Crisis poses to our stability both in europe and the u. S. . Of course the issue of foreign fighters returning to our countries is a very direct threat, and we have to address that. We decided at the wales summit that we will strengthen our cooperation on intelligence and information sharing to the counter that threat, but obviously increasing instability in the region will also have an impact on the overall euroatlantic security and this is a reason why it is relevant that nato allies take action and try to create an International Coalition to counter isis. Both nato and carnegie solicited some questions via twitter, and i will pick a couple of them that are relevant to our conversation here. The first one i wanted to touch on is from a gentleman named tommy steiner, Senior Research fell fellow, what is natos role in an antiisis coalition . Thus far nato as an institution has, he argues, stayed on the sidelines. Why is that and is that accurate . Has this been a coalition of the willing rather than a natoled operation and why so . Yeah. First of all, this actually this goes beyond nato. I think its of utmost importance to establish a coalition that also includes countries from the region. So this goes actually beyond nato. Secondly, we havent received any requests for a nato involvement. However, at the wales summit we decided three strands of activities that could be relevant for nato, and strands that are relevant for nato. Firstly, we declared that if we receive a request from the new Iraqi Government, we stand ready to consider defense Capacity Building which, for instance, could be to resume or training activities in iraq. We had a Training Mission in iraq until 2011. We could resume those activities if the Iraqi Government requests so. Secondly, nato can contribute to coordinating individual allies efforts in iraq. And, thirdly, as i mentioned, we will strengthen intelligence cooperation to counter the threat of foreign fighters returning to our countries. Just to push you on point two which is this coordinated effect. The one thing nato brings to the table that many other organizations cant is this command and control capability with multiple allies. Is that something that potential down the road as this coalition comes together could be the backbone for that kind of command and control operation . At this stage i wont exclude anything because i think the International Community has a responsibility to degrade and defeat isis that poses a threat not only to iraq and to the region but poses a global threat. But as i mentioned, so far we havent received any request for a nato involvement. In 2011 you saw that the military operation against libya started as a coalition of the willing but eventually became a nato operation, including partners from the region. I will abuse my chairmanship for one more question and then i will turn to the audience for q a and i will throw in some twitter questions as we continue. You mentioned in regard to isis that appeasement does not lead to peace. Im going to turn that slightly on its head and use that speech that line and ask you about russia because what weve seen over the last week is on friday a suspension or delay on elements of the eu Russia Ukraine trade deal to the end of 2015. We saw the eu Foreign Ministers already talking about suspending or permanently lifting sanctions. Are we suddenly now willing to accept something of a frozen conflict because there is an unwillingness to either arm or do more aggressive military operations against the russian threat inside ukraine . We should never accept a new frozen conflict in eastern europe. Of course, we should do all we can to encourage a peaceful solution to this conflict, but actually to be very honest with you, my concern is that it is russias interest to establish a new protracted frozen conflict in the region. Actually, i think the longterm ambition of russia is to reestablish a cone of russian influence in its near neighborhood and prevent countries neighboring countries, prevent them from seeking euroatlantic integration with nato and the eu and to that end it is in russias interest to keep these frozen, protracted conflicts ii and Eastern Ukraine and ukraine. So we should never accept that. Just to put you slightly on this, you have argued in very stark language in your address the threat posed by russia, the violation they have done to any number of agreements. In almost equally stark language as is used for isis and yet for isis you advocate military involvement, and for russia i have asked you this in interviews and in person but also in press conferences whether you advocate military assistance not just nonlethal, but actual military in the ukraine and you have deferred on that. Why are you advocating military intervention for isis but not for ukraine when you seem to be worried that both of those present an equal way of threat to our way of life in nato . Firstly, while its clear that russia has violated all its International Commitments and have has conducted illegal military actionsx4o[ in ukraine dont think russia poses an imminent threat to nato allies for the very reason that russia knows that we have something in our nato treaty that protects any ally against an attack. An attack on one would be an attack on the whole alliance. Russia knows that, and thats why i dont think russia poses an imminent threat to a nato ally. However, to keep our deterrence credible, we have taken steps, as you know, to reinforce o. And for ukraine, we do believe that the right way forward is a political solution, and while its clear that russia has violated International Norms and rules, i still think russia would be capable to negotiate if they decide to do so. When were speaking about isis, this is a group of terrorists with whom theres no chance whatsoever to find any political solution, and furthermore as i have argued, i think this terrorist group poses a threat not only to iraq but also to the world as such, and thats why im in favor of taking military action against isis. Okay. Thank you very much. We have about 15, 20 minutes for q a. I have been told to warn the people in balcony. You are also allowed to participate. Theres a woman in green that youre supposed to throw something at her so she can get my attention. Lets start here down on the floor. The gentleman here in gray and please wait for the microphones coming from behind you. nr thank you. My origins are from palestine, jordan, and the area. Mr. Secretarygeneral, two years ago we were invited by Carnegie Europe to speak about nato and the arab spring, and you said that you have and it was during the strikes against libya and the objective was to install democracy in libya. Two years later its no mans land and libya has destroyed as afghanistan, iraq, dont speak about yemen, sudan, and all these countries. Dont you think that if you are going to intervene militarily or as to the other partners to make war against this socalled islamic state, dont you think that is going to make also jordan, libya and other countries . Second question, mr. Secretarygeneral. Quickly, please. Public opinions knows that the rain machine of instability in the area is because the International Community didnt find a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and its not Israeli Palestinian conflict. Its israeli arab conflict, israeli islam conflict. Dont you think that nato, European Union, United States of america, and eu Member States exert pressures against israel so as to accept King Abdullah plans for peace which was accepted by all arab countries without negotiations because arabs have nothing to negotiate and to give to israel, dont you think that is going to stop these terrorists and we say we have to invest in military, dont you think that its better to invest in development of these countries . Thank you very much. Two questions there. I guess one, does military action in the middle east threaten to destabilize more than stabilize as it did in libya and the second one is solution of the arab israeli conflict necessary before stabilizing the region . Of course, the first question is a very good question because you can point to some historical examples that in the wake of a military operation, we have seen instability, violence, maybe even failed states. But first let me stress that we have or individual allies have received a request from the Iraqi Government to assist the government in the fight against this terrorist organization. And i think we have a responsibility to help the Iraqi Government fight isis exactly to avoid that iraq would become a new failed state. Having said that, i think we have there are lessons to be learned from previous military operations. I would not argue against the military operations because in each and every case i think they were necessary and legitimate. However, i think the International Community as such should learn from these operations that it is of utmost importance to strengthen efforts after a military operation to help these societies improve their capability, to establish security and good governance. Libya as an example, i mean, after 40 years of dictatorship, the new authorities had to start from scratch, and seeing retrospectively, i think the International Community as such did too little too late to help the new authorities in libya build a new nation. The nato operation was a great success. We implemented the u. N. Security mandate 100 . We prevented attacks against the libyan people, so we did what we were mandated to do, but when we had finished the military operation, i think seen retrospectively that the International Community led by the u. N. Should have done much more much faster to help the new authorities in libya, and thats one of the important lessons to be learned, that military operations should go hand in hand with civilian efforts to followup to establish or to build a new nation after such a military operation, but i have to say this goes beyond natos capability. Nato is a military alliance so its for the broad International Community to follow up in such cases. Of course, i can only agree that a settlement of the Israeli Palestinian conflict would solve many problems, absolutely. I fully agree, and without going into too many details, i still think that the longterm sustainable solution is to see two states living side by side in peace and harmony and within secure borders. I still see this as the right formula for a longterm, sustainable solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Go to the other side right here from reuters. Adrian craft from reuters. Can i ask you how long it would take an independent scotland to join nato and whether you believe that nato that Scottish Independence would undermine britishs contribution to natos defenses. Did you get both of those . Yeah. Probably you know very well that im not going to interfere with the Referendum Campaign in scotland. What i can tell you is the followi following, if a new independent state wants to become a member of nato, it will have to apply for membership of nato, and such an application will be addressed in exactly the same way as all applications are dealt with, and eventually it will require consensus, unanimity within the alliance to accept a new member of our alliance. As this is we havent discussed it at all within our alliance and i am not in a position to say anything about time lines. As you know from history, time lines differ significantly when it comes to applicant countries road towards membership of nato, and basically its very much a part of their ability to fulfill the necessary criteria. So actually the answer is that i cant say anything about time lines. And on the issue of whether Scottish Independence would somehow undermine uks ability as being one of the leading members of nato to participate, concerns about that . No. Again, without interfering with the debate, leading up to the referendum, i dont see that any outcome of the Scottish Referendum will have an impact on uks contribution to nato. Okay. Sir, right there. With the book up. Hi. Im correspondent for a newspaper. Secretarygeneral, one question. When you had this operation in libya, you spoke about three conditions which under these conditions you are going to lead the operation. Clear request from the libyan authorities and i think u. N. Mandate. Under which conditions you are going to lead this coalition, International Coalition in iraq. Do you exclude this or its something for the future . Just to throw in one from twitter here from alex lang saying almost the same thing. Given the kosovo precedent would nato lead a u. N. Backing to legitimize a military action of the is in syria . First, once again let me stress we are not considering a nato role or even a leading nato role in this operation. A number of nato allies are forming a coalition that also includes countries from the region. So to avoid any misunderstanding, let me stress that we are not in the process of engaging nato as such in military strikes against isis. I pointed out that at the summit we mentioned three possibilities of a nato involvement. Firstly, defense Capacity Building in iraq if requested. Secondly, a coordinating role. Thirdly, strengthened cooperation on intelligence and information sharing among allies to counter foreign fighters. So the rest of it is quite hypothetical because we havent received any request for a nato involvement, but nato allies are involved and i really welcome that. Peter, you added the question about u. N. Security council. U. N. Mandate. Individual allies engaged in this, will they need a u. N. Mandate . Well, im not a legal expert, attacks against religious and ethnic minorities, in my opinion, its pretty close to genocide. And in my opinion, that gives such a military operation legitimacy within the principles of the u. N. Charter. I say this without being a legal expert. And finally, also consider this a kind of selfdefense which is also committed within the u. N. Charter. So, i would say that, which is also permitted within the u. N. Charter. So i would say that as a layman, as a political, not as a legal fund expert, as far as i can see, there is a basis in the fundamental u. N. Charter fiv principles to conduct military t operations against isis. Ont we have only about five minutes left. St come let me take two or three for the secretarygeneral. Sir at the front here if we could start here. Gee. Just wait for the microphone,. Lease my name is mark peer ni. D i work at Carnegie Europe. In lib my question isya on turkey. During yir five years turkey hak been involved in afghanistan any in libya although in a noncombas mode. Turkey is still weighing a decision on Missile Defense which has been for two years now, and we dont know the impo answer yet which rtis, of cours very important to nato Missile Defense, and finally weve learned on friday that turkey will not play any role in the military operations against asw isis. After your five years, what at t would be your judgment without o perhaps going as far as what waa said on saturday, turkey has tk stopped long ago beinge a frien of the west. Ue do you see a problem there in the future . Let me take another one. I saw a gentleman in the blue shirt right there. Thank you. Easter i have a question. Given the security volatility ie eastern europe, can nato . Resources be employed to secure supplies to the european allies . For example, by deploying nato troops to protect strategic infrastructurene. In the region for example a pipeline or is transiraqi pipeline. Theres a woman in orange. Thank you. The my question is theres some critics doubts sorry. The ability of nato to use its forces in the east and in the south at the same time. So how do you think about this and also theres another ho question, do you have any detailed plan to rescue the hostage in the region. Thank you. Multip three very different topics for you, turkey, Energy Security, and the ability to do multiple things at one time. First on turkey, i have to say i consider turkey a staunch ally, and on a personal basis i have had an excellent cooperation with the turkish leadership since i took office as secretarygeneral, and whenever we have needed contributions to our nato operations, turkey has actually no engaged and contributed to natoled operations. Now, in the case of iraq, first of all, were not speaking about a nato operation, but so far a coalition of the willing. Furthermore, it may play a role that isis has also taken turkisy hostages. I dont know, its for the fro turkish government to answer ury that question, but i have to san seen from my chair that turkey has played a crucial role within our alliance and continues to play a crucial role and overalle i also have to say turkey not least because of its r f geographicalro location is a ve important ally and partner from a Strategic Point of view. And as regards Missile Defense, im sure that the turkish authorities have listened to concerns raised by fellow allies. Next on energy, first of all, let me stress that natos core task is Territorial Defense of our allies. , and as regards pipelines on allied, on allied territory, of course, its part of territoriar defense to protect such pipelines and other means of re energy supply. But first of all, i think Energy Security is much more about reducing europes dependence