 And when we have public events like this, we always begin with a little safety discussion. I hate having to do this, but we're living in an era where we kind of have to do that. I am your responsible safety officer. My job is to make sure everybody here is going to be safe during and after this event. And if anything is to happen, I'm gonna ask you to follow me. We're gonna go right out through that door and right next to it is the escape that goes down to the alleyway. If the problem's in the front, we're gonna go over to the National Geographic Society. If the problem's in the back, we're gonna go over across the street and we'll meet in the park and I'll see if I can get ice cream someplace. So why don't you, but do follow me. I'm responsible and I'm gonna take care of you. It's a real pleasure. It's an honor to welcome all of you today and it's very much a pleasure to welcome the foreign minister of Iceland. I have to share with you a story. Now, the ambassador here were old school chums. We went to school together at Seiss. It was back in, when Custer, I think, was in the army. Yeah, it was a long time ago. And I can remember having this conversation. Gare lined up a lunch that we had with the ambassador from Iceland and we were talking, it was Iceland's mighty but small country and they had 186 countries. They had diplomatic relations with and I said, well, how in the world can you, small country have diplomatic ties with 186 countries and the ambassador said, well, I am the ambassador to North and South America. And Gare, I don't know how many countries you've got under your perfect eight. So he's a powerful ambassador. This is a, he's a powerful ambassador and we're, and he's also a very dear friend and we're glad to have him here. And foreign minister, we're glad to have you here. You're ably represented in Washington but it's very important for foreign ministers to come because honestly, a big complex country like America, we're kind of a, we can only focus on one thing at a time and it's very hard for us unless someone like you comes to get our attention but you've done that and I think we're going to spend the next hour with each other, hour and a half with each other. Talking about a part of the world that we take for granted, we don't understand is very important to us. It always was. Iceland was always very important to us from a security standpoint for through the Cold War and sadly some of that's coming back. We may talk a little bit about that today. I think we also will talk about the very important role that Iceland plays with the Arctic Council and I would like to welcome Admiral Bob Papp who is our ambassador designate to the Arctic Council and he's doing great things, getting us ready for fairly important session that'll take place up in Anchorage here I think later in the summer and America's focus is draw north for very good reasons. Some of them are security reasons, some of them are economic reasons and we're going to explore all of that today so I look forward very much to hearing what Foreign Minister Svintson says and with us I'm going to lead a bit of a discussion once he finishes his formal presentation but could I ask you with your applause to please welcome the foreign minister from Iceland, Foreign Minister Svintson. Please join me. Thank you. Well hello, good to see you all here. Before I begin, I think you should all try to imagine where Iceland is on the world map situated between east and west, totally inside the Arctic area, Arctic Circle you can say so. So Iceland has through history been some kind of a forefront for North America and also just to remind you that we found America 700 years before for Mr. Columbus but we lost it again somehow, I don't know why but that's the story of Icelanders. Well Dr. Hammer, Admiral Papp, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, for organizing this statements forum and inviting me to reflect on Iceland, the Arctic region and its political, strategic and economic dynamics. For most people living below the high north, idea of the Arctic has been of a cold, remote dark place, accessible for only the few determined explorers, retraining and air of mystery and magic. However, it is not longer only the land of the Northern Lights, Polar Bears and Santa Claus, it's also a place of economic development, oil drilling, tourism, entrepreneurship and a place of renewed strategy, strategic importance for Arctic and non-Arctic states alike. Although the climate is cold, the topic itself is somewhat hot. To us, the four million people that live in the Arctic, it is not a frontier, it's a home. Since I took office just over two years ago, I have barely had a meeting with colleagues, home or abroad, where the Arctic is not only agenda. That shows truly how the Arctic is becoming an increasingly important region in global, regional, national and also sub-national context. My government has identified developments in the Arctic as a key priority in its foreign policy. Our ambition is to continue to build on and develop the principles that underpin the Arctic policy that was unanimously adopted in 2011 by the Aesthetic Parliament, I'll think. The Arctic is in principle a well-governed region with strong legal and international structures, institutional structures. Aesthetic policy encompasses 12 wide-ranging principles, including promoting and strengthening the Arctic Council as the most important forum on Arctic issues, the importance and respect of international law, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea being the most important one. In addition, science and knowledge is a fundamental to policy and decision-making in the Arctic. Also, the policy states clearly that Iceland will adhere to principles of sustainability and protection of the environment, which is regarded as a seminal principle when discussing the future of economic development in the region. Developments in the Arctic include complex and urgent security challenges. Peaceful cooperation among the Arctic states must continue to be based on national rights and obligations. Military activities should be focused on maintaining a peaceful cooperation. If that is to be realized, we have to prepare in advance and we have to prepare together. We must define where our strengths lie, where we can build on existing capabilities, where we have to add capacity and perhaps infrastructure in the future, but we also have to define and prepare against possible threats. The changes in the high north are driven by several interlinked factors, first and foremost by global warming, following by increased demand for energy and raw materials, potential for trans-artic shipping and economic development in infrastructure, tourism and services. Simultaneously, we see a growing number of countries and actors interesting in the Arctic. The key driving force, however, is global warming. The melting of the ice cap is happening at much faster rate than we anticipated. Even if it is only in recent years that the Arctic has been attracting greater international attention, Iceland has participated in political discussion on the future of the region for decades. For example, in October 1987, an international conference were organized in Reykjavik on the possibilities of Arctic shipping. That same week, then sent General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, Mikhail Gorbachev, gave a historic speech in Murmansk when he emphasized the growing need for more cooperation and collaboration with other nations in northern Europe. This set a tone for confidence-building in a new era of international relations in the north. Looking back in history, the first major achievement of Arctic cooperation was to build trust and cooperation among Arctic states in the aftermath of the Cold War, based on simple fact that we share the same environment and we share the responsibility for the region. This led to establishment of various regional forums. Most importantly, the Arctic Council in 1996. In the early days of the Arctic Council and its predecessor, the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, cooperation that chiefly focused on environmental protection and science cooperation. Today, the Council has moved from being a policy-shipping to policy-making, with two legally binding agreements in place. One on oil spill response and the other on search and rescue. Also increased economic activity, shipping, tourism, and resource development has led the Council to take and expand roles and responsibilities, such as regarding business cooperation and civil and environmental security and protection demonstrated by the two agreements. But at the same time, the Council has been able to adapt to this changing reality with a more open engagement with relevant international stakeholders, allowing them rightfully to contribute to our work. And at our last ministerial in April, the ministers discussed the positive contribution of the observers and the ministers will receive recommendation on further collaboration with them at the next ministerial. The growing international significance of the Council is demonstrated by the fact that it now includes 10 of the 11 largest economies as members or as observers. Six of the 15 largest oil producers and nine of the 20 largest fishing nations in the world, Iceland and the US among them, and China being the biggest fishing nation by far. This interest in the Arctic is not restricted to China. Asian economies, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are also observers. They follow developments in the Arctic closely because they have strong economic interests with respect to shipping, logistics and trade, apart from research and scientific work connected to universities and government agencies. Iceland and China concluded a free trade agreement in 2013, providing for pre-ferential market access for imports of Iceland products into Chinese market. Together with Switzerland, we were the first European nations to conclude a such an agreement with China. And China has made such agreements with several countries in South and East Asia as well as Central and South America and with Australia and New Zealand. Ladies and gentlemen, when members and figures about the growth potential in the Arctic, we should take it with caution. There is little doubt that major possibilities exist. A close alignment with the principles of environmental protection and utilization of natural resources while the application of the best available technology and best practices are prerequisite for sustainable development in the Arctic. Technology has made it possible to utilize previously indexable natural resources in a sustainable manner. A growing human economic activity increases regional and coastal marine transport. Caution needs to be exorcised. The region, the region's sensitive environment and its vulnerability, vulnerable spaces and ecosystems need to be protected from the potential negative impact of this development. Sustainable utilization of marine resources must be ensured. Many of the region's communities, including Iceland, are to a large extent dependent on these resources. This can only be accomplished through the close cooperation of all of all of the Arctic coastal states. Let's not forget that for an island state like Iceland that is entirely located within the Arctic, the region as a whole and the sustainable and responsible development is of fundamental significance. Therefore, making sure that we manage our natural resources for the benefit of future generations is a central theme in our policy. For example, warming of the oceans can lead to changes in the environment and migration of valuable fixed stocks, perhaps out of the Icelandic economic zone. With retreating ice and warming oceans in the Arctic, new areas might open for plankton production, which may lead to new finding grounds for fixed stocks and other marine organisms, possibly resulting in a massive transfer of biomass in the ocean. At the same time, we see changes in ocean acidification that can have huge effect on the living marine environment in the oceans. We must also ensure that increased oil and gas production and all the resource utilization in the region serve the interests of inhabitants and do not undermine the sustainable development of their communities. This includes emphasizing the utilization of renewable energy resources wherever possible. Here, Iceland is in a particular good position to lead by an example. Today, close to 100% of our electricity and heating is derived from renewables, mainly hydro and geothermal. We have also been successful in exporting renewable energy, knowledge and expertise, not least in geothermal. To East Africa, but also hydro closer to home, for example to Greenland. Hydro, geothermal, wind, ocean or solar power will not solve all our problems, but those are becoming increasingly feasible and reliable energy sources. This ensures more diverse energy resources to meet the needs for investment and the development of local communities and economies in the Arctic. Therefore, as we carefully tread the path towards extraction of oil and gas in the Arctic, we need to continue to invest in renewable energy, technology and resources. And our common aim should be for the Arctic to be a sustainable region in the long term, but not a short term source for exploitable valuables. The 1996 Ohtala Declaration to establish the Arctic Council clearly states that sustainable development and environmental protection are at the heart of the Council's work. The eight Arctic States share a common responsibility in maintaining the Arctic as a region of peace, stability and cooperation. I believe the United States' chairmanship theme for the next two years, one Arctic shared opportunities, challenges and responsibilities, captures our common vision very well. Iceland is fully committed to continuing active and constructive participation in our joint work during the U.S. chairmanship. One of the U.S. themes is the focus on the ocean and the establishment of the Task Force of Arctic Marine Cooperation. Iceland will co-chair the Task Force together with Norway and the U.S. We welcome U.S. interest in continuing the work of the Arctic States in safeguarding environmental and civil security in the Arctic and furthering practical international cooperation and regional search and rescue capability as well as oil spill response capacity and increasing the focus on renewable energy and telecommunications infrastructure. Special attention is given to climate change and as we move towards an international climate change agreement at the COP 21 in Paris this year, it is important that we demonstrate leadership in addressing the causes of Arctic warming and work together to achieve effective and ambitious reductions of greenhouse gases. As an Arctic island state witnessing climate change and consequences in the Arctic, we know the importance of taking concrete international actions. The newly established Arctic Economic Council will be a valuable partner in facilitating and fostering business opportunities to stimulate investment and employment opportunities. While advancing responsible economic development in the region, it is not yet open to participation by businesses from third countries including observer states, but we are of the opinion that it should be. That will bring benefits and promote and increase investments between the Arctic and other regions and countries. Ladies and gentlemen, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the pace of cooperation in the Arctic increased. Regional structures for cooperation were established at a number of issues that had not been on the agenda but were put on the table. Chief among them perhaps nuclear safety and environmental issues. The regional cooperation initiatives that were created aimed at building confidence with Russia and promoting political dialogue and practical cooperation. The Barnas Euro Arctic Council, the Council of the Baltic Sea States, the Northern Dimension to name but a few, emerged in addition to existing strong Nordic regional cooperation and the need to further develop cooperation with the three Baltic States that had their independence restored after the Soviet Union broke up. In the European Arctic and Northern Europe, you see regional cooperation at its best. Considerable time and money has been invested in these regional structures over the last 20 or 25 years. It is therefore particularly worrying to witness current developments in Ukraine. Russia's annexation of Crimea and its subsequent involvement in eastern Ukraine is unacceptable. And such a serious breach of international law that it has gravely damaged our relations with Russia. I have visited Ukraine four times in the past 80 months and I am convinced that ordinary Ukrainians want to see a real fight against corruption that remains alive in the country. They want democracy, rule of law and improved human rights. This was the underlying reason for the protests on the Maidan Square. The old idea of doctrine that states should be within some other states, spare of influence, is outdated and old-fashioned to say the least. Iceland has firmly condemned Russia's actions and we participate in all EU-imposed sanctions. The challenge for western states is to find ways to address the conduct of a neighboring country that does not hesitate to violate international law and damage relations with the West. Russia must realize that the annexation of Crimea is in blatant violation of international law and has consequences. Consequences both for Russia's political standing internationally and for Russia's economic relations with key partners. The transatlantic unity is clear. Just a few years ago when the European Union decided to extend sanctions against Russia and Iceland continues to support these efforts. Having attended the NATO Defence Ministerial Brussels last week, it is clear that the mood is gloomy. NATO tried very hard to make Russia a partner but it appears that the feeling is not mutual. What does it mean for transatlantic cooperation? I think it's clear that we need to maintain and expand the relations between the North American and the European NATO members. And as you know, NATO member states have us lead different relations with Russia. Some are more vulnerable than others, especially when it comes to energy. But Europe has made considerable efforts to seek alternative ways and means to import oil and the particular gas from other sources than Russia, and this is very important. I will, however, stress to anyone here in Washington that NATO continues to hold enormous political value. That includes the extensive military cooperation among allies and partners that produce invaluable results every single day. But it also includes the unfailing resolve of nations that stood the ultimate test during the Cold War. For Iceland, NATO is just as important as it has always been since 1949 when we were one of the 12 founding members. It is a security guarantee through the principle of collective defense. The Arctic states have to be committed to cooperation. Our differences should not damage existing cooperation but at the same time, it will be very difficult to further develop the cooperation giving the situation. Finally, I would like to talk about Iceland's security and defense, including our cooperation with the United States. Iceland has no military forces, with our defense guaranteed by our founding membership of NATO and the 1951 bilateral defense agreement with the United States. These linked security guarantees remain the two pillars on which Iceland's national security policy rests. And I also want to mention the ever-increasing cooperation between the Nordic countries security and defense cooperation that is both timely and highly relevant and covers a broad range of security issues. With the departure of US forces from Iceland in 2006, Iceland assumed responsibility for a number of critical defense-related tasks. This includes the cooperation of the NATO integrated air defense radar system in Iceland as well as facilities at Keplavik Airport. Those facilities are essential for the NATO air polishing mission in Iceland, as well as other alliance operations and in support of alliance traffic and maintaining situal awareness. For a country without armed forces, assuming the responsibility was a major challenge. I am, however, proud to say that the transition was a complete success without any operational interruption. The US-Island defense relationship has matured and developed since the base closure. Our cooperation now increasingly takes into account emerging threats and non-military challenges. The government of Iceland is committed to strengthen these bilateral ties further based on mutual interests. Two areas of particular importance in this respect. First, we will continue to reinforce our partnership through our existing robo-strategic dialogue and strong defense cooperation. Our focus there is both on addressing current issues as well as strategic thinking regarding future challenges and opportunities. Current events show us that the threats are increasingly unpredictable. We must therefore be more flexible in our planning and preparedness. Second, we will continue to work with the United States to ensure that the robust contingency plan are in place for the defense of Iceland and of sea lines and air corridors necessary in support of allied operations. The value of operations and exercises in the Arctic region is once again becoming clear. They are a means of building greater situational awareness and multi-use operational capabilities as well as exercising collective defense contingencies. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I have touched upon many issues related to the Arctic and Iceland. Our interests are in so many ways tied to the future development of the Arctic. Businesses development and environmental protection and the security of the region are of fundamental importance to my country. Strong relations with the U.S. and other nations in the region and continued international cooperation is the best way to make sure that the development of the region brings benefits to all those that call the Arctic their home. Thank you for your attention. Please form us. Thank you very much. You've opened up a number of very important issues for us to dig into. Let me ask very directly. You mentioned your opposition to Russian military activity in Crimea, Ukraine. A lot of countries are experiencing Russian military maneuvers close to them. What are you experiencing these days? Well, we are experiencing more of activities from the Russian side. They are both in air and under the sea level, if I can put it that way. What we have seen also, they seem to be practicing new routes around Iceland. More activities in the ocean and this is something that we are aware of. But we have seen through the years that they have been doing some kind of this stuff before, even though after the Cold War. But this is in a new... We've never seen it as big as it has been today. They are not breaking any laws. They are outside of our zone. But it is, of course, worrying that if they are trying to push us to the old-fashioned Cold War situation, something that is worrying. But in Iceland, we are aware of the situation in Europe, in Eastern part of Europe, and the new strategic maneuvers that they are showing us from Ulbansk and those places, something that does worry us a lot. Is there a diplomatic exchange that accompanies this activity, or is it silence and just operations in and near you? We definitely address this with their empathy in Iceland. They are doing this because they have not... Let's say they are not very polite. They are not telling us at forehand that they are coming. But that is their style today, at least. They are not doing that also in Baltic Sea or near Norway. But we have always had quite a good relationship with Russia. So we are very honest and open and frank with them when we see there is a reason to do so. You mentioned that you and your Nordic partners are working together on security matters. Is there a collective effort on the part of all of you in trying to talk with Russia? You all have pretty good individual relations with Russia. No, we have not been addressing this together. You are right. We have been establishing a cooperation that comes to security defence. That is an idea based on reports that Jan Stoltenberg wrote some years ago. We have been trying to implement ideas that came from this report and one of them is more of cooperation. It's what we have got in North Africa. But Russia for Iceland has always been a very important trade partner. It's our seventh biggest export country when it comes to Icelandic exports. It's a sensitive issue to deal with in Iceland of course when you have so much to say. But we cannot accept a bond country is breaking international law and conventions without addressing it. For an island like Iceland that rests our independent rests on international law. You can say so. It's very important to take a stand against. We had an earlier conversation about concerns that Baltic states have about their security these days. How do you feel about the vitality of NATO? What is your sense about NATO right now as an institution? NATO has probably never been as important today as an institution. It's very important to keep the political unity that we have had in NATO for over the years. It doesn't worry me a little bit what we saw a few weeks ago about some polls that show that in some countries, people don't think that we should react to Article 5. But I think NATO has showed that the recent months that we are able and capable of addressing issues like the threat from Russia today. And the Baltic states rely very much on the support from NATO. So we have been not shy to support them or encourage them to ask for help, for support. Because even though we might say that some NATO countries may hesitate to do so, as we have seen in the European discussion, Iceland backs up Baltic countries very hard. And we are very pleased to see how the U.S. has taken lead in answering their demands. Iceland never was able to field a large military, but you made a major contribution to NATO because of your geography. Is that something Iceland still can offer NATO this geographical location and the way in which it is an ideal platform for the alliance? Iceland can definitely contribute. And I think it is as important today as it was 20 years ago that this position of the island between east and west. And when it comes to security, defense and security, it is important that in Iceland we have the facilities and equipment to address both security threats and, of course, defense threats when they cannot go. But we have to focus on not only the route between east and west, but also, of course, on the Arctic and not least the North Atlantic, which we tend these days to focus too much, I think, on the security in the Arctic. Because south of Iceland, we have all the North Atlantic ocean and we need to address that also that there can be security issues there and also different defense issues. And we show that today, we see it today when Russia is showing more interest in flying around Iceland with the submarines around the island, that the importance is as important today as it was the strategic location has not changed, of course, and we believe that NATO and other allies need to take that into account if they are worrying about the situation as it has developed. So Iceland is leaning forward with NATO? Iceland is leaning forward with NATO and we have increased our budget for defense, budget for example but we have to remember that Iceland has always been contributing to the civil part of NATO's operations and we will continue to do so and also to support NATO headquarters by personnel and so on even though we are no military, we try to take our responsibility. Let me shift to ask a different question. Did you, in Iceland about five, six years ago said it wanted to join the EU? And then I think recently decided that wasn't for Iceland. What happened? Well... Other than EU? I mean, I have a problem but what happened? Well, you know, the government today we have always been very clear that we think Iceland should not join the European Union. The former government started this process and we think it was not the right thing to do. It was not based on solid ground when it started. So in our mind it was the obvious thing to do was to withdraw or terminate this application that was in Brussels. But we still see the European Union and the European countries of course one of our biggest allies and we have bilateral relations both the Union and most of the European countries. Iceland is of course a European country. We are not leaving Europe and we are not joining the European Union. But we also see, you know, there is the last years and we also see just today that the Union is, you know, there is some kind of transformation going on in the Union. And for a new country like Iceland that, you know, needs to join the Union it's better to wait and see. But I can understand some of the countries on the mainland why they and the politicians in the mainland they see it a very important need for them to join the Union based on economic security and defense security being so near to Russia for example. But just to be honest, I think the Union needs to, you know, take a look inside in Brussels. They need to look in the mirror and say, you know, what are we doing? Are we doing everything right? We see that there is some time lack of unity when it comes to taking this issue there. And they need to find ways to make things go through the system and must, you know, faster, it's a too slow bureaucracy system there. You're the foreign minister, you're also the trade guy. You mentioned that you and China, Iceland and China better to do a free trade agreement. I can see what you get out of it. What do they get out of it? Why do they want a free trade agreement with Iceland? It's a 300,000 people's market. No, it's a huge... No, no. Well, there are a lot of, you know, thoughts or, you know, people are guessing why Iceland and why Switzerland. Switzerland is, of course, bigger than Iceland, but that's not a major country. The Chinese seems to be, maybe showing that they can, you know, make certain agreements with Western European countries. And this free trade agreement that we did with China is basically just, you know, as all the free trade agreements we have done. We have an old investment agreement with them since 1994, so there is nothing about investments in this free agreement. But we have a side memo or agreement where we can address, you know, for example, the labor market, human rights and etc. We have also statements related to this agreement on cooperation in science and education and so on. So this is basically a very common trade agreement that we have seen done with many other countries based on the EFTA agreements. Why Iceland? I mean, as I said, probably they want to show that they are capable of doing so. They have not get... We are not bending any laws and rules for the Chinese in Iceland. They have to work with the laws and rules that are there. They are, see Iceland, of course, as a member of the Arctic Council. I was going to ask you. And their interest in Arctic is, in my mind, quite obvious. If you just look at the business perspective on the Arctic, the possibility of opening the sailing route, the Northeast route or what you call it, it is an opportunity for them. Are they going... And I don't think we have to worry so much about resources in the Arctic because most of them are based inside of the economic zones of each country. The Chinese, you know, people tend to be afraid of them regarding possibilities of natural resources in the Arctic, but they have nothing to acclaim that because it's a sadist inside the economic zones. Most of it, most of it. So, I think it's in their favor to take part in this. They have got a lot of scientists. They have a very high-level science institutions. They are affected very much from the climate change, of course. We can see that. And having them there is also, and for Iceland especially, it's important to get the opportunity to take the dialogue about their obligation to reduce emissions, for example. And we have been taking that discussion and dialogue with them many times. And in fact, today, I think there is an Icelandic U.S. company that runs with cooperation with the Chinese company. The world's largest space heating system based on geothermal. And that is in China. So we have ways to address their contribution to pollution and the Chinese environment. And they are interesting to learn from us when it comes to that. Very interesting. Let me just open up to colleagues here. Yes, ma'am, you are anxious to be asking for this. We'll bring up a microphone here. Hi. My name is Dr. Donna Wells. I'm a mathematician. I make predictive math models. I am a fan of targeted bilateral trade. There's kind of a debate right now in Europe. Group to group trade versus targeted bilateral trade. Can you talk about that dynamic? Thank you. I guess you are referring to T-TIP, for example. And Mercosur. Yes. After states, we are part of the states, we are trying to push on the Mercosur to have a serious dialogue with us about free trade agreement. And it's going steady and slowly. We think it's better to have groups doing agreements like this than bilateral agreements. Because if you have groups of states, group of countries, it is more effective to have efficient, to have these agreements implemented between the groups. So we focus on working with AFTA. We are also looking, of course, at the development in the T-TIP discussion between the European Union and the U.S. Because Europe and U.S. are for us, Iceland, for example, are the biggest markets for us. So it does matter for us how the outcome will be of this. But it's better in my view. My view is that it's better to have groups doing these agreements than bilateral. But we know the trouble inside the WTO trouble. We know that. There's nothing going on there, in fact, too slowly, at least. So that has put the groups together to try to conclude an agreement. Yes, sir. Right back here, the fourth row. His arm's up. Brian Beery, Washington correspondent for EuroPolitics. Another trade question. I'm curious with your free trade agreement with the Chinese, do you have an investor-state dispute settlement clause in it? Sorry, investment? Because in the T-TIP, the big debate is whether to include an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. Do you have one in your agreement with the Chinese? Now I have to think. We have some procedures to deal with if we do not agree and if there's a problem. I don't remember if it is the same procedures that we have other than you were talking about in the T-TIP. Sorry, I don't remember. But it definitely is in how we are going to deal with the problems that will come with the agreement. If I remember, there is some rather complicated procedure that we have to go through. But it is, if I remember it right, it has not been, let's say, on the Chinese agenda to give some authorities to a third... To give it away. Yes. Yes, sir. Please write down here. Steve Winters, independent researcher. I have to follow a little bit further on this question about the Chinese interests. I've read that actually the Chinese embassy is quite a large staff in Iceland. In fact, proportionally speaking, if they had the same proportionate staff to the population of the U.S., you would have 200,000 Chinese diplomats at the embassy here in D.C. So my question is, what are you all so busy doing up there that they need such a large staff? Secondly, in terms of getting a footprint in the Arctic, in the Antarctic, the Chinese research stations are sometimes seen more as an attempt to create a presence there as opposed to the research. I know the Australians have been very concerned about this. So maybe you could just elaborate a little bit more on that, particularly what are they all busy doing up there at the embassy? Well, they are next to the Polish station. So I'm quite confident that they have a good look at them. Well, they have the biggest embassy in Iceland, the square meters, at least so far. I think the United States are moving to a new embassy. I'm not quite sure how big it will be, but they are not the biggest when it comes to staff. I think both the U.S. and Russia have more staff members than the Chinese in Iceland. But this is a myth, I think they are so big. But the house is very, very, very big. When it comes to science, and for example, Antarctica and the Arctic, I mean, we have been working with them on very small projects for some time. And they are definitely showing interest and they are showing the capability and capacity to do science. And we have, in fact, these days I think they are building in cooperation with Icelanders a facility in the northern part of Iceland to do some research of the northern lights. And so far, it has been going very well. I mean, are they going to research something else than the northern lights? I mean, we have to wait and see. Right in the back? You can turn the mic on. I don't think we can hear it. There's a little button, slide it up. There we go. Thank you very much. Much better. My name is Carl Alta with the Joint Baltic American National Committee. We represent the Estonian, Latin, and Lithuanian American communities. Iceland, of course, your heroes in the Baltics. I was in Vilnius on March the 11th and the 25th anniversary of the restoration of independence with Mr. Honebalsen, also who is a hero. So thank you for all your support over the years for Baltic independence and the restoration of that. Just a question to go back to your cooperation with the Baltic countries. If you could say a few more words about that and maybe about the Nordic cooperation and air policing. Thank you. Well, we have a very close cooperation with Baltic countries. Iceland has a very good bilateral cooperation with them and we have also this, we call it the Mb8, the Nordic countries plus the Baltic countries. We meet twice or third three times a year and discuss issues that have to be resolved and where we can work more closely together. On an international level, for example, in the UN and other places, we often work very close with Baltic countries. Inside NATO, we have been very much understanding, we have shown understanding when they are delivering their speeches on how important it is to have more presence from NATO in the countries. We can really understand that. But at the same time, we cannot overdo also because we don't want to be those who trigger some conflicts. That is the other side of the coin. But cooperation with the Baltic countries is not only historical between Iceland and them, but also it is very important. We have Baltic countries plus Poland, for example. We have a lot of people from these countries living in Iceland, so it's very near to us that we need to have a close cooperation with them. We are very proud of the history when it comes to these countries and we will definitely support them as much as we can to remain free and independent. We're right down here in the second row. Bob Goldstein from Army Headquarters. So my question has to do with the Iceland Defense Force that was just established back in 2006 with the increase of aggressive actions by the Russians to include building up of bases in the high north as well as activity in the Baltic, North Sea, and the Atlantic and the Arctic Sea. Do you see a need for the reestablishment of the Iceland Defense Force, either under U.S. or NATO? It's difficult to say, to answer the question that when you say do you see a need for. But we have to address the change in the security environment which we see developing in the wrong direction today because of the behavior of Russia and also, of course, of the threat from south, ISIS and those terrorist groups. I would not be surprised if in the next years Iceland will become more important and the strategic importance will be on the table again. Is a need today to increase presence in Keplerik? I would, just to be honest, I would say that they would be in favor of NATO and favor of the all of the North Atlantic coalition to have the capability at least to respond very quickly from Keplerik and in Keplerik. I cannot say how and when and what equipment and what kind of presence is good to have there but it's definitely something that we need to address in the next months and maybe years. We have been focusing on the Keplerik air base as a place for research and rescue hub. Is it maybe on the NATO level or some other level, U.S., Denmark, UK and others maybe? If you look again at the position of the island in the world map, it's a place that is very well situated regarding search and rescue in the Arctic and also when it comes to the North Atlantic. Maybe there can be some kind of a link between search and rescue hub and some more presence in Keplerik but that is something that we need to see how we will develop but the science that we are seeing from Europe and the south part of Europe or the Middle East, sorry, it's not very encouraging in the way to more safety and peace so I think I cannot answer this question more in a direct way than this. Maybe if Scotland secedes and kicks out the Royal Navy's nuclear forces, you can take them. Just an idea, I don't know. That's something I can tell you. We will not have nuclear weapons in Iceland. Right down here. Peter Sun with Capital Intel. I just came from Iceland. I was in a very busy and moving planet, Hafsos in Northern Iceland. Hafsos? The question is, it sort of adds on to this. You're unique in a NATO member without any military, no army, no boots on the ground. You have Coast Guard already, I think, in Tunisia, Libya on the coast, helping forces down there in Italy. How does Iceland use this fact that you don't have a military to take a special role in NATO talks because I gather when there's no leadership, it's each individual country has, say, in the NATO talks and bilaterals, et cetera. Well, we have a very important role to play when it comes to NATO missions, for example, because we have contributed both in capacity building and also we have taken roles when it comes to headquarters. We have a second thing, a personal and at one time we had, I think, 36 people, for example, in Afghanistan, you know, running the airport, policing and so on. So our role as a NATO member, it's important because even though we are a very small country with no army, we have something to deliver and we can deliver, you know, as I said, personal and we can also deliver when it comes to rebuilding societies and so on. We have been increasing the funds when it comes to Icelandic duties inside the NATO alliance and one of the most important contributions from us is to having the Kepler air base up and running. It is, you know, almost plug-and-play if you need to place an airplane there or planes for surprise, for example. We can do it in a few hours, so everything is ready there. We have had a couple of hundreds of people in the air base not so long ago for exactly for that, searching for submarines. And when we have the air policing system in Iceland, it has been working extremely well. So there is a good example of where we can. I take one last question. We'll go right back there and then we're going to have to wrap it up. The minister's got to get to the airport. He's got work to do. Of course, I think it's kind of lopoulous from Johns Hopkins size. Acknowledging the recent announcement by your finance minister to lift the capital controls in place in Iceland for the past eight years, what does Iceland's experience have to teach Greece with regards to capital controls and your experience recovering from the crisis, imposing justice in society where fishermen turned into bankers? Thank you. This is quite a large question. Well, to begin with, if you look at the situation in Iceland, but actually, Mr. Ambassador Gerhardt should be answering the question because he was the prime minister when everything went over in Iceland. And he was the one who put forward a proposal, a law proposal to the parliament that probably has saved the island to default. But, you know, the difference between Iceland and Greece, for example, is that our debts, you know, they were not state debts. They were private debts. The capital controls were very important. If not, you know, all of these states would have got out of the country and we would have been defaulted properly or bankrupt in very few months because there was no currency for it. It is not good to have capital controls. But we have, even though we have seen interest, for example, from investors in the long-term investments in Iceland, even though we had the capital controls. But when it comes to short-term investments, it has been a blackout, if I can say so. We have managed to recover because we did not take over the debts of the private banks. We had our own small currency. We were rich of natural resources. Our export sectors have been blooming, if I can say so, because of the devaluation of the currency and the tourism industry has been booming. So everything has been going in the right direction and based on the decision that was taken in 2008 to propose this emergency law that Mr Gerhard did, is, I think, the ground that we have been standing on in the recovering way. We still need some years to fully recover and we still have huge debts on the state afterwards. But I would say that in four, five years we will be in a very, very good place because if we manage to have those deals with the creditors in Iceland, probably our debts of the state will probably be 25% of GDP in 2019. It is today somewhere between 50% and 75%. So if everything is going in our way, we are in a very good place in not so long time. I think we want to say thank you, Foreign Minister, you've been candid, you've been very open, you've been very interesting and fresh responses and all of us are grateful for it. Would you please with your applause say thank you. Thank you.