INTERVIEW/Carafano: Trump is controversial; when you look past controversy there is clarity of purpose in foreign policy

Bucharest, May 29 /Agerpres/ - US President Donald Trump is controversial both in the United States as in Europe but, "when you look past the controversy and you put that aside, there is a clarity of purpose in US foreign policy", said, in an interview for AGERPRES, foreign policy expert James Carafano.

"Trump is controversial in America, we're not surprised that he's controversial in Western Europe. When you look past the controversy and you put that aside, there is a clarity of purpose in US foreign policy, that is undeniable," Carafano said.

In her turn, Rebeccah L. Heinrichs, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, said that "that clarity is always helpful".

"Even if it's abrupt, or if it can be surprising at first, it's helpful. President Trump is a businessman, he's result-oriented and he's pragmatic and so I think that's very helpful, I think that it can be very helpful," she noted.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and James Carafano, Vice President Kathryn And Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy - Heritage Foundation spoke for AGERPRES on the matter of security challenges in the Black Sea region and about the relations between the United States and Romania.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs and James Carafano are participating, in this period, in the fifth edition of the international training program "Security in the Black Sea region. Common challenges, sustainable future," organized by the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI), through the Michael the Brave National Information Academy, in partnership with Harvard University and the National Intelligence University of the United States of America, under the high patronage of the Romanian Presidential administration.

The two spoke of the US approach in what regards NATO strategy, but also on the way in which the US relates to partner countries.

***

AGERPRES: You're here today to participate in a conference regarding the security in the Black Sea region. Yesterday, during the opening of this specific event, an official of the Romanian National Ministry of Defense said that actually two thirds of the Black Sea region is dominated by Russia, especially after the annexation of Crimea. Could you give an overview of the way this situation evolved in the Black Sea region, starting with the annexation of Crimea and the way things are now?

James Carafano: The Black Sea has always been challenging for NATO, it's an important flank and the security of NATO, the Transatlantic community is what matters, and the answer is it all matters because it's all part of the community, so Southeastern Europe and the southern flank NATO is just as important as the Fulda Gap was during the Cold War, or what the Atlantic Ocean is to Iceland, so it all matters, and NATO is like a chain, it's only as strong as its weakest link, and so the Black Sea has always been a challenge, and part of it because of the treaty restrictions about the number of ships that can enter, and the number of foreign ships that can cruise in the size of it. So it's been a challenge since the beginning of the Cold War, particularly when you think about the size and the number of ships that can go in there and it is a greater challenge, with Russia having more access to maritime ports and platforms, that they can use to project power into the regions, so not just in terms of Crimea, but also in terms of the Russian expanded military presence in Syria, for example, and using that as a base to project power in the Mediterranean, so I think quite honestly Russia's strategy is to win without fighting. Russia is not planning on starting WW3, but what Russia would like to do is to see if it establishes its security by breaking up the Transatlantic alliance, so it's always looking for opportunities and looking for weak link in the chain, and I think that one of the real opportunities that they do see is on the Southern flank of NATO, and so the question is how does NATO redress that balance? And so it has to be able to do this to demonstrate that it continues to have access to the region and it can support and defend those regions, so access to the Black Sea remains an issue of deep concern and the ability to have capacity and capability in that region remains a concern. It's a real challenge on how to do that, but it's part of the reason why conferences likes this are so important, because that can only really happen with the cooperation of the regional partners in the region.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: I would like to add to that that Russia has identified NATO as its geopolitical foe, and so NATO has to respond accordingly, and with the invasion of Ukraine, of course not a member of NATO, there is a concern that that was even a test on the part of Russia, to see how the United States and other allied countries would respond and based on how it would respond, or not respond, they might think that there might be a weak will, or lack of will to respond, if it was a similar invasion of a NATO ally, and so, like Jim said, conferences like this are important for transparency, for communication, to understand that NATO allies have a clear picture of the threat, and NATO allies that are closest to the threat, closest to Russia, seem to almost always have a better picture of the threat, so it's good to hear from the people who are here what they perceive as the threat so that we can understand that better, we can contribute to the conversation about what we perceive and make sure that the alliance is strong and like Jim said, Russia looks for soft spots and then pushes on those soft spots, and so when we can bolster those soft spots so that they understand that there is a strength of will and strength of alliance, backed by a credible hard power - military deterrents - that that is the best thing that we can do to deter conflict and preserve peace.

James Carafano: Russia looks for weak points, and where they've pushed, NATO pushed back, so whether it's support for the Ukraine or reinforcing the Baltic region, or reassurance to Central Europe, the weak spots people genuinely see as the Western Balkans and the Black Sea region, so that's an area where I think NATO needs to pay more attention.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: Another point I would like to add is that the United States has been increasing and bolstering our military cooperation with several Eastern European countries, and frankly there's plenty of room to grow, so we have our Aegis Ashore defence site with Romania, with Poland, Romania is buying more Patriot battery systems from the United States, all of this is critically important. Russia will continue to oppose it, and one thing that I am trying to encourage my colleagues in the United States, as well as my colleagues from the embassies in Romania and Poland is to stay strong, because Russia will oppose whatever we do to strengthen the alliance and build and deploy these defense systems and each country has a right to defend themselves, so there's no reason that we shouldn't be doing things that only strengthen or protect our allies and our sovereignty.

AGERPRES: What can Romania do in the Black Sea region to increase its presence and also not become a soft spot?

James Carafano: In the Baltic countries, one of the real concerns was air security, because the Russians would routinely test NATO by tempting overflight, to challenge NATO's ability to control the aerospace, and the response to that is called the Baltic Air Police Mission. The Baltic countries are really small, they can't afford to buy bigger airforces, and so what you have, essentially, is a cooperative arrangement with other members of NATO, working with the Baltic countries, to have a sustained air presence in the Baltic, to demonstrate NATO's willingness to defend Baltic airspace, so this Baltic Air Police Mission has evolved over time. We have a similar activity that's involved in Iceland, because now we're actually concerned again about Russian threats to Transatlantic security in the Atlantic, and so we have a mission where we have three rotations of aircraft flying over Iceland, not just on the Air policing mission, but also monitoring Russian submarine activity, so what we need in the Baltic is really a Baltic maritime policing mission, of similar scope, and again, because of the limitations of passages, through the straits of Bosphorus, that's really going to require the cooperation of countries in the region and us helping them develop their capacity and capability to do that, and I think that between limited partnership of NATO and increase in the capacity of countries in the region to participate in maritime security, NATO could demonstrate again its willingness to patrol and police the Black Sea, and I think that's an important development. Romania has shown some leadership in going in this direction and I think that's where it will eventually evolve.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: Romania is doing a lot of things very very well, one of them was that Romania stood up and wanted to take the Aegis Ashore site, when the United States wanted to deploy it, and needed a host country to do that. Romania knew that it would be taking on a lot of pressure from Russia, and did it in the face of that, that was incredibly courageous and bold, and it was the right thing to do, and Romania has not backed down from that, and it's going to be expanding some of the other military equipment that it takes. The other thing that Romania is doing very well is just fostering a closer relationship with the United States, very, very proactively, and that's a very wise thing to do as well, United States is making an effort there too. Another thing is public education, and this is not talked about enough. We want to make sure that the Romanian population, that the people understand the threat, and they do, but you want to make sure that that stays at the forefront of their minds, and has this sense of desire to defend themselves and protect their own country. All of those things, and of course, you have the military readiness, that it's not just the military equipment that you have, but you actually have a military that is ready to fight and defend itself. All of those things project power and can just change the calculus of a force like Russia, that might think that it's just not worth the cost.

James Carafano: Here I think that Romania is very, very smart. If you listen to the President's rhetoric, he talks about America First, and what he means by that is that the responsibility of the American president is to look after, to put first, the vital interests of his country, and the United States is a global power and global interest and the key regions of the world, that the United States is really concerned about, at the top of the list is Western Europe, so a vital interest of the United States, for a president that's putting America first is a Western Europe that's peaceful, stable and prosperous, and so America is actually deeply committed to Transatlantic security, and why that is important is that the two greatest threats to the external security of Western Europe are the destabilizing influence of Russia and the potential for problems in the Middle East to spill over into Western Europe.Even if you had a perfect European Security Identity and everyone in Europe agrees that that's the most important and that's what they needed to concentrate on,c ollectively, Europe does not have the capacity or capability to deal with either of those threats, so to be honest there is no such thing as a European Security Identity, there is only a Transatlantic Security Identity, in which the common security really comes from the United States, Canada, Iceland, and the European Community together, that's where real security comes from, and I honestly don't think that there is a strategic partner that understands that better than Romania, and they've invested not only in European security, they've invested in the Transatlantic Partnership, and I think that's where the real security comes from.

AGERPRES: Could you talk a little bit about the collaboration between the United States and Romania in terms of national security policy? Because ever since President Trump took office, he put national security first, and Romania and the USA collaborate in this aspect.

James Carafano: If you look at number one, in terms of Transatlantic security, what's the most important thing for the United States? That is, the success of NATO, that is the cornerstone and the bedrock of Transatlantic security, this administration is completely committed to that, I think everybody realizes that by now. Romania is a member of NATO, so in that respect I think it's important, but beyond that, what makes NATO strong is really the contributions and the resilience in the underlying states, and those partnerships the United States values greatly, and if you look from the US's perspective, about where the countries, economically, strategically, philosophically, align closely there is this kind of bar that goes from Iceland to Britain, to the Baltic, Central European states anchoring in Southern Europe, in the countries where the US looks at like natural partners, see the world the way the United States does, and I think that Romania is part of that, we work a lot with the embassy communities in Washington DC. The Romanian Embassy represents your country really, really well and they are kind of vibrant part of making the case that there is common cause between the United States and Romania, so actually it's one of the more vibrant bilateral partnerships for the US.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: I just want to underscore that I am a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute - Jim said that the Heritage Foundation, and Romania, the Romanian Embassy, is one of the strongest partnerships that I have, in terms of sharing information, having a friendly relationship, seeing the threats the same way, and really having a common understanding of what is necessary to deter threats and to defend against them, should deterrents fail. That's critical, I think that a lot of people misunderstand our president is saying that when it comes to NATO, that he's just looking for money that comes out of NATO, but really there's an underlying reason for that - he wants these individual, sovereign nations to step up and participate in the collective security of the group, of the alliance. Romania has done that and Romania is doing that, and continues to contribute what's necessary and continues to share the burden in other ways, militarily, so they are definitely with us there, but it's more than that, there are other opportunities... The alliance is more than just a military alliance, it's also a political alliance so this alliance is there, originally, because of a shared view of the world, of things we care about, of human rights, pluralism, and just societies, respecting what we call international norms, treaties and agreements, recognize national borders and the sovereignty of nations, all of which Russia does not recognize and does not understand and doesn't play by those rules. Romania has demonstrated that it is a good friend when it comes to those principles and ideas, and not to say that any of us are perfect, but certainly respects those, and one of the ways that certainly meant a lot to the United States and our ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, made a really big deal about this, was when Romania abstained from the vote to condemn the United States when we moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It might not seem like a big deal to some, but just respecting the sovereign independent decision of the US to make that rather than rebuking the United States, was a big deal, and it was noticed, and so Romania was one of the countries, along with Poland and Czech Republic in the region to recognize that, and that it's a good friend to the United States.

AGERPRES: Furthermore, Romania is actually one of the first European countries that announced that it's going to analyze the opportunity of moving the embassy in Israel, from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: It's hard for me to communicate what a big deal that is, for a number of reasons, to the United States, but everyone has choices here about where they're going to align, when you look at great power politics, great power competition, and there are some concerning alliances breaking and going towards the Russia region. Romania is so clear, it seems to me that they know what is neccesary, to make sure that they are helping to contribute to the NATO alliance, to what the United States needs and wants to support that, and showing great foresight in that and we just encourage it to keep doing it.

James Carafano: I also think that in the end this is going to result in a more constructive relationship with Russia. This is not a new Cold War, and I think President Trump actually approached this as many European leaders to and that is "Russia is not going anywhere", it's a neighbor of Western Europe, nobody wants Russia on the outside looking in, everyone wants to have a constructive relationship and President Trump has been very consistent in offering Putin an off-ramp, saying that we do not have to have a confrontational relationship, but an honest relationship starts with respecting the interests of America, its friends and allies, and really the notion of deconstructing the transatlantic community, undermining our security, that's just not acceptable. When Russia stops that behavior, then I think the potential to a constructive relationship is there, I think it's what Romanians would want and it's what Americans would want, and nobody wants to go back to the Cold War and wall off Russia from the rest of Europe, and ironically, countries like Romania and United States are actually more committed to keeping the door open than the Russians are.

AGERPRES: But Russia is also a great economic power, how do things balance? The military situation with Russia is pretty much in the open. What about Russia's role as a huge economic power, how do people negotiate with this?

James Carafano: The great strengths of the Russian economy are energy and arm sales, those are both wasting assets. Honestly, increasingly, Russia is the arm supplier of the last resort, people have other options, they would rather buy arms from other places. I know Russia has a lot of competition on the energy market, and indeed the only thing that keeps Russia as a major player is access to that energy, as the North-South corridors move from energy, even Russia has a monopoly on where they can have their gas stations, that's going to significantly change, and energy supplies are much more competitive than they were in the 90's, so I think that Russia's economic influence is on pretty thin ice. In contrast, the American economy has been going very strong in the last 2 years, unemployment at an all time low, right now the United States really is the engine of global economic growth. That's likely to accelerate and continue. Even in comparison with the Chinese, and people talking about the Chinese economic growth, but honestly we've seen the Chinese economic growth slow significantly. They have this expansive belt and road initiative, that's largely financed on debt, and right now that belt and road has not actually produced any wealth, comparable to the amount of investments the Chinese put into it, so I think that economically the United States is in a very strong position, competitively, and I think that actually the countries that benefit from that are actually the countries that do the most economic activity and that's really Western Europe.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: President Trump gave this great speech in Poland, when he talked about his "3 C's initiative", where he talked about support for the 3C's, and had these incredibly important points about how the United States was going to be an exporter of energy and that we're going to break the monopoly, that you can call Russia by name, and he does that on purpose, because people often mistake President Trump because he does not use harsh words towards Putin as being soft, but if you look at everything the United States is doing under President Trump, it's actually very tough. It's not provocative, he's not going after Putin directly, he's just pursuing US interests and interests with our allies, without deliberately being provocative towards Putin, leaving this open hand open in case Putin is willing to cooperate, but being an energy export to Europe breaks that monopoly and he had this important line about how the United States is not going to use energy coercively, which is what Europe has seen with Russia. That's incredibly important, because it removes that leverage that Russia has had in the past, and that was an initiative that was started by President Obama, so there's continuity there between the previous administration and the new one, this is an American initiative that our country wanted to do and it's great for our country and our prosperity, but also has enormous political implications, that are going to be great for the region.

AGERPRES: Because you were talking about Poland, there was an article in Politico, yesterday, that Poland is eager to offer the US 2 billion dollars for permanent military presence. How is this seen by the US and also I would like to ask you how has this opened United States will to have permanent military presence here in Romania, because this is a topic that has been discussed.

James Carafano: There are two things going on simultaneously, one being that the United States recognizes that NATO is a political-military alliance and both of those really matter, because political will to act is just as important as a military capability to act, so the president's emphasis on burden sharing is largely perceived as "people should pay their fair share", but it's really more "people should have skin in the game", people should have the political commitment to demonstrate that they're serious about the Transatlantic security. To be honest, if Romania spends 2 percent of GDP on defence, that does not massively increase the defence of NATO, but what it demonstrates is that Romania has the political will to be a part of the Transatlantic. That's really important, and I think that the Polish contribution of "we want to help pay for the American base", I think that's probably welcomed, but that's also why they interpreted as, again, the political will to demonstrate solidarity with the US, and more importantly, to demonstrate commitment to NATO defence. That I think is massive. The other aspect of that, which is important, is US defence spending, because even if everybody in NATO paid 2 percent, that's not going to offset the US not having the capacity and capability it needs, because remember, the US is a global power with global interest, so we not only have to contribute to the Transatlantic defence, but we also have a role play in the Middle East, a role to play in Asia, and we have to support all those things, so our defence capabilities, we talked about NATO paying 2 percent of GDP. We need to pay about 4 percent of GDP, because if you think about it, our defence requirements are about twice the size of what Europe is, because we also have to worry about the Middle East and Asia. This administration is very committed to increase defense spending, that's part of why the economic growth is important, because you must have a strong economy to afford defence, but this president started on a path of sustained increased defence spending over time, and that's important, because if we want to move force structures into Eastern Europe, build our bases in Romania, put force structures in Poland, we have to be able to have the forces and capability to do that, that's going to require sustained defence budgets over time in the United States. The administration is on the path to that, so if you add all those up, and you have economic strength, which translates to an increased ability for military strength/, and this administration's commitment to the political solidarity that we have in NATO, that is a much more robust and powerful demonstration of the United States' commitment to the security of the Transatlantic states.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: One of the things that I assessed at the beginning of the Trump administration, when a lot of the people who do national security commentary were afraid that president Trump's policy were going to weaken NATO, what I thought was that you are going to have people step up and contribute more and strengthen what was, in some ways, an anemic alliance, in some areas, and it's stronger now than when it was, when the president first took office, and the improvements were the exact things he wanted to see. Our Secretary of Defence, Jim Mattis, gave this talk about how he wants, and I think he was really talking to the Western European countries, at the time he was addressing them, he said that "we want you to care about your children at least as much as we do", meaning, you know, prioritize this. We're not here just as the bouncers of the world. We understand that we have the largest, most powerful military in the world, and we want peace and security and that's good for the global economy and it's good for peace and prosperity, we have our own interest in it, but we'd also like to see our partners and our allies care enough to contribute and prioritize it and budget it, because the European economy is large, everyone pulls their money and prioritizes it, so there's a significant contribution there, but it's got to be a primary prioritization of the alliance.

AGERPRES: US embassy in Romania was very vocal when it came to the situation regarding the rule of law, they were very straightforward in saying what the Department of State wants from Romania. How does the US see the situation of the rule of law in Romania, in terms of taking care of the rule of law situation becoming a soft spot, a weak point of the country?

James Carafano: I think there was a significant shift between the past administration and this administration. This administration really recognizes that the future of Europe is in the hand of the Europeans, and the last administration was more inclined to insert itself in internal European matters, where there might be debates between individual states and the European Commission, or the European Union and the United States, as such would take sides, and I think that this administration's notion is that it's really for Europeans to decide, and we shouldn't be taking sides in individual states. Every state has individual challenges and how they deal with issues of individual freedoms and rule of law, the United States recognizes that, so we recognize that broadly speaking we all have the same commitments, and it's helpful to have honest conversations about how we deal with that, and the United States is not interested in penalizing or demonizing countries, because they don't do exactly what the European Commission wants, or don't do exactly what some people in the United States think they need to do. We have a lot of debates about gun laws in the United States, we don't appreciate it when other people dictate how we should handle gun laws. On the other hand the United States is a strong believer in economic freedom, a strong believer in individual political freedoms and rule of law, and we recognize that those strengths make countries more resilient and better partners, so we have a dialogue that encourages that, but I don't think that this administration, or any administration should be in the business of dictating countries about how to express their freedoms.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: The current administration is really big on recognizing and respecting national sovereignties, and so there's going to be unique cultural differences in Romania, that are different than in the United States, if there's going to be challenges there and I think that this administration understands that we cannot expect Romania to run like Texas, that's not what we're trying to do, and I suspect it has a much more realistic expectation, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a dialogue in transparency about where are goals are and what we would like to see, but this administration has taken a completely different approach, where as long as there is shared interest, and that the country recognizes them, or are moving in that direction, then we're happy and we're satisfied with that.

AGERPRES: President Trump's discourse, especially when it comes to foreign policy, was a little bit abrupt at first, and how does the world manage his discourse now?

James Carafano: Strategic leadership is rhetoric in action, so you have to look at both to understand what people are doing. If after Pearl Harbour, and the famous speech of Franklin Roosevelt about the day of infamy - that would be a completely forgettable speech, if the United States hadn't actually gone out and fought World War II. You have to look at what leaders say and what they do and I think in the United States we have a hyperpartisan political environment that I think is echoed in Europe and we basically see them echo back our hyperpartisan political environment, and there's an obsession about focusing, often times, on what the president says, as opposed to the totality of what's being done. I think there is a big disconnect on how the governments work together and popular perceptions. In popular perceptions Trump is as controversial here in Europe, as he is in the United States. But, at a working level, governments look past the controversy and look at what is the United States actually doing? Increasingly, I think they are very confident that the United States policies towards Western Europe are actually good for Western Europe and there's a lot of cooperation. I think JCPOA - the Iran deal - was a very good example. In private, Europeans would acknowledge that JCPO wasn't working, that what the United States was doing was the hard right, even if they wouldn't necessarily admit some of that in public, I actually think that at the government to government level there was a lot of cooperation.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: I would just say that clarity is always helpful, and where there's ambiguity, that's unhelpful, in a lot of terms of what our country expects of our allies and our friends, and what our goals are, with our partners and even with our adversaries, and president Trump is very clear. So I think in that regard, even if it's abrupt, or if it can be surprising at first, it's helpful. President Trump is a businessman, he's result-oriented and he's pragmatic and so I think that's very helpful, I think that it can be very helpful, and the Iran deal was a really good example where I think in the past it was confusing for our allies to even know where the United States was going to be on the issue, because often times, our previous president would try to figure out what the consensus was within Western Europe and that was where he went, as opposed to this president, who, fundamentally, primarily, is going to look at what is in the best interests of the American people. That is discernible, knowable information for the world, so you don't have to wait and figure out what he's going to do, and president Trump, so far, he's demonstrated incredible decisiveness. When he says "if Assad is using chemical weapons, we're not going to tolerate it", that's exactly what has happened and so I think that inserting that predictability coming from the United States is going to be good for stability, even if you disagree with some of his policies and directions, at least you know where the United States is coming from.

James Carafano: I think that's a great point. Look, Trump is controversial in America, we're not surprised that he's controversial in Western Europe. When you look past the controversy and you put that aside, there is a clarity of purpose in US foreign policy, that is undeniable.

AGERPRES: And the last question, because the NATO summit is coming in July. If you were to bet on the hot topics of the NATO Summit in July, what would the hot topics be, at this point in time?

James Carafano: In a perfect world we would love to see Macedonia join NATO, for a number of reasons. One is that it's very important that the policy of NATO as an open door remain open. NATO is a community of free nations. People should be freely willing to join, nobody should dictate who and who cannot join NATO, so I think that when we add NATO members that sends a powerful signal to the Russians, that they cannot dictate the future of Western Europe. The naming is a complex issue, I think it's working past that, demonstrating that we can get beyond the state-to-state politics and deal with complex issues, I think it's very important, and I think it clears the way for the next step, which is the accession of Georgia to NATO, I think that it's important for NATO and I think Macedonia keeps us on that path to do it, so we would like to see that happen, whether that actually happens or not, probably not, but if not this summit, maybe the next one. The summit coming right after the meeting with North Korea, I imagine a lot of the conversation will be about how the meeting with North Korea ends, I think the Iran deal will still be very much on people's minds, so I wonder if this will be a NATO summit that's going to be monopolized by non-NATO issues.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: It might be, there are a couple of issues, cybersecurity is a big thing for NATO, and so it needs to be, it has to be something that we all have to deal with and find a way to collaborate on, to be better at that, is critical. Our nuclear deterrence, the United States is making some changes, some adaptations to our own nuclear force, to better provide, to shore up our deterrent capability, specifically, naming in our nuclear posture document, the nuclear posture of calling out Russia, where we see Russia is sort of using nuclear weapons to coerce and to threaten. We want to make sure that there's not going to be any misunderstanding, that Russia doesn't miscalculate and think that it might be an opportunity to pocket some gains by ever employing a nuclear weapon, thinking that NATO wouldn't have the will to respond and would sue for peace. That's been a concern of the United States, and that's always an issue - different European countries have different perspectives on what the United States should do there and in terms of what we should be doing in Europe, on that issue, Russia has been violating IMF treaty - that threatens Europe, that's a big deal, and then there's some other issues, I think, Turkey presents some problems ...

James Carafano: One idea that was put on the table by the Germans was about counting the dual-use infrastructure against the 2 percent, those were the requirements, so if for example Germany is helping build infrastructure in the Baltics or in the Eastern Europe, or Central Europe, that would facilitate the movement of military forces or resupply logistics, that ought to count against the 2 percent, so there's some discussion, but I don't know if that will get addressed at the NATO summit.

Rebeccah L. Heinrichs: The Iran deal, I think it's going to be big, because there's a lot of different perspectives, so you know, a lot of what we're doing here is talking about having a clear, common understanding of the threats, and there is very different, divergent, perspectives concerning the Iran threat, so I think that it will be a big deal, but again, I think Jim's probably right, because North Korea is such a big deal and it's the number one national security foreign policy issue for the United States right now and it affects everybody so I think it will probably take a lot of time. AGERPRES (RO - author: Oana Ghita, editor: Cristina Tatu; EN - authors: Catalin Cristian Trandafir, Adina Panaitescu, Rodica State, editor: Razvan-Adrian Pandea)