Press Conference by Rex Tillerson (US Secretary of State) Left: Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison (US Permanent Representative to NATO). Photography US Embassy in Brussels. The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited NATO Headquarters during his travels last week to Belgium, Austria, and France.  On December 6, 2017, he spoke at a press conference in Brussels.   Here below an extract of this speech: The United States, obviously, I think has affirmed now on multiple occasions our support for NATO’s mission. We know that the security NATO provides protects Western democratic principles, protects our right to live in freedom. To that end, the United States is eager for our NATO allies to exert their sovereignty and take on greater responsibility for our shared deterrence and our defense burden. I think, as each of us contributes, the better we will be able to deter and defend against the threats on Europe’s frontiers, which also can become threats for America. We do commend the many countries that have made additional commitments and greater contributions. This year Romania joined the United States, Greece, Estonia, the United Kingdom, and Poland as six allies that spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense. And two more allies, Latvia and Lithuania, will join that club in 2018. We expect 26 allies will increase their defense spending budgets this year and five more NATO allies have put plans in place to achieve the 2 percent objective by 2024. Increased spending, however, is not enough. It is really about increasing capabilities. And we’ve spent a lot of time in the sessions here at NATO over the last day-and-a-half talking about that. It is interesting, since NATO was formed the single largest cause of loss of lives within NATO from threats has been terrorism. And I think President Trump, as all of you well know, has made it clear that stopping terrorism must be a growing focus of attention for NATO. And we had just completed a session on the subject. Yesterday we discussed how to further leverage the action plan to strengthen the allies’ resilience against terrorist attacks and, in particular, to build upon NATO’s already long-standing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, increase their cooperation as the President has announced his new South Asia strategy. We appreciate NATO members’ commitments to the United States effort to defeat ISIS globally, as well as our other counterterrorism efforts. The original mission of NATO, obviously, is still relevant. We have been clear with Russia that we cannot return to business as usual in the NATO-Russia relations, as long as Russia continues its illegal occupation of Ukraine. And Russia’s continued use of hybrid warfare seeks to undermine Western institutions, and this stands as a significant obstacle to normalizing our relations, as well. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine remains the biggest threat to European security, and demands continued transatlantic unity in confronting that threat. Our NATO allies stand firm in our support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and their territorial integrity. We do not accept Russia’s efforts to change the internationally-recognized borders of Ukraine or recognize Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea. Earlier this morning we also had a productive discussion with Georgian Foreign Minister Janelidze. Georgia is a large contributor to our joint efforts in Afghanistan. In fact, they are the largest per capita of any contributing nation, and we strongly support Georgia’s aspirations to become a NATO member. Looking ahead to our final session, which will be over lunch today, the United States does support NATO’s open-door policy, and our commitment that any Europe-Atlantic country that wishes to join the alliance and meets the requirements to do so should be allowed to do so. And no third party should have anything to say about that pursuit of NATO membership. As we have done for decades, the United States will continue to maintain our straightforward, ironclad commitment to Article V. We will continue to work for the common defense and the preservation of peace called for in the NATO charter, and do so with confidence that our allies will continue to do the same

By Mr Martin Wyss, Chief of Mission, IOM International Organization for Migration in the Netherlands. The Secretary General of the United Nations mentioned in a recent speech that he was a migrant too, but not one who had to resort to a leaky boat. He also said that safe migration must not be limited to the global elite (for the full text see his twitter below). With these truisms, he captured two coexisting, yet starkly diverging realities clashing on the same planet. First, while the Secretary General certainly is part of the global elite, he is also part of an increasingly, mobile, global citizenry for which it is most natural to move safely and freely around the world. He enjoys his freedom of movement just as millions of tourists, students, businesspersons, visiting family members and migrant workers (e.g. over 2 million Filipinos and 1 million Sri Lankans etc.). All these millions travel with passports and where required with a visa. It is as normal as getting rid of one’s water bottle when passing security on the way to the gate. Why state the obvious? Because we overlook that the uninterrupted, global mass movements of people are all orderly and we accept them as completely normal as well as highly beneficial for all. But in fact it means that if you are rich enough you can travel or migrate wherever you want. The world is your oyster. This is maybe best illustrated by the residence permits offered in exchange for substantial investments or property purchases. There is also a rapidly growing, truly global labor, particularly talent market– for Professors, Senior Managers, Senior Accounts and IT Specialists etc. with offers on the back pages of The Economist magazine (see also https: //www.crownworldmobility.com/en-us/blank_page/perspectives—talent-mobility–the-new-normal-download). Secondly, the Secretary General at least implicitly refers to the perverse, global income disparities which prevent millions from enjoying the same rights, because even as a tourist you must have means to sustain yourself, and for the vast majority living in poor countries the need for a job alone or the ambition to have a better income remains unmatched by a right to a visa or a work permit. Therefore, the strongest willed among those barred from access will have no choice but to board leaky boats at great costs and risks or to attempt to climb over fences in Ceuta and Melilla. This is the type of migration that remains unresolved, bitterly argued over and which in some cases divides electorates into new, more conservative and even xenophobic constellations. In this context, it is hoped that the Global Compact for Migration, the first, inter-governmentally negotiated agreement to be prepared under the auspices of the United Nations will cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. Whenever the UN is committed to go forward as ONE, it can be difficult when many follow different or opposing views and rules. Although the UN holds up many principles as universal, we may notice when listening to the news that not all interpret or follow these universal principles in the same manner. Therefore it is not easy to find common ground when discussing a potentially divisive issue such as migration affecting many in different ways. But maybe we have just forgotten that a majority already accepts a few basic and important tenets: • Everybody knows that migration must be regulated (the question is how). • Many understand and agree that there should be more open channels and lower thresholds for regular migration. • Most agree that refugees and those forced to migrate need international protection, and almost all understand that effective protection of refugees can only be upheld with international solidarity, with a fair sharing of the “burden” with the countries in the vicinity of conflict zones which host most of the world’s refugees. • There is furthermore agreement that all countries have the right to have their own migration rules and visa requirements. But then there is no agreement on how to deal with those in breach of migration procedures. For some they are all victims – for others and I hesitate to say this – they are criminals. One of the problems is that so far there have been no sufficient efforts to find an overarching common “language”, common ideas and values on whether migration is a right that a priori should benefit all. In practice, there is no agreement on whether the rights of states prevail over the rights of individuals or the other way around. However, there may be reason for hope as there is no escaping from a smaller, more mobile, more interconnected world – in short: from more mobility and migration in all its forms. It must thus become possible to balance the rights AND obligations of all migrants with the rights AND obligations of all states. It appears difficult, but if we take note how all nations fully agree and comply with the very strict and mandatory rules which must prevail so that thousands of flights carrying billions of air travelers around the globe every year can take off in safety, it should be possible to find some common rules in order to allow many more to travel and migrate freely and safely, some day. The sooner we face up to these difficult, unresolved, but burning challenge, the sooner we will reach a truly global language and understanding on migration which hopefully will be the basis of a new Global Migration Governance. ——- https:  //twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/91//twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/9105721549739089920572154973908992 ——- Mr Martin Wyss, IOM Photography Barbara Salewski-Ratering