Transcripts For CSPAN2 Forum Previews Presidents Trip To The Middle East 20170515

Officers. Theyll be offering remarks and laying a wreath at the police memorial. Well have live coverage starting here at is 11. And also the Senate Meeting at 3 00 today, working on Transportation Department nominationings. Live coverage here on cspan2. Thanks for everyone here who came on time, and i just want to give brief introduction. My names colin quinn, im the Deputy Director of communications here at csis. Thanks very much, colin. Normally when a president goes to israel, you have a very pleasant public profile, and usually an announcement of some new form of usaid or assistance to israel. The problem you have here is theres also a lot of underlying issues. And how many of these were actually either be dealt with publicly or during a president ial visit is pretty hard to estimate. Some of them are fairly obvious. There is the question of what will happen about moving the u. S. Embassy to jerusalem. There are all the issues relating to the settlements. Will the u. S. Take a stand on the two state solution . If so, what . What kind of sequel will follow the abbas visit, and how will he be discussing what is a very tense situation, at least at the underlying level, between israel and the palestinian authority, and what is happening at gaza. There is the problem for israel of what is happening in egypt, which is equally important to the United States. Its a problem of economics instability. Its also a tangible impact on war fighting in the sinai and the gaza where you have a lowlevel conflict, and one that is not getting better. Its getting worse. You have the problem of what happens, and it will happen fairly quickly, if you see mosul actually liberated and isis driven out of its pseudocapital in raqqa. Because for israel that may well mean that it faces a significant and very different extremist threat somewhere on its border area. There also is the fact that during all of these conflicts, hezbollah has steadily up its missile forces, effectively rearmed, gotten better capability, so you have a far larger hezbollah threat in lebanon than you had at the point where israel fought a war over the threat in that area. And then there is always the question of preserving israels edge. There already is a memorandum of understanding which seems to give israel what it would need for a security posture, but its always interesting to see what happens during a president ial visit. This audis i think are always going to be more problematic. We have come every time you visit to saudi arabia, we again discover where the major ally which has a very different political system and culture, and a very different approach to human rights. And i think here some issues are fairly obvious. One is that President Donald Trump, like president obama, raised the issue of burden sharing. The problem is its very difficult to see why. Saudi arabia is the fourth largest spender in terms of military efforts as a percentage of its economy of any country in the world. It actually is competing with russia in terms of total defense spending. In 2015 it was marginally higher than russia. This year it is marginally lower. It is spending more on defense than any european power. And we are attempting in nato to get countries to spend 2 , as most of you know, it comes generally closer to 1. 21. 6 of the gdp, and i believe that to my colleague. The fact is, however, the u. S. Depending on how you define it, where spending all of 2. 8, the summer around 3. 2 , which is less, basically a defensive effort than a third of the u. S. Effort in terms of defense spending. The other issue is how you compare it to local powers. It is about three times the highest estimate for Iranian Military spending, in terms of total spending, in 2015. Its true that saudi arabia has had this spending level, its very significantly between 201 20152016. 20152016. But its also important to note that saudi arabia is primary source of income, its oil export earnings, have dropped about 46 between 20122016. It is a country under very serious economic pressure, which is a reason for its 2030 plans in its efforts to speed up detailed shifts by 2020. We are talking about the gulf which is never been particularly oilrich, aside from qatar mac and the uae, when you look at per capita income. And from a saudi viewpoint, to make the kinds of reforms and shifts that needs to preserve stability, it faces some fairly serious questions about future financing, even if oil revenues should recover. So the question for the Trump Administration is going to be just how do you define burden sharing and why is saudi arabia not complying . It is likely that you will hear that there will be a major announcement on arms sales. Some people have floated figures of 100 billion. Ill give you all a caution, if you havent worked with these issues before, that first people always give you the figure which is the highest goal. Most of the time it isnt reached. The second issue is to what extent this is spread out over a future period of years, and the third is how does it affect saudi arabia is an daschle base and offense . Industrial base. One of the goals saudi arabia has announced is to stop spending on imports of finished goods, produce its own equipment. But from a practical viewpoint, and particularly from a u. S. Viewpoint, one of the critical shifts that is likely to come out of this announcement is that the u. S. Has long press saudi arabia to improve the quality of its naval forces in the gulf. To basically be more accountable is irans major areas of buildups, which are the missile threat it poses to the gulf region, and the next of naval missile and air forces, which it has deployed in the gulf and has said it wouldnt potentially use in a crisis to shut off the export of oil. There will be a very key issue in terms of reassuring this audis. Frankly, the saudi reaction toward the end of the Obama Administration was they were dealing with the u. S. Ally that they felt focused far more on trying to change saudi arabia internally than on providing credible guarantees of its security. So reestablishing confidence is going to be a security goal. It also, according to at least the number of people, will come at the potential expense on pressure on human rights. Type to that, however, is of other issues. Theres about 65,000 saudi students in the United States that are basically standard undergraduate students. If you look at all the people with some kind o of course or academic tie, some relation that are here, its possibly over 100,000. Some people put the figure at 125,000. That raises some very real questions about the immigration policies, the vetting policies that the Trump Administration is advocating. So far theres been no problem, but this audis may seek reassurance, and the Administration May Say Something about it. There is an addition to iran the question of the human war, which is effectively become a stalemate. It is one where theres very little reporting and, quite frankly, where some of that reporting is extraordinarily questionable. Some of the worst data seem to be the data on casualties, because people are essentially often taking reports which seem to virtually take ngo estimates of their casualties as the total casualties. If you look at the u. N. Reporting on the war, its fairly obvious that the major sources of suffering and casualties are coming on the ground. They are mixed between the houthi and the saudi uae backed forces, and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. And they are probably far higher than any of the casualty reports ive seen in the press because they deal with the real world impact of a war which has been economically devastating, put about half the population at risk, sharply embraced everything from infant mortality to malnutrition. And virtually led to a massive degree of unemployment. There will be the question of what happens in terms of syria and iraq. What of the key questions for the kingdom and indeed for the u. S. Is what happens in iraq after most is liberated, what will the u. S. Do their comment to what extent will it stay, what happens in terms of potential conflicts between arab and kurds, or sunni and shiite, what happens to the various militias, what is the role of iran . And how much of this is actually going to be addressed during a president ial visit is very hard to tell. These are the issues where staff usually prepare, and sometimes, staff finish the job and it gets very little public discussion. But they go a lot deeper than simply having a need in greek between the president and the royal family i meet and greet. Without that we shift things over to jeff spear thank you. Its a nice to see some a people here this morning. What i would propose to do is just sort of hop through the stops on the europe leg of the trip and well in a little detail on the agenda and a couple of areas. So the president will go to vatican city where he will have a meeting with pope francis. From there he will go to brussels and there are three things that will happen in brussels. There will be a meeting with the eu leadership in some form, probably a meeting with Eu Council President s donald tusk and European Commission president jeanclaude yunker. The exact format of that i thik elyse hasnt been publicly announced. There will be a bilateral meeting between the president and the newly elected french president emmanuel macron, and will be a a meeting of nato leaders pics of all the hype in brussels on the 25th of may and then the president goes from there to sicily where he will participate in the g7 summit. Now, this trip is the first real test of the administrations multilateral engagement on economic issues, on security and defense issues, on foreignpolicy issues. You have this happening in multiple places, the g7, data, European Union, and then this is all of course built up as well to the g20 summit which will happen in hamburg germany in july. Managing multilateral relationships is always a challenge, and making progress in multilateral format requires painstaking effort. From what i understand thus far, it is not planned to have the sorts of formal declarations and communiques at, for example, the nato leaders meeting that you often see. Also questioned whether there will be a formal declaration of the g7 leaders at the summit. On the one hand this owes to the fact that the administration is still quite new in office, and for any new administration is sometimes difficult to engage in, at a level of depth when youre still assembling a leadership team. But i think also its attributable to the fact that the ministerial level, cabinet level agreements allow the United States two in the way agree to certain, a certain continuity and u. S. Relations without having to put it in the words or of the president. So if you look, for example, at some of the agreements in the g7 form, ministerial declaration from a couple of weeks ago that supports the joint cover hence a plan of action, for example, the iran deal. Or in the Arctic Council ministerial, at least some reference to Climate Change. And so President Donald Trump is one of four new leaders in the g7 the host Prime Minister of italy, newly elected french president macron, uk Prime Minister theresa may. They will all be purchased waiting for the first time in a g7 summit, and there are three or maybe for members of that who will have elections soon. The uk on june eighth, france which parliamentary elections on june 11 and 18th in a to read format. Germany, september 24, and possibly italy having early elections but at the latest will have them next spring. And while this trip may not directly influence the outcomes of any of those elections, it perhaps brings to mind the saying when america sneezes, the world catches a cold. So when President Donald Trump shakes the foundation of the u. S. Led order, does the rest of the world feel an earthquake . If we look at the agenda for the stops in europe, theres a sort of incongruence and objectives. And managing this is the primary challenge of that, although stops there on the one hand for the United States the challenge is to show leadership, even if it largely has to work out what the policies are that once its allies and partners to follow. How do aunt of that european allies spent about 242 billion. The other big agenda on the item is terrorism. Nato has had programs for many years to try to fight terrorism. So this is not a new thing. I would remind afghanistan, the Afghanistan Mission if i think in its 14th year. Nato has trained iraqis a good forces come have at programs to fight or combat and share knowledge and technology among allies. This is not new but the challenge has always been how to make, how to use or adapt natos primarily military instruments to the fight against terrorism. And this is a big challenge. Some of things that are under consideration is whether nato will take a greater role against isis. Right now nato does not have a seat at the table even though all the nato Allies International capacities operatives pretty. Nato is lying awacs likes to help coordinate the interface management and intelligence gathering. Theres a possibly nato could do more and could step up. And it is a readiness from what i understand in the region for nato to take on that greater role. But its not yet agreed. Its still under discussion. Nato could do more in training iraqis a good forces and build up the programs that exist outside of baghdad as those in jordan as well as providing more support to partner countries like jordan and tunisian building up their capacities. Of course the last thing to about the nato meeting is i think that russia is going to be in a sense that thing on many allies mines, both in a military sense. Russias military modernization and inf treaty violations and its occupation of territory of countries in europe like ukraine and georgia remains in the eyes of many allies a principal threat that they face. And so how the alliance is able to respond is a key issue. The u. S. And nato allies have got a forward presence now in Eastern Europe, and there will be looking for the United States to reaffirm that commitment to the presence of its troops and its support for the policy. So i think i will play, that will be a major issue even if its not one of which the make any kind of declaration. With the eu we can enter more this in the q and a. This is the biggest relationship in the work of a transatlantic relationship between u. S. And the eu. It represents about 46 of global gdp. So clearly this relationship will be a key one, and administration has not yet articulate any kind of agenda for the relationship with the European Union. This is a big glaring hole in their policy toward major partners, and so this meeting may be an opportunity to start setting some direction on that. And then just to look at what some of the countries around the g7 table will have on their mind. In germany chancellor merkel, her party just one a major state election yesterday in 20 of germans population. She will be feeling more confident and looking more likely to remain in office after the elections this september. Emmanuel macron makes his first foreign visit as president today to berlin where they will talk about how they reconstitute, if they can, the Franco German engine in europe and what this means for european, the future of the European Union. Angela merkel of brexit on her mind as well. If we look at france, macro face of parliamentary elections next month, and that will determine whether hes able to capitalize on his landslide you might call it a landslide with an asterisk, that he won just a week ago. So will the other parliamentary majority or a workable coalition that will allow him to estimate the Economic Reforms and other reforms he has prioritized. Prime minister may face is a general election on june 8 and brexit of course is the principal issue going forward. And in italy, Prime Minister gentiloni will be the host of this g7 summit but maybe also the last one he host because italy is likely to have come will have elections before the spring of next year, and his party has reconfirmed as its leader the Prime Minister until recently. So when that an election happens there will be with wednesday as the principal candidate and the question there is whether early elections are on the agenda, and if so what that means for the prospect of the pd. That was a bit long, i apologize. I will stop and look forward to discussions. Plenty of time for questions about open that up now. Just one point of order if you could. State your name so you can make it easier to find yourself in the transcripts later on. George, national journal. If i can start with two questions. What are the other leaders looking for from President Donald Trump . What do they need to see . And secondly, weve all seen he has a tendency come his dealings with foreign leaders on the phone, and in meetings at the white house, to go off script and not do what the state department and aids wanted him to do. What are the risks for that kind of style in these kinds of meetings and summits . Let me begin with israel. I think that what israel does not want or particularly this Prime Minister doesnt want, is any issue or any attempt to force a clear statement on the two state solution. It will be interesting to see what position he takes on jerusalem, the normal pattern is to want to move the capital but not to insist on it and usually get a quick quid pro quo of some sort for not doing so. But above all i think what israel wants is to see that there is this commitment to preserving its edge insecurity, that they do have a strong ally that will not push them constantly on the Peace Process, that we will stay in the gulf and we will keep our forces in a posture where they will deter iran, that we will maintain support for the iraqis and the iraqis central government, and that the u. S. Role in dealing with syria but also jordan and lebanon will be one that reassures those countries. Ive already mentioned egypt. These are all things which, from israels viewpoint, are key Security Issues at the moment. And i think that they are not likely to be ones that anyone can ignore. I doubt very much if theres going to be any surprises at this point. Mr. Netanyahu is perfectly capable of dealing very sophisticated ways with americans. That in this case there seems to be a good relationship, and what he has no incentive to disturb. I doubt very much if President Trump will push the envelope here. With the saudis, there is the fact you have both my king and a crown prince. The crown prince is a more public active known quantity. I think, however, the saudi also have been dealing with the u. S. And even the younger saudis have about 30 years of experience in dealing with u. S. Officials. We often tend to forget that there is an amazing degree of continuity and experience in dealing with the vagaries of american policy, which can be vague even when they are planned. It doesnt take a sudden decision by a president. What i think its very hard to predict at this point is how well the president has been briefed, how clearly he will deal with the burden sharing argument. I have to say that i may or may not differ somewhat with jeff over this whole issue. I was part of the nato force planning exercise several centuries ago, and, quite frankly, i think this whole 2 and 20 goal are mutually ridiculous. If you actually look at what they buy, you cant find any explanation at all of what going to 2 will actually do to change the force posture. 20 often simply means a countries going to spend more on subsidizing its defense industry, and that record to date on european cooperation is that it is remarkably expensive and remarkably inefficient. Its also i think kind of interesting. I mentioned saudi arabia is defense spending. Its about 57 billion in 2016. 2016. What would you think russias would be, particularly when the u. S. Is spending something on the order of 600 billion . According to the International Institute of strategic studies, which is about as authoritative as they get, russia spent all of about 59 billion on defense last year. That is onetenth of the american total. France spent 47 billion. Its not too far from the russian total. The uk spent 53 billion, which is even closer. Germany is further down at 38 billion, but germany basically in recent years has probably been the least effective defense spender in the Nato Alliance. Its a force posture has shrunk far more quickly and its readiness that its defense spending. And, of course, its one of the most critical single country in the alliance. In contrast to that in saudi arabia does what i think it will do, something weve been seeking for about ten years, which is to improve its naval forces, will actually take place. That should be at least a source of some consolation. But i would have to say that we would all be better off if the president focus on the quality and meaning of what spending accomplishes, rather than spending. I only have about half a century of government experience, bu bui cant think of worse criteria than actually encouraging people to spend without tying it to very specific goals as to what you buy and the level of efficiency in the way you use the money. Thanks. Just to add to that. I think what do european leaders want from the Trump Administration, i think what he would all love is continuity. On the one hand theres been a reversion by the president to come support of words with respect to nato. I think a statement that the u. S. Stands by its article v commitments and indeed that the United States sees its defense as linked to europe would be extremely important. The u. S. Defense relationship with europe is not based on generosity. Its based on protecting u. S. Secret interests. And so a clearer recognition of that would be valuable. I think you look at the economic side, no major disruption to trade, relationships would be a key goal. I think everyone realizes that the u. S. Administration is going to focus first on nafta, on its trade agenda. So people will look at that carefully to see what implications that has four ttip or for the future of u. S. European union trade negotiation. Its worth pointing out that the president seems to come around that the u. S. Trade, what ever discussion just as with europe on trade will be conducted with the European Union and not with individual member states, exception perhaps with the uk once it has left the European Union. So there is then also a reversion to a more orthodox policy. I think on russian sanctions the europeans will be looking for a coordinated approach. They dont want t the rug pulled out from underneath them. The u. S. Has been edging in the direction of that kind of reassurance in the g7 Foreign Ministers declaration, for example, and in the way its characterized it sanctions on russia over ukraine. Same thing with iran. Iran remains a controversial topic in the u. S. , and the major European Countries want to cbs stick to the jcpoa and not engage in policies that could weaken it. Thats the principle concern. And thats without even getting to Climate Change and the Paris Agreement where European Partners will be greatly troubled by a withdrawal of the u. S. That gets to the point about risks that you asked. President donald trump is not particularly popular in europe. A recent survey in germany show 22 of the german population considers the u. S. A trustworthy partner. Thats two Percentage Points better than their view of russia. And thats a dramatic decrease from a year ago. So the risk for european politicians is the closer they get to the Trump Administration and to the Trump Administration agenda, the greater the risk of some out of left field shift in u. S. Policy, leaving them out on a limb. And so that i think is a major, certainly if you look at chancellor merkel position as she looks ahead to the german election but she wants strong transatlantic relationship but a few stray tweets or statements can leave her in extremely difficult position. Tony said some very important and true things with regard to defense spending. That would be a longer discussion. 2 in 20 are unsatisfying metrics. Theyre the ones of the United States has focused on over multiple administrations, and its arguable whether theyre the best way to measure it. Certainly there some countries that spend more than 2 2 of thr gdp who do not get much out of that at least in terms of capabilities that are at the disposal of the entire Nato Alliance and contributing to transatlantic security. The challenge has always been to find better measures of quality and better, more meaningful and i can be distilled into something politically powerful. So thats always been the challenge. Going off script i think, its about the risks. Thats why you have the benefit of things like declarations, communiques, whatever you want to call it that come out of these major multilateral, sometimes bilateral beauties come is they give you some sort of a ballast. If someone says something down the road that is controversial you can always go back to your piece of paper and say look, this is the declaration we agreed at nato. We agreed on defense spending. We agreed on a unified stance with regard to russia did we agreed to do more on terrorism. Thats what i as a National Leader have committed to working with the United States on. If you dont have those kinds of things, then you have, then these variations or his stray comments can have a impact. And you can wind up churning thanotonly be as new cycle but w cycle in your major allies as they scrambleto try to deal with the fallout of, you know, unintentional or intentionally disruptive comment. On a private consultant with cnl resources. Two questions. Can you talk about the Islamic Military Alliance to fight terror, which is i think one of three kind of simple question, are they going to produce anything that passes the test in terms of real meaningful actions . Second question for both of you. The russian shadow over the middle east portion of the visit. There had been a couple of notable side bar meetings between moscow a couple weeks ago, lavrov in washington last week, mohammed back in washington today, all reportedly dealing with russias role in syria, yemen, iraq, protecting jordans flank from syria. So question, do you see russia as being one of the sort of powers kind the scenes in what will be discussed in, i wouldve been discussed before, what is discussed in saudi arabia and having impact on the outcomes of those issues . Let me begin with the first question. I think it is nice to have complex alliances with nicely focused subjects. And it probably doesnt do any substantive harm, but cooperation in counterterrorism is extraordinarily difficult, even in the west. To actually cooperate in counterterrorism between very diverse, often conflicting interests among given arab states is a lot harder. And part of it is that when you really look at the data in sources like the start database, which is as close as when to an official database thats not classified, you suddenly begin to realize that terrorism is a country by country issue. It is not a matter of International Terrorism dictated by isis central. It is a mixture, for example, in yemen, you have a question of first who is a terrorist and you have certainties which is al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. Closely that is tied to al qaeda anywhere else is extremely questionable. There doesnt seem to be an al qaeda central in the normal sense. We in the United States right now are focused on isis, or isil, as a key threat. Looking at the figures for the meaner region, isis is responsible for about, well, the figures go back to 2015, but all of about five to 6 of of the total number in terrorist incidents in the meaner region. Its very different would you go from terrorism to counterinsurgency and war fighting in iraq and syria, that isnt terrorism. And i think that youre going to find that the alliances may or may not produce some kind of benefits of exchange of information. But several of the arab states dont agree anymore on how to define a terrorist than we do with china. So its good to start. I think the issues that may be more serious with the kingdom of saudi arabia has much more impact, is within the gulf cooperation council. About 17 of the world oil moves through that particular area the strata hormuz. While were no longer as dependent on oil imports directly, we are far more dependent on the flow of trade from asian states, which are critically dependent on coal exports pics actually our dependence on oil exports has increased sharply and steadily over time. In spite of the increase in production. Thats the kind of issue where the saudi role in a different alliance could be absolutely critical. The wildcard of their and the one which will be of great concern and much more all of these suppose it alliances is what happens to iraq. And particularly once we have effectively helped them win in mosul, how tied are the two eyes, to russia, to iran . What is iraqs future position relative to other arab states . You asked about the russian shadow, and its a very good question. I think that one of the great problems we have is that so far every time russian has talked about focusing on attacking terrorist targets, it has continued to attack arab rebel movements which are not terrorists. There are some good estimates that tried to deal with this by the institute for the study of war, but the fact is there are no public data that really describe the pattern of russian sorties that are reliable, that is very clear for a lot of them go. The other problem is the socalled deescalation zones. What the amount is effectively some form of separation of syria on what seemed to be a very temporary basis between the assad dominated areas and those which are now dominated by arab rebel factions, again, increasingly ones which are themselves dominated by al qaeda or other islamist extremist groups other than isis, and the areas still under control by isis whose volunteers are going to go somewhere after rock is liberated raqqa. A country we also have the kurdish problem where russia has been playing a game which goes beyond simply playing states. Its also talk about dealing independently with the various ethnic and sectarian groups. And all of that certainly is something where, at least as yet, we have a much broader problem, and this is something that make it raised during the trump visit to saudi arabia, i understand that the Obama Administration never announced a strategy or gave any statement whatsoever on what would happen in iraq and syria after isis was defeated. And the Trump Administration is still under a 60 day effort to define that. So there may be questions. Margaret. [inaudible] the james comey dismissal has made a lot of ways back on domestically, creating a political clout over stuff Like Health Care and tax info and such. Our leaders in the middle east or europe even remotely aware of this . Does it have any bearing on the trip whatsoever . Andy you think it will have any impact on the message or the focus or how others look at the u. S. , the administrations ability to get things done . Thanks. I also have a pope question. Okay. Certainly our allies and partners in europe are following a domestic developments in the United States. I dont think is likely to change their approach to these meetings, whether they are bilateral or multilateral. And will the issues come up during the trip . I think thats probably dependent mostly on the traveling u. S. Press corps in the various media of inabilities that happen. I dont see it as being at the top of the europeans agenda, although they certainly are following the developments here. Just very briefly. I think one question everyone outside the United States has, and are not likely to ask the president , is what is his actual political strength relative to the divisions with congress, the problems within his own party . Can he move forward with his own agenda . That will certainly be a a question as he visits in the country. Over to the right hand side of the room. At the very back. Spirit thanks. Thank you for the briefing. Just now you said we are not expecting any kind of official declaration of any kind from the overseas trip, but we both know mr. Trump, he likes to boast come he likes to Say Something about his skills and his performance as a leader. So what kind of person, what kind of goals will donald trump for visa overstays trips . Thank you. Well, first of all, i think, i cant state with certainty that will not be a g7 declaration. I simply said that it appears possible there wont be won. One. So i dont know if theres any chance that might change. But the objective. I think the objective for the United States and, from the President Point of view, is to show the United States active but without pinning it down on any particular policy. Thats the tension in the stops a special in europe, nato, eu, g7. Because on the one hand the administration wants to show that it is engaging effectively with major global partners. But by the same token, as far as the policies that will guide this administration for the months and years to come, they largely have not been developed yet. So its this, in the administration would struggle with his early under i think its an even greater struggle this time because of the slow pace of constituting the nexus between sort of policy expertise and political roles inside the government. And it means that youve got a relatively thin agenda. Well, if i were the president and i was able to announce there is a major new arms deal worth tens of billions of dollars at a minimum, i would probably note that that would be the answer to the burden sharing issue, and that i had very successfully completed a visit with a major saudi increase in his security contribution to the sort of strategic partnership. I think, too, that if there were any announcement about u. S. Cooperation with saudi arabia and creating a Defense Industrial base i would probably take advantage of that. The on that i would probably want beyond that i would probably want to announce that he met, we had agreed on a strong position relative to iran. Probably one more focused on the goal and iranian influence, then on the Nuclear Issue, which quite frankly is the saudi certainly the Nuclear Issue is one of concern. But its sort of about fits in terms of saudi concerns over iran, which are much more tied to iran spreading influence in the region and the qaeda threat it poses from its missile and asymmetric forces. I remember margaret had a followup on a pope question. I forgot. Thanks. So President Donald Trump is meeting with, you know, the pope and they dont have the best relationship during the campaign. What is in it for President Donald Trump to have a reset . What is in it for the pope, if anything, and what should we look for . I think both sides have been pretty circumspect about the agenda and any outcome. So i think it is, on the one hand, an introductory get to know you sort of a meeting. I think from the president s point of view he will want you want to come out of me able to say he has got a good with the hope and thereby to sort of undercut the direct and implicit criticisms from pope francis that came during the campaign. And that may come in the future as the pope takes a position on one or another policy initiative that the administration rolls out. And i think for the pope, it is also, its a way of highlighting his role as a spiritual leader in commenting on issues that are frankly quite domestic and thereby preserving some ability to weigh in on those issues, whether its on immigration or social issues. If he so chooses. Jeremy timon, cnn. President donald trump has really seems reassured the gulf states, saudi arabia in particular with the way that his conduct of foreign policy, returning it to very firmly rosati at iranu. S. Posture in the world. To what extent do you think thats going to help the president extract certain concessions or support from saudi arabia and the gulf states what comes to those fighting isis in the middle east but also with regard to the israel Palestinian Peace process . To what you doesnt what extent on the Peace Process trump might win new cooperation from saudi arabia and the gulf states on that issue . Let me begin with the Peace Process. I dont know what concessions he would seek, gus quite frankly and less this visit israel is far more productive that i think most people estimate it will be, he will try i think you talk to mr. Netanyahu about preserving at least the shell of an effort to keep the twostate solution going and limit settlements. But the fact is, israeli domestic politics really dont lend themselves to reaching that particular conclusion. It doesnt seem to be one of the Prime Ministers priorities. You have a divided week Palestinian Movement which is not clearly in a position to make concessions that would move this process further anymore than israel is. You have a problem of the gaza are you now have its own political difficulties. So trying to seek concessions from the gulf states on a Peace Process, remembering that the official position of saudi arabia and that of arab states is peace proposal, which in many ways closely parallels the idea of the twostate solution, always subject to the uncertainty of the 19 67 line. And because of the way everybody quotes this, we forget that the u. N. Never endorsed the 67 line. It used the phrase with adjustments, which is not exactly a line in the sand by any standard. So how you sort this out in a president ial visit i would say is not going to be a particularly credible priority. You would have to have the participants in a better position. And they are not ones who are suddenly going to be pressured from the outside without both sides being much closer to agreeing. Within the gulf you need to be really careful. We already are basing an operating out of most of the smaller gulf states. We have cooperated closely with oman which is not a country in a position to spend more pickets actually spending more of its economy on security than saudi arabia. Its one of the highest spenders in the world. There is virtually no slack in that economy. And if you look at the situation in oman, youll find something very surprising about it. Its the only country where we do not report on the level of terrorism or internal security in the annual report on terrorism. I do not believe that is because it is the most secure country in the world. When it comes down to what you can do in kuwait or bahrain, what you can do in the uae with qatar, i think you already have about as much a you can credibly get. And you need to realize that part of that is an immense backlog of interoperable munitions, equipment, spares, ability to operate u. S. Forces in the event of a serious war with iran, and already a pledge to seek a common Missile Defense against iran. The 2,000,018 budget submission. And here i read very cautious to ask for a really dramatic u. S. Initiative before you have agreed on what you are doing in terms of budget submission in the first strategies that these are completed. Might be a little premature. Hi, ways of america. Going back to the main issue, President Trump has called night out and obsolete organization. At the same time, and Eastern Europe it is something that ensures security and russia. In our group we in georgia and ukraine were given membership back in 2008, we would not have occupation of georgia or ukraine. Do you see the nato expansion issue being that the Trump Administration . Spin up with the nato secretarygeneral visited a couple weeks ago, and the press availability they had after the meeting, the president added a comment to the obsolete comment. I said it before. Its no longer true. Regardless of how you judge that, its important to start with that. With respect to Eastern Europe, natos importance to countries on natos eastern flank has been dramatically raised over the last few years and that is why also you have rising defense bending across the eastern alliance. Poland connoisseur in romania, soon all three of the Baltic States as well as some other place is. The question of georgia and ukraine. First, i dont see major change in its policy on enlargement at this leaders meeting. I dont think its going to be a top item on the agenda. Frankly its a short and its going to last a couple hours. So it is not a full son and likely would have under other is where you get into almost every issue. This is an introductory meeting. Its not a fullblown summit. Second, i dont think that anything has changed fundamentally in the Alliance Dynamics with regards to enlargement. They stand behind the open door. In fact, you have the admission of montenegro as the 29th member with the ratification of that being complete. But i dont think there is any appetite to press ahead rapidly on enlargement in other spheres. The cooperative relationships with georgia and ukraine will continue. They may intensify in some areas are the opener policy isnt going to change. Time for a couple more questions. Thank you. Howard the frank with the Christian Science monitor. He mentioned several times the differences with the saudis on human rights issues. We have seen some indication from the president and the administrations though far that there might be a different perhaps downplaying of Human Rights Concerns and relations with other countries. The president received, president sese at the white house is expressed a certain amount of praise for men around the country, around the world. I am wondering, to what extent do we have any indication to what extent there is a return to a more traditional balancing of interests and values, human rights or are we seeing sort of setting off in a new direction . I think that its very difficult to tell because you have seen people like secretary mattis, general mcmaster, secretary tillerson and people with concern of human rights and very pragmatic terms. But that doesnt mean in different. You also have a question about focus. Humans may organizations in the west tend to focus on improving human rights from a western perspective. When you look at Saudi Society and some of you i suspect have lived there revisited air, it is an extraordinarily conservative population. What you have seen over the years as the royal family and a sort of intellectual the, Business Elite often modernizing saudi arabia from the top rather than somehow sitting on public demand for it. You have a society one way or another where the royal family as a catalyst in creating a country where there is now more women graduating from secondary school, colleges and universities and men. You are talking about a country which in terms of its social contract actually meets the social contract and medicine, housing and serious effort to job creation. If you go back to the definition of human rights found that people tend to forget that the ability to actually live in material terms that are secure is one of those right guaranteed by the u. N. Charter and by our policies. I think that this is not a casual issue at the moment in the middle east. You have a lot of societies which in the course of the war on terrorism have become much more controlling. You also have a lot of countries which because of that struggle had seen serious economic problems and political turmoil growing out of the event of 2011. Egypt, tunisia, morocco, each of them have confronted not only the problem of dealing with extremists, but the very material problem of how you preserve a social structure. You are talking about countries where we tend to think of them as oilrich, which is only credible until you dont look as long as you dont look at the amount of oil income per capita, which doesnt make anybody oilrich except qatar basically. Where youve seen again and this is an important point to remember. When we talk about human rights instability and countries youve seen on an average of 46 cut in their Petroleum Export revenues in the course of the year, you have a lot of adjustment and planning problems at 2030 and 2020 issue, which in humans rights are materially far important to the population. What do you price for in todays world and the middle east . Which countries can you really see as making easy advances . Is it a country like jordan under a massive influx of Syrian Refugees but almost incredible strength on this economy and all of the Security Problems involved. He seen advances in human rights in lebanon, but not the kind that are normally advanced the human rights and the fact you got unreasonably successful compromise at an actual government between its factions. So i think the honesty and dear to your question is in some ways we tend to focus on imposing ones said and one part of our values and human rights. I think her Administration May be somewhat more practical. But whether over the course of four years is going to be any less interested in the role of a stability, the factors are critical to fighting terrorism. I dont think theres any way to tell. Again, sometimes you need to show a little patience. Hi there. Mike manley with the l. A. Times. Dates are during this briefing. One of my questions was on human rights pedestals event so little time. Is it too early, will we ever be able to draw conclusions about whether the election of trump has either advance National Movements in europe or in summers provoked a counter response to it . Related to that comment to think other World Leaders fully understand what America First means . Has there been some retreat with this reformulation of what we heard from mcmaster last week that America First is not made america a mount an embrace of the multilateral institutions we might not have it acted otherwise. Excuse me. I think pardon me again. The question is whether Donald Trumps election provoked similar movements. These existed before his election. The National Front has been a growing force in french politics for a long time. They have some similar characteristics, but the extent to one feeds or promote the other. Perhaps the most abstract level of the legit looking to send that possible inconceivable and contribute may be to a public recognition that change is that sort can have been. Its a question of how much of what is going on his backlash against that. You could argue the dutch elections in the french president ial election represented a backlash against that and a reversion. Thats an arguable point the fact that centerright politics is moving to the right. But you have in the netherlands and also what you had with republicans in france is a shift to the right with the territory and take away some of the oxygen from the far right to the extreme right. So that is on the one hand. Its also differentiated in places like germany you have a far right party which is scoring now in the single digits. Maximum 10 in opinion polls. Yesterday they got 7. 5 . In austria, the Freedom Party at the top of the opinion polls. This varies from country to country. And then America First. I think as a Bumper Sticker beyond it being a Bumper Sticker, i dont anchor allies really hinders and what that means. With respect to the National Security of eisners a nation of it that he offered on friday at the start of the White House Press briefing, again from the strength of the u. S. Led multilateral system and alliances around the world has been the willingness of the u. S. To set its goals more broadly and to make contributions to an overall western alliance good. That is what has allowed the leader is a very different persuasion in a very different social political contacts to tie themselves to the United States. It is still a big question in the minds of most of our counterparts. [inaudible] i have a couple questions. There are some news about the Trump Administration thinking of sending u. S. Troops to afghanistan. What they used the u. S. Administration to increase the u. S. Troops in syria to fight a says and more boots on the ground regarding fighting isis and regarding more involvement, more u. S. Involvement in the fighting and then . Thank you. I think when it comes down to the fight against terrorism, if you look from about 2003 on at the state Department Reports, the country report done terrorism, saudi arabia identified as it is the partner and counterterrorist them. A lot of that has been expanded to the point where we used to have two security Advisory Mission in saudi arabia. Went out with the National Guard and the other with regular forces. The ministry of interior. Certainly when it comes down to finding security against terrorism and a critical country in terms of the economy and preserving the flow of gold oil export, theres no question its been a critical partner. If you look at the details of that, look at the state Department Report named, which basically is fair to say reflects the views of the National Counterterrorism center. That part of the partnership is one that is not a sickly danette issued even when there is questions of u. S. Commitment to the gulf and saudi arabia. When there has been this retrospect did debate over the passages of a Congressional Staff report on 9 11 dating back to 2012. It is a legislative issue last year. Its very important to understand what the role of u. S. Forces is in syria, iraq and afghanistan. We are not talking combat unit. When you talk about Additional Forces for afghanistan, it would be in the train and assist program and the support of counterterrorism that our afghan forces. You might see a significant increase in the amount of u. S. Air support, which is not by any standard was on the ground. That has been reasonably well briefed by the administration, but its somehow how scott and trained waited into total manmade rather than what the manpower does. Just as a casual comment, there is not a born a needless and reporting on any security situation in total personnel. If you dont ask what the men and women do and do a live look at total amount of people, that hasnt been relevant as a meaningful military metric for about the last 4000 years. One might consider how often you want to complete reporting it in the future. Serious and iraq are different stories but not materially. What we have done over the years his goal from trying to train and assist with combat unit. We have provided limited amounts of fire support. These are small rocket units and we have provided attack helicopters in addition to jack fighters. But there is no discussion of providing combat unit and part of the reason at this point in time, first you rot iraqi units to the level for this Mission Works reflect it, putting u. S. Combat unit in neither country would immediately create the problem of resistance among factions, particularly the unit that support iran, various shiite militias. It would be politically destabilizing in iraq. Exactly where you would put them in syria if what you want is to develop Syrian Forces that can actually occupy the area can provide some kind of political and civil stability after. You cant do that with u. S. Troops. The saudis are aware of this at this point as we are. Weve already learned the hard way as the limit and what really work on the ground. Dmn is an extraordinarily difficult case. The fact is when the conflict started in the uae have that coalition intervened, they comment on mark that Ground Troops than they thought. They ended up having to rely on air power and limited ground force. The end result has been a stalemate. Basically it is not the sub one. It is the sub one and a solid faction and the armed forces acts solid and found one in the struggle. It is also a very serious internal threat from al qaeda and the arabian peninsula. The u. S. Basically i began to try to put conventional u. S. Ground troops into the middle of one of the most complex ethnic sectarian forms of asymmetric war popular at this point simply is not likely to be a demand for even a request. Help in terms of air power may be. How much the u. S. Basically would like to see both saudi arabia and the uae use air power more carefully, Collateral Damage from the civilian casualties is fairly clear. Do it very much like to see that improved. But there is a problem here which also tends to get forgotten. There is exactly one country in the world that can actually conduct the kind of surgical airstrikes the u. S. Conducts as part of its operations in afghan is dan, iraq and area. As became clear in libya, written france cant do it. Highly sophisticated structures, but they dont have the reconnaissance, intelligence, communications that allows them to deal with this. Russia could certainly do better, but it is not a country with its Defense Budget which can operate air operations at the level the United States can. Countries like saudi arabia and the uae have very capable air combat units, but they dont have the Battle Management and isr asset that the u. S. Does. To some extent, we created an expectation about air power, which is demanding enough for the United States. But how much she practically congealed with the saudi and uae on this issue simply is not clear. I think the plans that are dx is, more precision and munitions. This basically means one basic criteria. If you dont give them those munitions, david is nonprecision munitions and the end result will be higher Collateral Damage of a lot more civilian casualties. Not every arms theyll just one that adds to the problem. Some of them add to the solution. All right. But that we will call it a day. Thank you for starting off your week sis. Literature and boxes. Well have the transcript probably by this afternoon. If for some reason youre not in a mailing list, come find me and i will make sure you are put on. Once again, thanks for joining us. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] present trends first foreign trip as president will take into saudi arabia, and israel, the vatican to brussels for a nato summit