To make some village in india established in 1984, dedicated to helping prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflict abroad. In todays world this mandate means that not only do we address active conflicts, but also that we help to establish and maintain mechanisms and tools that increase stability and prevent future conflict. We are pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to explore one such potential mechanism, their growing political and Security Partnerships between the nato and its partner countries in the indo pacific, australia, japan, the republic of korea, and new zealand. This topic is subject of a new report that a u. S. Ip Expert Study Group has just issued, it is Available Online and we have hard copies outside for all of you. My main role is to welcome two of the most respected gentleman in washington. Secretary of state dr. Kurt campbell, and former National Security advisor and firmer chair former chair stephen hadley. Following their discussion, we are delighted to welcome a number of colleagues that will be a part of the panel. Secretary of state douglas jones, Senior Advisor for east asian and Pacific Affairs elliott laskowski, former nato assistant john, and chair of the u. S. Ip study group on nato and indo Pacific Partners. The Washington Summit in july will mark the third year in a row that the leaders of australia, japan, new zealand, and the republic of korea joined nato counterparts and an alliance summit. A lot to talk about. A lot at stake in these discussions. Including the return of strategic competition to the international system. Threats to the worlds based International Order from the war in ukraine, a more assertive china. Urgent transnational problems including Climate Change and emerging disruptive technologies. As the Nato Alliance enters its 75th year, this is faster than could have been imagined in the first nato meeting in 1949. Our aim is to talk about these challenges and how they can be addressed with new partnerships that are focused on deterrence, and interoperability and can also be addressed through cooperation and goodwill. Those are the basis of our our stability. We invite you to the floor. [applause] thank you very much for being with us, we will have a conversation here for maybe a 20 or 30 minutes and then we will depart and we will invite the panelists to come up, two part two will be a discussion with analysts. I recommend all of you pick up as you leave if you have not gotten it already, it is a great job. I will start and give you a business off ball on this one. It is an opportunity to say what you think we need to hear. 75 years ago no one could have imagined that an integrated European Union or european state, let alone the president of the republic of korea and the Prime Ministers of australia, japan, and new zealand would be joining nato Member States for regular summit meetings. Yet that is what is now occurring. How do we get there . How should we feel about it . First, let me take a moment to say thank you for the invite, to help commemorate the report that has been issued, i want to thank you and your team. You have a great Panel Including doug jones, this english to members of your team, and her other colleagues distinguished members of your team. I have never been this part of the, this is some of the most integrated architecture ive ever seen. We have been scouting around washington where we might hold the ip for and i think we have found our sites. We are thrilled it is magnificent and these are sincere. Grateful to do anything with steve hadley, i do not think there is a person who has done more in the bipartisan context to support american purpose. When you look at the people that is building dedicated work, people like steve that helped propel National Purpose in many important ways. As we get started, i am deeply focused on the upcoming summit, this is an opportunity for us to both take stock and also look into the future, i do not think anyone could have imagined 75 years ago, if you look at all of the things that have been accomplished over this time, the first victory in the cold war, a return of conflict, terrible conflict. On the continent of europe. Inclusion of new members that no one would have ever thought would have met the sort of terms of membership. A recognition that security and other issues transcend the simple geographic boundaries of europe. I think the fact that countries in the indo pacific have expressed interest in a focus on nato as an organization and Member States in terms of the core admissions and understanding this information, larger sort of challenges strategically, i think it is important. I will also say that i think in the past we have always thought about how countries in europe focus on the indo pacific and we either with the United States or it is interesting that the most decisive expression of the linkages that is now emerging between the indo pacific and europe around the other direction. It is the countries of the indo pacific and japan, south korea, australia, new zealand, singapore, and others, decisively got behind support for ukraine and have made consistent messaging of the importance of prevailing. Two years ago, when President Biden hosted the Prime Minister of japan and he spoke to a joint session of Congress People on the hill were a little surprised that virtually the first thing that the Prime Minister raised was the essential struggle we are focused on. Victory or avoiding defeat was essential prerequisite for maintaining peace in the you know pacific. I think he and other leaders in the indo pacific recognize the interconnectivity between the two distinct regions. We are combined by many other things and there is a sense that common purposes and common approaches to Global Security overcome simple geographic differences and i will say that what we have also seen over the course of the last few years is a pressure that is bolstered by partnership with both china and north korea in ways that are antithetical not only to our security interests in europe, but also the indo pacific. Host this relationship between nato and nato countries, this is pretty popular in washington and it reflects the consensus we have had and we have to get serious about the challenges presented by china. I want to ask a couple of questions and poke a little bit at that, one of the questions i would begin with is how has china reacted to this increasing cooperation between nato and are indo pacific friends and allies in our in the pacific friends and allies . It is incumbent on us to tell our stories carefully and explain what our purposes are and what they are not. We are not proposing that nato explore out of areas of contingencies in the indo pacific that is far from what we believe. We also think it is critical that countries in the indo pacific understand exactly what the nature of our conversations are about. The limitations of what is being discussed. For instance there are important member state relationships with the nato and our interactions more generally, there is no real opposition of some combining forces that would integrate countries in the indo pacific into some formal selfdefense article five article nine structure and nato. That is not what is being discussed or articulated. I think it is fair to say that china and russia have for years not recently, but for years had a drumbeat of very negative information. We spent a lot of hours putting this microphone on and it does not work, a wonderful building but we still need to work on the technology. I would say that is a joke. It is ok, it is fine, it is a good technology. Virtually any move that the United States or other countries thought to make on the Security Side of the indo pacific was labeled like the importation of nato into the indo pacific and specific ways. The Information Space has been very effectively played by chinese and russian disinformation. As you travel around the pacific and Southeast Asia, you will offer your questions about nato ambitions, what are you doing in the indo pacific . Part of the reasons i am so pleased by this report on the work it will underscore is that we do have to tell our story better and we have to explain clearly first of all, the critical role. Seeing over the last seven years, focusing on the distance, it would be nato. In truth, it is a case study of how countries can Work Together to solve problems. All of the challenges they have faced. They have overcome over decades, even during periods where people thought that the west was in decline or would collapse. I think that these partnerships will be important, they help countries understand how to help take security interests seriously. Some of the initial discussions are around this information and they are around cyber related issues, they are around narratives that are negative like what we are confronting with respect to how nato is depicted in indo pacific countries. I think the summit gives us the opportunity to feature how these four responsible members of the independent states, and all of them, but south korea, japan excuse me, australia and new zealand, how these four states have played such an responsible role in not only securing the region, but the leaders of the countries desire to play an increasingly global role. When we say global world, that had often meant in the global south but what we are seeing increasingly is responsibility voices responsible voices indicating that the links within Southeast Asia and europe are tight, important, and should be furthered. One of the things that is important, we talked about this, i worked on the indo pacific for a long period of time when i was in the obama administration, there was something that emerged called the pivot. Or the rebalance. I have said this before but most initiatives that you launch in government, they disappear almost immediately without anyone noticing, they are like i do not even know what you are talking about. On the rare occasions when you do something that takes off, you are left with a different set of challenges which are how do you deal with the unintended consequences of an initiative you let out . The most important consequence of this was a sense that somehow we were pivoting away from europe. To the indo pacific. That was a serious mistake and in fact, completely contrary to our interests and our desires. Everything the United States has ever done of barbers on the global stage we have done with europe and i expect that will be the case as we go forward. It is also the case as we looked and thought about the Indo Pacific Strategy, i am proud to say that one of the most important features of that is not just advancing partnerships and engagement with the indo pacific, but with europe. Dramatic dialogues, some countries almost one dozen interactions in which we explore joint issues and engage in the past with we talked about a country in europes Indo Pacific Strategy that was largely how they thought about china. What we are seeing in europe is a broad interest in the region and a whole as advancing with japan with south korea and thinking about engaging india and yes, how to have a responsible relationship with china as well. Host let me come back and ask you this question, when you have had interactions with china, what do you say to them when they say these increased relationships between nato and the allies is part of an effort to encircle china and constrain china to keep china down and what do you say to that question . To some critics here, they say that by emphasizing a renewed relationship between nato and the countries in asia, and our own pressure on countries to do more for their defense, we are going to get a further Chinese Military buildup of the conventional forces and their Nuclear Forces . We are creating a security challenge that we would like to avoid. What you say to the chinese and others . We often hear from chinese friends about how the United States is taking this triangle are undermining commercially for economically surrounding china. I think it is important to take a moment and to provide a little bit of context before we depart on this question. If you look at the last 40 or 50 years, you could make an argument that these are the best 40 or 50 years in chinas history, lifting billions of people out of poverty, you have to credit the ingenuity and effectiveness of the chinese people. It is undoubtably the case that they accomplished this with the help of countries in the international system. Probably no country has helped more than the United States, open markets, investments, support for 20 international institutions, highly debatable now, also, it is the maintenance and stability of the United States in the indo pacific for decades. These have provided in many respects the conditions that have allowed china to rise, thrive, and to develop more generally. I would largely answer directly to chinese friends that i do not see the actions that the west or the United States and europe has taken as somehow initiating chinese responses on the nuclear or military side. I think many of those plans were already well underway. Advanced at the time that i think sometimes reluctantly, and slowly, by groups in the west recognize that it was in our own best interest to Work Together to confront and engage on challenges that were opposing severe threats and concerns to our mutual security and prosperity. I would say that and i tried to explain to chinese friends much of what we have done is not designed to thwart china directly, it is designed to preserve and protect the institutions and the capabilities, the hardwon operating system we have developed together. I would also say that i even hear from chinese interlocutors quietly when we press them on their relationship with russia i will say look at the partners you are choosing, the partners that you chose to propel yourself on the International States with, the other Southeast Asian countries. You have now pivoted to work most closely with russia, with north korea, increasingly with a lot with iran. That sends a signal on the global stage that is concerning not just in washington, but across capitals in europe as well. Host clearly, if nato started signing up as members, australia , new zealand, japan, and south korea, it would be a red flag to china. What about the argument that some have made that nato being the most successful military alliance in history . We should not bring nato into the indo pacific but we should create if you will a nato lookalike in the indo pacific, pulling together our friends and allies in a more structured, selfdefense arrangement, nato like . What would chinas reaction be to that and what would be the reaction of our friends and allies . I think what we have tried to do over the course of the administration is building on bipartisan efforts for some time. The defense and Security Architecture in asia is quite different than the architecture in europe. I do not need to tell you this. Multilateralism in asia is a live relatively new thing. Is a relatively new thing. Back in the 1990s, we were debating whether it was an American Interest to support multilateral institutions in the region. They have now taken wing in many respects, what we are seeing is the United States has a series of important bilateral relationships in the region and that a number of informal ties with other countries. I think the goal has been to not only diversify those links and bring new partners and, but to create crosscutting partnerships that are many lateral and purpose driven. Able ambassadors to japan, the latticework arrangement in the indo pacific. The Building Blocks that we are seeking is not only to strengthen our bilateral relationships of the kind we have seen when the Prime Minister was here, we can just have all of you just take a moment to just to consider the depth of the bilateral accomplishments, it is remarkable, an update of a 70yearold relationship in a way that is completely unprecedented. We have added to the groupings, the quad, that brings all of the maritime major democracies in the indo pacific together, it seeks to provide Nuclear Power conventionally armed submarines and other elements that will hopefully over time integrate other likeminded countries in joint technological pursuits, important trilateral between the United States, japan, and south korea, bridging decades of serious divisiveness and most recently, steve, we can and we and a half ago between japan and the philippines and the United States, we think these efforts along with strengthened bilateral relationships with those countries like vietnam increasingly likeminded on Security Issues and a major project that we are all engaged in which is trying to develop a stronger relationship with india. Given its critical and central role on the global stage. These efforts together we believe provide a kind of security ba