accession ratification process but there are, I believe there are three and the United States is one of them still working on it. So we will see but certainly the goal is to welcome Montenegro and that I think is a good symbol for NATO’S continued commitment to the open door policy. There’s no change in that policy. We are continuing to be committed to it. Now as far as Brexit is concerned, the impact I see on NATO is not really a, you know, it’s not the situation as with the E.U. when many many things of course will have to be discussed and negotiated and decided. It’s a different situation. I do understand that the U.K. considers this an opportunity to re-double its focus on security in Europe by working and continuing to be what it has been up to this time which is one of the leading nations in NATO and one of its founding members. So I do expect that we will continue along that line. So for NATO per say I don’t see an enormous impact, there are a lot of questions out there about NATO - E.U. cooperation in the defense and security sector that’s a slightly different question. What I see there and it’s certainly our resolution as well as the resolution across town at E.U. headquarters to ensure that as I put it that we put our two tool boxes together and continue to work on the basis of the advantages that we each offer. And so as a result of that I would say our emphasis on complementarity and not completion with the E.U. as far as defense and security matters are concerned.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: Thank you very much. [away from microphone inaudible]

Q: Good afternoon my name is Mariam I’m from the Embassy of Pakistan. My question pertains to, it sort of builds on the question regarding Brexit and its impact on E.U. and NATO relations. My question is given the recent meeting of the Summit meeting of President Trump with Chancellor Angela Merkel and the fall out of that is not very optimistic if you consider it. What options do you think that NATO as a collective defense organization has for Europe as either as a whole in the collective security sense of the term or will it be more inclined to engage with countries on individual basis. Because even after the election of President Trump there was the statement by Donald Tusk, saying that America is now a competitor to the E.U., so how do you how do you plan on reconciling the two views? Thank you.

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: Well first of all I don’t think I will accept your introductory comment that it wasn’t a good meeting between Chancellor Merkel and President Trump. I don’t actually know what kind of meeting it was so I’d be cautious about you know press commentary that, that portrays you know the outcome in a certain way. I think frankly they had some, from what I’ve been able to tell, they had some good and some frank discussions and it’s very clear to me that Germany will continue to be one of the leading countries in the NATO Alliance in terms of not only defense and security but also in terms of establishing how we work together with the European Union. And so, the other point I’ll make about some of the, you know wide ranging comments that have emanated from Washington, that  have emanated from different places in Brussels that have emanated from the different capitals of the Alliance. You know we welcome debate, there’s nothing wrong with discussion and debate especially at a time when there are a lot of changes in the, in the overarching environment, the political environment at the moment with many elections going on in Europe. I think we have to accommodate debate, we have to take it on board but not let it stop the momentum of work that we need to do. So that’s how I look at it. There’s a lot going on here obviously. I already talked about the kind of balance between the E.U. and NATO in the defense and security relationship. I frankly am optimistic because in December at our Foreign Ministerial we had a good, very good declaration launched again by the E.U. leadership, Mr. Tusk among them and again the Secretary General of NATO, Madame Mogherini also involved in that process and coming out of that has been a very large set of projects, 42 projects overall, where the E.U. and NATO are working together on on defense and security goals. There are already some practical benefits of that in terms of our two operations at sea. Operation Sea Guardian together with the E.U. Operation Sophia helping to control the flow of migrants in the Central Mediterranean and also the Aegean that’s a separate maritime operation, so there are already some practical benefits coming out of NATO - E.U. cooperation. And that’s the trend line that I focus on and that’s the trend line that we continue to need to develop. Debate is important but we can’t let it distract us from the pragmatic goals that we are pursuing already successfully and need to expand.

Q: Thank you I’m the Romanian Ambassador. I have a question that refers to a mention that you made during your introductory remark. You mentioned the corruption and I think that’s a theme of significant interest for this region. It is a theme of huge interest for my country, in fact we define corruption as a threat to our national security and that’s one of the reasons we treat it so seriously. So could you please elaborate more about this topic? Thank you.

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: First of all I wanted to pay a compliment to the Romanian people for their attention to this issue and I think that’s the hallmark of a healthy democracy when the publics are ceased of issues of national importance and willing to speak out on them. So I wanted to just pay my compliments in that regard. The second thing I will say is that again NATO stands for the rule of law. This is our basic, I would say our moral super structure in the Alliance that we stand for basic principles such as the rule of law, sovereignty, territorial integrity all those those principles that came through the organization for security and cooperation in Europe process at the end of the 1970’s and into the 1980’s and are now well established. We stand for those basic principles and among them is the rule of law and that inherent in that is the fight, the necessary fight against corruption. So that’s where NATO stands. But what does NATO do about it. And here I wanted to stress all the work that we do on a not only defense capacity building but institution building in countries across our partner community and also continuing work on these matters inside the Alliance. So it is important I think that we constantly be working inside the Alliance as well as with our partners to enhance our own institutions and to build up their capacity in the realm of law enforcement for example and so NATO does what it can in cooperation with allies and partners to work in this area and we will continue to do so. But we clearly are not the only institution that must engage in these issues. There are many many others and national plans to fight this problem are also of course of upmost importance.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: [away from microphone] There is a question there in the back.

Q: Hello my name is Meta (sic) Peterson I’m from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent and thank you very much for the opportunity to have this exchange. I have here two questions: One is you mentioned very much the increased cooperation also with the Red Cross and talking very much about complementarity and of course the special nature of the Red Cross movement and our independence and neutrality, if you could talk a little bit more about that. The second questions would be, we very recent also had a discussions on the on the concern of the security on the Western Balkans and the deteriorating or the rumblings and our concern about the security there, you were mentioning that you’re working closely with the European Union. I assume that that would also be one of the areas of cooperation, so if you could talk a bit about that. Thank you very much.

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: Absolutely. And let me just say very briefly not only in this position at NATO but in my previous positions as well I had the greatest respect for the work of the Red Cross, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent. I had many occasions to work on issues related to the disarmament agenda in this area but that’s only I know a small part of your work and much is devoted to the plight of refugees, humanitarian crisis around the world, so I will do no more on your first question then to comment about my great personal respect for the work that you do and hope for your continuing success in these very very difficult areas. On the second point, the Western Balkans. That is an area, that’s both an area of great hope and I mentioned the Montenegrin accession to NATO, so you know there is still progress in the area, still countries are moving forward, we still have of course the system of the so-called Dayton Accords in place to help to help to manage the relationships in the region and out of that grew mechanisms such as KFOR, which has been helping over time to maintain the peace in Kosovo and also to create. There I talked about institution building a moment ago to create coherent and capable government systems for for that country. So, there’s some going-on that is positive and optimistic but at the same time at the moment there is much that is lending to instability. Obviously there is a lot of political competition going on at the moment with a number of elections in the region, very important elections. But that is lending, you know, weight to different kinds of political action that’s creating a lot of competition and issues. Second we are concerned about the meddling of outsiders in the region, concerned about the Russian Federation’s role in the region. We have the situation with the potential coup in Montenegro and alleged involvement of the Russian Federation in that. So you know there’s a lot of concerns about outside influence contributing to instability. And then furthermore it’s the topic of corruption and you know the economic system in that part of the world and whether it is adequate to the task of providing for the economic health and the livelihood of populations, of people living in that area, are those economies creating the jobs that will help people to have a stable existence going forward. All of these issues are you know coming together at once and at the moment creating a very very difficult environment in the Western Balkans. Again, what can NATO do about it; first of all we must continue to be present. KFOR I mentioned in my remarks has been present for a long time.  It’s created added security, its added security and value in that way to that region. It’s helped with the institution building, very very important defense capacity building overall. We must be present in the region and not only Kosovo and KFOR but across the region. We are involved in different types of cooperation that help to build capacity. They are one of my first, well it was my first trip when I arrived at NATO in October was to go to Montenegro for an emergency response exercise that NATO organizes on an annual basis in different countries. The next one actually next year will be Bosnia-Herzegovina. But it’s, you know, people say: what, you do emergency response? But actually it was a great training exercise in that region that has suffered from a lot of floods recently. The whole exercise was built around rescuing civilians in flood damaged regions and there were teams from all over the place including, by the way, a team from Serbia as well as a team from Ukraine as well as, you know all across the region there were different teams of emergency responders there. So NATO is doing that kind of thing as well, trying to create some basic capacity and capability. But third I think we can also contribute by lending our presence in important settings. Jens Stoltenberg for example has been speaking out about concerns that we see, he’s been joining together with Madame Mogherini for example in speaking out about the necessity of constitutional practices being pursued in Macedonia. And the will of the people expressed at the ballot box being implemented in Macedonia, so that’s just one example but those are three ways in which I think NATO again working together with the E.U. must remain engaged and involved in the Western Balkans now because it is a serious situation.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: Thank you. And I’d just like to thank the press for being so patient and as we’re approaching the last ten minutes of our event I was wondering if they have any questions from the press as of now. We’ll start with the lady here.

Q: I’m from Reuters. My name is Chris Nattan (sic) and I have two questions. One is that the U.S. has proposed new dates for NATO Foreign Ministerial meeting as it came out what are those new dates? Can we have them? And the second question is whether you are concerned that Mr. Tillerson is going to Russia exactly at the same time as Mr. Stoltenberg is meeting President Trump?

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: Well, first of all I’m not aware that anything new has been announced in Washington with regard to dates. The last thing I heard from Secretary General Stoltenberg, who was there at the moment, is that of course these are questions we will work to resolve in terms of the scheduling matter. All of the, all of the principal’s involved are busy people so they have busy schedules. But I want to stress in that regard that NATO Ministerial dates are a matter of consensus among all the principal’s among all the Ministers, who are involved in such things. So I don’t expect there to be any announcements out of Washington today anyway. If Mr. Tillerson and SecGen have a chance to discuss this matter and I believe they will, then it will have to be consulted with all the NATO allies. So I don’t expect any dates to emerge today. Second thing is, as far as I can tell, and I was tentatively watching the Kremlin and MFA press feed yesterday I haven’t seen any official announcements made either about a visit by Mr. Tillerson to Moscow, so I think it’s premature to comment on any other aspect of travel by Secretary’s or Ministers of Foreign Affairs or Defense.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: Next question from the press.

Q: Thanks for being here and taking our questions. I would like to cease the opportunity to ask. My question is the following: What is NATO’s point of view of the (inaudible) Russian and Turkey arms deal? Does NATO see it as a risk (inaudible) of the Alliance?

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: Well, first of all, as NATO allies, you know the basic policy is and this goes across the board that countries are free to form their own security relationships. Clearly NATO allies have decided that they are going to be, you know, members of the NATO Alliance and that is their security relationship. It also is clear though, that countries make their own sovereign decisions about arms purchases and how they’re going to you know how they’re going to modernize their military. So the key point there for NATO as we think about it at NATO headquarters, the key point is interoperability, we want to have the most efficient and effective alliance in terms of the ability of different members of the Alliance to operate together in peace time, crisis and we don’t like to even think about this but but we must plan ahead in possible conflict. And so interoperability is the key there and I think that’s the most important thing for any member of the Alliance to think about as they consider arms purchases or purchases of other types of equipment like radios for example, communications equipment. Will those systems be interoperable across the Alliance because that’s the way that the Alliance can operate most effectively? So I think that’s, you know, I’m not going to comment, indeed I haven’t seen any confirmation of any deals by any means. But I think it’s most important for members of the Alliance to focus on the importance of interoperability.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: Okay next question Chris. [away from microphone inaudible]

Q: Thank you very much. I’m from the Venezuelan Foreign Embassy. And I’d like to ask you about your remarks about the cooperation with Columbia considering the fact that Latin American region has been less present or perhaps neutral in the international conflicts and also the fact that the region has agreed to renounce military mechanisms to resolve conflicts as a way to declare ourselves as a (inaudible) of peace. So if you don’t mind please can you elaborate on your cooperation with Columbia? Thank you very much.

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: Absolutely. And I have to say in my previous job, when I was still in the Department of State, I made my first trip to your part of the world last year and had an opportunity to see what I think are really beneficial results of those long negotiations to end the civil war in Columbia and to create the conditions for long standing peace and development in that country and in your region overall. So I’ll make that general comment. The second specific thing I’ll say is: Yes indeed Latin America has been a model in terms of ensuring cooperation and cooperation and really an emphasis on other types of interaction particularly on the trade and economic front. But in the case of a number of Latin American countries you have been a net, I would say, a net provider of security in the way you have participated in international peace keeping operations in different parts of the world. And that is the area where Columbia now with the civil war we see and we hope continuing to wind down, be resolved moving into a period of peace for that country itself. Whether it can begin to be a net security provider in looking to peace keeping operations in other parts of the world and so that’s one aspect, one area that we are looking at. But also after years of civil war, after years of conflict again the kinds of NATO programs that I was talking abou,t a moment ago defense capacity building, institution building etc., these are areas where I think we can have a very very fruitful interaction with Columbia. By the way the reason I was going to Columbia as Under Secretary of State was because we had a lot of work going on there in de-mining and counter I.E.D. dealing with years of mines that had been laid down and improvised explosive devices all along jungle trails really affecting the livelihood of local villagers and farmers. Because, you know, their lines of communication, the roads were mined and so the United States working together with international organizations has a number of programs going on in Columbia to do that kind of cleanup and that’s a big emphasis for NATO as well. A lot of the programs we have going, cooperative programs we have going now with Iraq for example and Afghanistan and other countries on this continent is, they are related to counter I.E.D. work and de-mining and so I also see that there’s a kind of, there’s a mutuality of interest there that we can really, we can benefit from learning about Columbia’s experience in the NATO context and we hope that we can benefit Columbia by providing more information to them and perhaps some backing and resources. So it’s really I think quite an interesting phenomenon whether, you know, whether it will expand in other ways I don’t know at this point.

Moderator Marton Urgrosdy: [away from microphone] Next question.

Q: Can I just go back to your remarks on Montenegro and the alleged coup attempt. Can you be a little bit more specific about your concerns about Russia, can you be a little bit more specific about your concerns regarding alleged Russian involvement in that coup attempt? And do you believe that NATO should actually boost its presence in the region, because you said we must be present. But do you actually believe that NATO should actually increase its presence to keep stability?

ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: I think that in terms of boosting our presence NATO has a well-established presence. Now I talked about the different ways we are present there including in doing things like emergency response training and so forth. We try to be as flexible as possible in terms of working with the countries in the region on what their needs are, there are individual partnership programs in each of those countries and so it’s a matter of I think figuring out what is most needed to enhance defense capacity to enhance training opportunities and that type of thing. It’s not a blanket decision. It goes with the individual needs of each of the countries with, which we are partners in the region. So that’s number one. Number two, your question about the alleged coup. I would just say that we’ve been impressed with the way Montenegrin authorities have been pursuing the investigation. They are cooperating it seems very well with other countries in the region, including with Serbia. And I don’t want to comment further, because it’s basically, it’s a law enforcement matter going on now but I just want to express a very strong admiration with how the Montenegrin authorities have been handling it.