{..] Ellen Francis, Washington Post: Thank you. Ellen Francis, Washington Post. Secretary General, you mentioned territorial claims. We’ve reported that the White House is studying the cost of controlling Greenland, and President Trump has not ruled out the use of force to take Greenland. So I want to ask you, what good would Article Five do if an attack on a NATO ally comes from within, and how would NATO respond then? Thank you.
Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General: I said before that, I think we should zoom out from Greenland, and we should look at the high north and the Arctic in general. Because there is an issue in the Arctic with Chinese using the new sea lanes coming up, Russia, rearming and arming parts of the Arctic. And that is why the seven Arctic countries within NATO, US and Canada, Denmark through Greenland, but also Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, are working together all seven, and NATO is involved, to make sure that we take the necessary next steps to defend this part of NATO territory.[…]
Thomas Gutschker, FAZ: I have to press you again on the trade and tariff issue that Jonathan raised. This evidently, is not a minor trade dispute between the US and its Allies. It’s something that has been called in this very building by participating Foreign Ministers, a full-fledged trade war against them by their most important Ally. You’ve pointed yourself to Article Two, in which – of the Washington Treaty -, in which Allies pledged that they will seek, I quote, “to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies”. So given all this, can you really say, and does it really make sense for NATO to keep out of this when there’s a threat of a global recession that will have a severe impact on Allies being able to rearm?
Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General:First of all there’s clearly a difference in remit, in scope of the jobs of a Foreign Minister and of my role. Foreign Ministers, of course, are focused on, yes, defence, and that’s what we discussed here the last two days at NATO. But they are also, of course, very much focused on the broader international relations, bilateral and multilateral, of their respective countries, and that’s why it is totally acceptable and logical that they comment on these terms. My role is deeply focusing on the defence of NATO territory, and that is why I’m not commenting on other things than directly related to the defence of NATO, the Euro-Atlantic, and of course, when it comes to the Indo-Pacific, pointing to the fact that these theatres get more intertwined and interconnected. When it comes to Article Two, I don’t think this is in breach of Article Two. No, I don’t think so. We have seen in the past many examples of differences of view, of fights over tariffs. This has happened before without that being in violation of Article Two. Läs presskonferensen