 Welcome to the Lowy Institute. I'm Michael Fulilove, the Executive Director of the Institute, and I'm delighted to welcome you to this evening's event with the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg. I acknowledge that we're gathered on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and I pay my respects to their elders, past and present. I also want to acknowledge the Institute Board members here tonight, Stephen Lowy and Glenn Stevens, as well as the other Institute members and supporters in the room. I want to welcome everyone back to the Institute's historic headquarters and our spiritual home at 31 Bly Street. It's wonderful to return to this magnificent sandstone building after four years down the road at 1 Bly Street. And I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the generosity of the Lowy family in completely renovating this building. It's an extraordinary gift to the Institute and to Sydney and to Australia, and I'd like to thank my Chairman, Sir Frank Lowy, Stephen Lowy and the rest of the Lowy family. Before I introduce Mr. Stoltenberg, I want to make an admission and I want to record that speeches by NATO Secretaries General have played an important role in my life. In fact, I met my wife Gillian at a speech by a Secretary General of NATO. 20 years ago, I attended a speech by Javier Solana at Oxford University, where I was studying and my eyes fed, fell on a very beautiful woman and just as I looked at her across the room, she looked at me and she gave me a big smile. I never met her that night, but I met her subsequently and one thing led to another. Much later, we were having a candlelit dinner and I looked across and I said, darling, the moment our eyes met at that NATO speech, I knew this was something special. And Gillian looked very confused. She looked at me and she said, were you at that speech? So, Secretary General, NATO speeches have a magical reputation in our household. I don't want to raise the expectations for your performance tonight, but so far they've been important. Ladies and gentlemen, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is one of the most important and successful military alliances in history. NATO turned 70 in April, and like all 70-year-olds, it is finding it has to adapt to its changed circumstances. And over the past decade, NATO has encountered a string of challenges both from without and within the alliance. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, and five years later, the Russian flag still flies over Simferopol. There is a frozen conflict in Ukraine's East. There is pressure on NATO's Baltic members. Further East NATO personnel continue to train and support Afghan troops. NATO has also faced challenges from within the alliance, including the election of a president of the United States, who is a skeptic of alliances. So it's a lot to deal with. And since 2014, NATO has been led by Jens Stoltenberg. He is the alliance's chief civil servant. He is responsible for coordinating its workings, leading NATO's international staff, chairing many of its major committees and acting as its spokesman. Mr. Stoltenberg twice served as Prime Minister of Norway, first from 2000 to 2001, and then from 2005 to 2013. And in office, he championed increased defence spending and tackling climate change, a dual orientation that I applaud. Let me tell you how this evening will work. First, Mr. Stoltenberg will come and speak to us for about 10 or 15 minutes, and then I will come back to have a conversation with him and to chair a question-and-answer session with him. So, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the Secretary-General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg. Thank you so much for that kind introduction, Dr. Fulilo, and I cannot promise you the same kind of magic speech as the last time you listened to Secretary-General NATO. And I cannot promise that anyone will meet a future spouse during this evening. But I can promise you that I will say some words about NATO, and I will be quite brief in my introduction, and then I will be happy to sit down and to answer your questions. Let me also thank the Lowy Institute for hosting us all today. It is a great honour and pleasure for me to have this opportunity to meet with you and to be back in Australia. It's great for me to be here. I was here in 2011, then in the capacity as Norwegian Prime Minister. This is the first time I'm in Australia as Secretary-General of NATO. And we may be oceans apart. It's a long distance from Brussels to NATO headquarters to Sydney and to Australia, but we are the closest of partners. And the close partnership between NATO and Australia is of great importance, but I'm absolutely certain that the importance, the value of that partnership, just have to increase because we face more and more global challenges, which we can only be able to address and face if we work together. And the shared challenges we face brings us actually closer together. We work side-by-side NATO and Australia fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are together supporting partners like Ukraine and we are standing up for the international rules-based order NATO and Australia together. This afternoon, I signed with Defence Minister Reynolds a renewed partnership agreement between Australia and NATO. This will deepen our cooperation and strengthen our ability to work together even further. It was also a privilege to meet some of the incredible women and men serving in the Royal Australian Navy, board HMSMAS Hubbard. We actually visited the ship at the naval base here in Sydney. Wherever I go, whenever I meet members of the Australian Defence Force, I'm impressed by the dedication and professionalism. So I'm proud that Australia and NATO are deepening our cooperation. And we will need that cooperation even more in the future because security challenges are becoming increasingly global. And let me mention three of them. First, increasing great power competition. This puts our global system and values under pressure. From Crimea to North Korea and from Syria to the South China Sea. Just a few days ago, Russia's disregard for rules and norms led to the demise of one of the great pillars of the post-Cold War arms control regime, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. For over three decades, and this treaty eliminated an entire category of weapons which threatened European security. Unfortunately, Russia has deployed a new missile system, the SSC-8, which violates the treaty. The new Russian missiles are mobile, hard to detect, reduce warning time to minutes, and lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict. This makes the world less safe for us all. NATO remains committed to effective arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, and to keeping our people safe. In recent years, Russia has demonstrated a pattern of destabilizing behavior. It has illegally annexed Crimea, continues to destabilize eastern Ukraine, and has attempted to interfere in domestic political processes in NATO countries. Australia has shown strong support in calling out Russia's unacceptable actions and in promoting the rules-based order. China's role and influence is another sign of increasing global power competition. Its economic rise and technological prowess is powering global growth. This brings many opportunities, financially and politically. But China's rise also has implications for the global rules-based order and for our security. We see this in the South China Sea, in cyberspace, and in Chinese investments in critical infrastructure. So we need to better understand the challenges and the opportunities China presents. Second, international terrorism is another challenge we have to confront together, NATO and Australia. That is why we are in Afghanistan. NATO allies and partners like Australia are working side by side. Together, we work to ensure Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for international terrorism. And we help the Afghans create the conditions for peace. We are now closer to a peace deal in Afghanistan than we have been ever before. And we strongly support efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement to the conflict. NATO and Australia are also both members of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, where we have made enormous progress. We have liberated territory the size of the United Kingdom and freed millions from oppression. So now ISIS no longer controls any territory in Iraq and Syria. Australia is playing a key role by training local forces in Iraq, complementing the efforts of NATO's new training mission in the country. We strongly believe that prevention is better than intervention and in the long run, training local forces is one of the best weapons we have in the fight against terrorism. A third global challenge we have to face together is cyber. Cyber challenges, no boundaries and no borders. They cannot be overcome by one nation alone. And cyber is fundamentally changing the nature of conflict. NATO is adapting. We protect our own networks from cyber attacks. We have rapid response teams available on 24-7 standby that can help NATO countries under attack. And we are setting up a cyberspace operation center at our headquarters in Mons. We are also sharing information real time about cyber threats with members and partners, including with the European Union. And we hope to step up our cyber cooperation with Australia in the future. That was actually one of the issues I discussed, both with the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister and the Foreign Minister this morning. So ladies and gentlemen, Australia and NATO are stronger together when it comes to defending our shared values, freedom, democracy and human rights. Respect for global rules and institutions which have helped keep us safe for 70 years. Today the world is becoming more complex and more contested. So whether great power competition in national terrorism or threats from cyberspace, we are always stronger and safer when we work together. And NATO is grateful to have a reliable partner and friend in Australia. Thank you so much and then I'm ready for your questions. Well, Secretary General, thank you for that. I'm going to ask you three or four questions and then I'm going to go to the audience. So let me say to my colleagues that you have an opportunity to ask the Secretary General of NATO a question. So start to think of a good one and I'll come to you soon. Let me ask you, Mr. Stoltenberg, about some of the world leaders that you mentioned or perhaps you didn't mention but we talk about a lot at the Lowy Institute. And let me start with the United States because the United States is in the cockpit of the liberal international order. Now, in Mr. Trump's early months in office he caused alarm in a lot of NATO capitals because he seemed reluctant to affirm article five of the North Atlantic Treaty, the Mutual Defence Clause. He did reluctantly or he did belatedly endorse it and of course he subsequently said that he's a big fan of NATO. But you've dealt a lot with the President. What's your observation of how he approaches alliances, how he thinks about the principle you ended with which is that we are stronger when we work together? I think we have to remember that NATO is an alliance of 29 democracies, meaning that we have governments, presidents, prime ministers representing different political parties. We are coming from different cultures. We have different history, different political traditions. We have different parties in government. We are coming from both sides of the Atlantic. So there are differences between NATO allies and sometimes also real disagreements and therefore there is no way to hide or actually I'm not trying to hide that there are disagreements also inside the family and some allies disagree with President Trump and President Trump disagree with some allies. The strength of NATO and President Trump is representing that is that despite differences we have always been able to unite around our core task and that is to protect and defend each other and President Trump is committed to NATO. As you said he told me and not only told me he said at the press conference that he is a big fan of NATO and he has at the same time of course expressed very clearly that he strongly believes that we need fair burden sharing in the alliance. Meaning that it's unfair that the United States which has a GDP, the same size as the GDP of the European NATO allies in Canada but the United States pays around three times as much for defense and the other allies do. That's not fair. That's not fair burden sharing. So he has been very clear. He has a very direct way of communicating that that this has to change. I agree with him but even more important 29 allies or 28 other allies agree with the United States and this is a message not only communicated clearly from President Trump but also from the former President Obama and it was back in 2014 where we made the decision that we needed fair burden sharing that those allies were spending less than 2% of GDP on defense have to increase defense spending. The good news is that after years of reducing defense budgets all allies have now started to increase defense spending. More allies meet the 2% guideline and the majority of NATO allies have put forward plans to reach the 2% goal within a decade which was within 2024 which was what we decided. So if you ask me whether United States and President Trump is committed to NATO the answer is yes but they want NATO allies to have a more fair burden sharing that we shared the burden in a more fairly way and the good news is that we are on track to doing exactly that. And should we give President Trump some credit for that? I mean is there a sense in which by putting the issue of burden sharing so directly on the agenda he's energised other NATO capitals? I strongly believe that the strong message from President Trump is having an impact on defense spending and again it's possible to disagree on issues as climate change or trade but agree on the main issue for NATO and that we protect each other and that we have to invest more in defense. And European allies are stepping up but we have to also understand that the United States is committed to NATO and to European security not only in words but also in deeds because after the end of the Cold War the United States reduced their military presence in Europe which was a natural thing to do after the end of the Cold War the end of the Warsaw Pact and the tensions went down. The last American battle tank left Europe in December 2013. Now the United States is back with a full armoured brigade, many battle tanks. There are more US soldiers, more US prepositioned equipment and more US investments in infrastructure now than it has been for many years. So I cannot think about any stronger expression of US commitment to NATO and to European security than the fact that they are sending more US soldiers to Europe and therefore I'm not underestimating the differences and the challenges we have but when it comes to again the core responsibility of NATO we see that European allies and North America are doing more together than we have done for many years. European allies are investing more and US is increasing their presence in Europe. One president who is certainly focused on NATO is President Putin. What is your sense of what President Putin is trying to achieve in Europe and what does he want to do to NATO do you think? So I think that the goal of Russia and the goal of President Putin is to re-establish a system where you have some kind of spheres of influence where big powers and then Russia can decide or at least have a big say or what neighbors do or don't do and that's extremely dangerous because that's the system where actually small nations are not really independent and not really sovereign and that system has led to wars many times in Europe. So the whole idea that Russia has the right to decide what neighbors can do is dangerous and it violates some absolutely fundamental principles which NATO believes in but I think that they dislike the idea of having neighbors that do what they want. Especially because the neighbors then want to join NATO when they can do what they want and that's the reason why Russia has been responsible for aggressive actions against Ukraine, against Georgia. They have Russian troops in Moldova and also why they dislike the fact that for instance the Baltic countries, Poland have joined NATO. Our answer is that we don't, that's not acceptable and that's also the reason why we have so strongly conveyed the message to Russia that all European nations have the same right to choose their own path, including what kind of security arrangements they want to be part of and over the last years we have been able to invite two new European countries to become members of NATO, Montenegro and North Macedonia. Russia don't like that but well they don't decide, it's up to Montenegro and NATO allies to decide and North Macedonia and NATO allies to decide and we have decided they are welcome to NATO and they have joined NATO. One of the big discontinuities in Europe in recent years has been the British people deciding to exit the European Union. Will Brexit have an impact do you think on either on the British commitment to NATO or the historic role that the British plays as a key Western country, an outward looking country that's able to project its power and its influence? Brexit will change UK's relationship to the European Union. Brexit will not change the United Kingdom's relationship to NATO. If anything I think the UK commitment to NATO will just increase because it will be even more important to show that while they leave the European Union with or without the deal but that doesn't mean that they're not they're leaving the international community and then NATO will become an even more important platform for UK to engage with other countries and to bring European allies together because then EU will not be that platform for UK but NATO will be that platform and UK is the biggest defence spender in Europe and the second largest in the whole alliance so it matters what UK does and therefore Brexit will not change anything with the constant relationship to NATO if anything it will strengthen the importance and relevance of NATO. That was the first question the second I have forgotten but I think I answered. Alright let me bring you closer to this part of the world. Also in Asia just like in Europe you have an order that has existed since the Second World War but you have a number of powers that are seeking to change that order and in particular you have China that is some people would say is seeking to become the dominant power in Asia certainly doesn't subscribe to everything that Western countries say about the rules-based order in Asia. It's different from Russia because it's larger, it's richer, its future is brighter I think than Russia's future. As a visitor to Asia how would you diagnose China's intentions? What would be your advice to a country like Australia that is trying to balance a deep economic relationship with China but at the same time as a Western country a treaty ally of the United States? First of all I'm very careful giving advice to Australia. I concentrate on the 29 members I have and that's enough for me. Second I think that what matters for NATO now is that we strengthen the partnership with Australia and the rise of and also New Zealand and other partners of NATO in this region Asia Pacific region which includes also our close partners Japan and South Korea and that the rise of China makes it even more important. Because as you have already alluded to the rise of China provides us with opportunities. The economic growth of China has been important for all of us. It has helped it alleviates a lot of poverty in China and it has fueled growth in our own countries and we should welcome that. But at the same time we see that there are obvious challenges related to the rise of the military power of China and of course you are closer to China than European NATO allies are and traditionally NATO has been focused on the Soviet Union during the Cold War and Russia after that but what we see is that the rise of China is having an impact on our security partly because China is coming closer we see them in the Arctic we see them in Africa in Africa we see them investing heavily in critical infrastructure also in Europe we see them in cyberspace and we also see that decisions by China and Chinese investments in new modern military capabilities have direct consequences for us perhaps the most recent example is the rise of the INF Treaty because one of the reasons why Russia started to violate the INF Treaty and the INF Treaty has been a cornerstone for arms control in Europe for decades it did not reduce the number of intermediate-range missiles it banned all of the eliminate the whole category of weapons extremely important for our security reasons why Russia started to violate that treaty and deploy new intermediate-range missiles in Russia also able to reach Europe but also all the parts of the world was that China had developed these kinds of weapons and deployed many of them China was not bound by the INF Treaty so the deployment of Chinese weapons triggered deployment or at least contributed to the deployment of weapons in Russia which then led to the demise of the INF Treaty with direct impact on us so great power competition is global affects us all I mentioned terrorism and cyber to global challenges affects us all so that makes it even more important that we work together and that's exactly what I've discussed here during my visit to Australia but also earlier in the week with the New Zealand so I think it's up to Australia to decide what to do but I really hope that you and I don't only hope because that's an expressed wish from Australia is to work closer with NATO to deal with some of these global challenges including the rise of China just one more question on that front do you think that European nations are really seeing a three-dimensional view of China and understand the security challenges as well as the economic opportunities because often in Australia when our history is of is often trying to contribute to the rules-based order in Europe from the First World War to the Second World War but often it feels here that European countries see the economic upside of dealing with China especially given economic difficulties in Europe but are not so quick to see the challenges to the international order that China presents? I think that maybe that was right before but I think that more and more European allies are aware of the different dimensions of the rise of China including the challenges and one thing that reflects that is that in NATO we are now starting the more systematic work on analyzing and assessing the security consequences and the challenges so I think and just the fact that we are looking into what more we can do with partners in this region also reflects that and again it is in your interest and our interest that we work together let me just also add that last time I visited Australia I was in 2011 and I went to the war memorial in Canberra and to be honest I should have known that before I am an example of the many Europeans that have not been fully aware of how much you contributed to our freedom both in the first and the second world war and especially the first world war and I think it is extremely important that we express the gratitude to Australia because one thing is to participate in the second and the first world war if you are also already part of it or a European country you are actually sending people around the whole to the other side of the world and you suffered a lot to help us gain the freedom or maintain our freedom so that is the lesson I learned when I was here the last time and I feel a bit ashamed that I was not aware of that before I came Alright, well thank you for that very generous comment let me go to the audience for questions we have about 20 minutes for questions so please if someone would like to put a question to the Secretary General please put up your hand catch my eye I am sure that a flurry of hands is going to appear and like clockwork I am going to go first to Deborah Snow Deborah if you and other questioners can wait for the microphone if you can tell us your affiliation before you put your question and then keep your question brief Sydney Morning Herald and the Age Secretary General thanks for your very interesting speech I was looking just before you spoke at a Time magazine article from earlier this year and it quoted former Kremlin advisor Sergei Karaganov saying that history could have looked different by not allowing Russia to join NATO he said this was one of the worst mistakes in political history it automatically put Russia and the West on a collision course eventually sacrificing Ukraine he is not alone in thinking that NATO was perhaps I would say reckless but hadn't thought through the consequences of allowing the Baltic States to join it in the wake of the dissolution of the former Soviet Union so I would like to get your response on that please that it was reckless to allow the Baltic States to join NATO there were those analysts who say that promises were made Yeltsin has claimed that promises were made that would not happen you understand the history but first of all no such premise was made and second just the idea that if NATO was going to make such a promise then we need I think we were 16 members of NATO then all 16 members have to sit in the meeting and agree and I can absolutely assure guarantee you that that meeting has never taken place so there has been no guarantee from NATO and the only way to make decisions in NATO is to buy consensus so of course no such decision no such promise to Russia that after the end of the Cold War after the end of the Warsaw Pact after that the former Warsaw Pact members or republics in the Soviet Union should not be allowed to join NATO but another version of the same so idea is that this was a promise made by for instance the United States that's also wrong but second if that had taken place it would have been absolutely unacceptable because the idea that in a way the United States or any other country in NATO should promise on behalf of other sovereign European nations what they can do is actually violating their sovereign right to choose their own path because how can that's the re-established the idea of great powers, big powers deciding what small powers can do and and the whole idea of that I'm a big power so I deny you to do this or that and that's absolutely against everything I believe in I believe in the sovereign right of every nation to make their own decisions including what kind of security arrangements or military alliance they would like to join or not join so if we have good friends and partners like Sweden, Finland they have decided not to join NATO and I fully respect that as I respect the Baltic countries that they wanted to join and of course Russia has no right to deny Latvia to join NATO if Latvia through democratic processes comes to the conclusion they would like to join NATO it's for them to decide and then for the NATO members to see if they meet the NATO standards not for Russia to say that's a provocation and I use very often an example that if we accept that thinking then how can Norway be a member of NATO we are a small country bordering Russia and I know as I was not born then in 1949 but then of course Yulsef Stahl was boss in Russia and the Soviet Union he really disliked that Norway joined NATO but I'm very glad that the British government and the American government and the Truman and Clement Attlee and all the others they said no Norway is welcome to NATO despite the fact that we are a border country of Russia so first of all it is wrong that such promises were made and if they were made it would have been wrong so this is twice wrong if you understand what I mean and therefore I believe in the right of every nation to decide their own path and that's what NATO is pursuing I saw Hervé Lémi here from the Lowy Institute thank you Secretary General Hervé Lémi here from the Lowy Institute another area where Australian NATO have worked together on is in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and that has been an enormous effort has cost the lives of both NATO soldiers and Australian soldiers Australia dedicates 80 million dollars a year on Afghanistan's post reconstruction building and yet President Trump is now negotiating with the Taliban and has hinted towards withdrawing the troops that remain in Afghanistan how do you feel the peace process is going and is this not reneging on the commitment which you made which is to tackle international terrorism first I would like to express my gratitude to Australia for participating, contributing to the NATO mission presence in Afghanistan over many years and also pay tribute to those who have paid the ultimate price and express my condolences to all those who have lost low ones family members and Australia has paid the high price as other NATO allies and partners have in Afghanistan then we have to remember why we went into Afghanistan we went into Afghanistan because Afghanistan was a safe haven for international terrorists a place where Al Qaeda and other groups could plan organized train terrorist attacks on us after 9-11 and the main task purpose of our presence in Afghanistan has been to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming such a platform for international terrorism there are many problems in Afghanistan we see continued violence we see we see instability there are many many challenges but we have also seen some important progress first of all Afghanistan is not longer a safe haven for international terrorism there are terrorists there but they're not operating in a free and safe environment they are constantly under attack a second we have helped supported enabled in economic and social and political progress which has allowed millions of young people to get education during the Taliban there were no girls getting education at all now millions of young girls are getting education so the rights of women has made enormous enormous progress to the rights of the role of women in Afghanistan I welcome the fact that we now have a real peace talks going on we are closer to a peace deal now than ever before Ambassador Khal is out the negotiator from the American side is closely consulting with all NATO allies and partners because we went in together and we have made clear that we will make decisions of future presence in Afghanistan together and when the time is right we leave together what is important is that a deal preserve the gains we have made meaning that it's important to have a deal that preserve that Afghanistan doesn't once again become a safe haven for international terrorism and that we also create the best possible framework to preserving the social and economic progress we have made especially when it comes to women I cannot tell you anything exactly about when there will be an agreement because negotiations are difficult and nothing is agreed before everything is agreed but we are closer to a deal now than we have been ever before and we have to remember that NATO is there to create the conditions for peace and the Taliban has to understand that they will never win on the battlefield so they have to sit down at the negotiating table and now they are actually sitting down at the negotiating table and hopefully that will lead to something that will create a situation in Afghanistan where we are able to reduce our presence without risking the gains we have made the social and economic progress who else would like to ask a question I saw this gentleman in the middle Desmond Woods Royal Australian Navy during the Cold War there were only two NATO countries that had borders directly with the Soviet Union your own and Turkey and Turkey was the reliable southern bastion of NATO President Erdogan's rhetoric suggests that he sees Turkey as semi-detached from NATO and we know that there is a considerable dispute currently over the arrival of F-35 joint-strike fighters and Soviet missiles capable of shooting them down in Turkey and this is quite a standoff going on how reliable do you regard Turkey's current and future membership of NATO the Turkish decision to acquire the Russian air defence system is a national decision by Turkey but I am concerned about the consequences of that decision in NATO it is a national decision of what kind of systems different nations buy or require but what matters for NATO is interoperability that they can operate together and the Russian air defence system S-400 will not be integrated into the NATO integrated air and missile defence and as you mentioned there are also consequences for the delivery of the F-35 the fighter aircraft and therefore I am concerned about the consequences having said that I welcome the fact that the United States and Turkey are talking together on the possibility of a US delivery of a US system, a patriot system there are also talks between Turkey and Italy and France on a possible delivery of a French-Italian air defence system called SAMT and we have to remember that NATO is only augmenting the air defences of Turkey with the deployment of two air defence batteries one SAMT and one patriot battery in Turkey again I am not the S-400 issue is a serious issue but Turkey's contributions Turkey's role in NATO runs much deeper than the issue of S-400 that is the important Turkey's contribution is much more than that and not least in the fight against terrorism we have to remember that some months ago a couple of years ago Daesh ISIS controlled the territory as big as the United Kingdom as I said they were threatening Baghdad and now they have lost all the territory they controlled that has been possible not least because we have been able to work with our NATO ally Turkey in attacking ISIS in Iraq and Syria Turkish infrastructure the fact that we were able to control the border all that has been extremely important so when it comes to fight against terrorism Turkey is extremely important ally so yes it is a problem I am concerned about the consequences of the S-400 but I am absolutely certain that Turkey will remain a highly valued and important NATO ally and we will address a lot of other challenges together with Turkey despite the fact that the S-400 is creating some problems. We have time for a couple more questions I saw this gentleman over here on the edge very much and I work on development at the University of New South Wales and while I understand that NATO is primarily focused on hard power and security in relation to military security I was wondering if you could say something about some of the other things that you have referred to issues like climate change issues like the Belt and Road Initiative maybe also thinking about the importance of development assistance and how for a country like Australia one should be thinking about the balances between these different forms of power So the last question was the last issue How do you balance the different kinds of power soft power, hard power so first of all I think we have to understand that NATO is the answer to many problems but NATO is not the answer to all problems so we have different tools different institutions, different multinational institutions and organizations addressing different challenges and I'm very proud of NATO and NATO has been the most successful alliance in the history and we have achieved our main task our main goal and that is to keep peace, preserve the peace in Europe and that's not a small task because we have as a we have an unprecedented period of peace in Europe since NATO was established that's not only because of NATO but the establishment of NATO has been key to maintain peace in Europe we have to remember that the normal situation in Europe before was that we were at war and at least it's hard to find in the history of Europe at least for that part of Europe which is a member of NATO any period as long as the period we have seen since the Second World War which has been peaceful I sometimes refer to my own part of Europe the Nordic countries, we used to fight each other all the time that was the normal thing Swedes and Danes and Norwegians did, was to fight and France and Germany Europe is full of conflicts it's kind of the Middle East based on ethnic divisions religious divisions, political divisions we were fighting each other almost all the time now we live at peace so I say this just to say that it's not a small thing it's not a minor issue to maintain peace that's a big thing and NATO has been key essential to do exactly that then I agree that there are many other issues which are extremely important for instance fighting poverty, alleviating poverty promoting economic growth dealing with climate change and in my previous political life as Norwegian politician actually I was more engaged in those issues than defence and security but I ended up in NATO and thought it was time to also focus on defence and security but of course there are links climate change can fuel conflicts can create can force many people to move and that can create conflicts poverty can create conflicts so of course the more progress you are able to make in the fight against poverty the more economic development we are able to create the easier it is also to create a peaceful and stable international environment and climate change of course are we able if we are successful in dealing with climate change we are also helping to under peace, peace and stability but my answer is in a way that NATO is not the tool to deal with climate change the Paris Accord the UN efforts, that's the platform to deal with that and NATO is not a development aid agency we are important for prosperity because without peace and stability you are not able to create prosperity and if we look at the least developed countries in the world the main character of them is that there is war conflict so a kind of first step to create prosperity economic development is to create peace and NATO helps to do that but then there are many other efforts which has to be done by others so I don't know whether I really answered your question but I am saying that yes these are important efforts but I think NATO's task is to maintain peace and then we need to use other tools international institutions to address the other challenges you've got enough on your plate that's what you are saying Secretary General we'll take one more question before we finish up alright this gentleman here if you could wait for the microphone sir thank you very much Paul Hatfield private citizen no affiliations that's allowed the United States was one of the original founding members of NATO in 1949 when there was only 48 states and Hawaii didn't become a state of America until 1959 and Hawaii has never been a signatory to NATO and today is separate therefore if there was an attack on Hawaii even though America is a signatory and a member of NATO at night I couldn't do anything it's my understanding that night I couldn't do anything alright that's a very technical question thank you sir if one ally is attacked and Hawaii is part of the United States which is part of NATO then Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states clearly that should be regarded as an attack on us all and we can trigger Article 5 so that's in a way the answer to that having said that I think that we have to understand that at the end of the day this is a political issue meaning that at the end of the day this is about a political commitment that we are standing up for each other and just to have the idea that one ally should be attacked and then we are we not reacting will undermine the credibility of the whole of NATO and therefore I think it's also quite interesting to also to think about or reflect about the fact that those who wrote the Washington Treaty back in 1949 I think when they wrote the Article 5 the idea was to protect European NATO allies against attack from the Soviet Union we never evoked Article 5 also addressing the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union never attacked us because we had credible deterrence they knew that if they attacked one ally it would trigger the whole response the response would hold alliance and that prevented the conflict so it is a paradox that the first time we invoked Article 5 was after attack on the United States by a terrorist organization by Al Qaeda and again it's not easy to ask those who wrote the article back in 49 but I guess none of them have thought about the idea that the first and only time we invoked Article 5 was after attack by a terrorist organization on the United States So I think the Hawaiians can rest easy because I don't want to finish on that point I'm going to ask you one final question Secretary General I mentioned in the introduction that you're a national politician you're a prime minister and you mentioned in your answer to the last question on climate change and the BRI that you deal with very different issues as the head of an alliance and now you're focused on defence and military issues can I ask you to reflect a bit more broadly on the differences between being a national leader and being the leader of an alliance especially in the context of a world in which a lot of western countries there seems to be distrust of international organizations and Davos Mann and so on what have you found which of the roles have you found more satisfying how are they similar and different do you feel that one can do good work at the international level as well as the national level there are many similarities and many differences one big difference is that at least when you are a prime minister you are responsible for many different things as you are one of them in the morning you work with it on education and then on health and then on transportation and then on climate change and then on defence and security and then you deal with the challenges in the parliament and so on there is a broad range of issues all the time mixed together and now as Secretary of NATO I am focused on one set of topics security and defence so that's the difference and then there are and then another difference is that I have to be honest and say that it's sometimes easy to see the link between decision when you are a national politician and the result we build a hospital the hospital stands there and we can cut the ribbon and everyone applauds and everyone is happy it's less of that in international politics it takes time but at the same time when we are able to agree when we are able to do something it's really of great importance so I am extremely proud of what we have been able to achieve in NATO the biggest adaptation the biggest reinforcement of NATO since the end of the Cold War in the generation if anyone have told me or that we were able to have combat ready troops thousands of combat ready troops from other lines told me that in 2015 I would say that will be highly unlikely now we have that we are triple the size of the NATO response force and just the fact that we were cutting defence budgets now we are increasing with billions you can like it or not like it but that's huge differences and it's hard to imagine anything more important than preserving the peace so I am happy when I go to bed feeling that I have a meaningful job but it's sometimes easy to you make a decision one day in the budget of Norway and then you have the road at least not so long after that then there are similarities one similarity is that you need to negotiate you need to make compromises perhaps that's a bit different in Australia but at least in most European countries including Norway we have different kind of coalition or minority governments so you always have to sit down with some other parties and find some solutions and to be honest that I have never participated in any more difficult negotiations than when you negotiate for instance, budgets in Norway so there is no diplomatic or international negotiation which is in any way as hard than to agree on exactly how many money we are going to spend on that road compared to that road or that hospital or whatever it is you should see the budget negotiations at the low institute secretary so and I think that's actually a valuable experience to have in NATO to know how to find compromises at the end of the day we need compromises compromises is not a bad thing compromises is a good thing that's the way to find a solution to be able to come to conclusion and to make decisions both on the national level and on the national level well ladies and gentlemen that's all we have time for I want to thank you very much for joining us tonight Mr Secretary General we've seen all of your sincerity and passion on display tonight every day it seems to me that we are more liberal and less international and less orderly and at times like that we need organisations like NATO to keep the international system orderly so thank you very much thank you for visiting Australia thank you for your speech thank you for the work that you do on behalf of the organisation so ladies and gentlemen please join me in thanking Mr Secretary General Mr Secretary General Mr Secretary General