Press point

Ofcourse, I want as always to be very brief. I'll just give you a quickinformation of what the subjects of our discussions were at theMilitary Committee.

What is important, I think, tonote is that this was the second time we had a meeting, the MilitaryCommittee, a NATO Military Committee with the seven MediterraneanDialogue countries, CHODS, which is a major step forward, I think. Thefact that this meeting took place is remarkable.

Weagreed that we will meet again in November, so we apply this normalsix-month cycle, and the main subject was the question: How can weintensify and deepen our cooperation. So we were extensively discussingour work program, and we discussed the question whether we could applysome similar system as we do with our partners in the Euro-AtlanticPartnership Council. That was from... there was no final decision, butthat was obviously well received.

And of course, weinvited the seven Mediterranean Dialogue countries both to participatein Operation Active Endeavour. We are in the process of discussingdetails with Algeria, and who is it... Israel, right. Israel. But ofcourse, we invited the others as well. And we offered participation inNATO exercise of course, PfP exercises, and similar.

We then concentrated on the question of how can we intensify theexchange of intelligence information concerning our fight against theinternational terrorism. So that is a very concrete and very specificproject now. So we are really discussing the details, the signing ofsecurity agreements, the way we could plug them into our system, sothat is very specific, in the meantime I don't want to go into detail,but just to explain that here we are really making progress.

So of course, we have informed our Mediterranean partner countries ofour ongoing operations. We've been as transparent as possible. Wecovered all our ongoing operations. The briefing was given by SACEURand they had the opportunity, of course, to ask questions or providecomments as necessary.

That's it more or less. The other meeting was the Ukraine and Russia were very routine meetings. Nothing specific actually.

But we had a very interesting, very difficult, I should say, agendawith the NATO Chiefs of Defence and here specifically... Of course wehave discussed operations as well. That's a routine agenda item. Wehave then in more detail discussed the possible expansion of ourmission in Afghanistan. So what we call the synergy between ISAF andOAF mission there, and possible command arrangements in that respect.

And then, of course, the status of the NATO Response Force, where arewe? Are there any problems? What do we need to do in order to have fulloperational capability of the force in June next year, because that'sour target date?

And the third major issue was theso-called comprehensive approach. We have been discussing one element,the most important element of our Military Committee input to thecomprehensive political guidance. You know, that that's work that isbeing done here in this headquarters. We had already three, so to say,three slices of input that had been agreed at the permanentrepresentative level, and now we have... this was the number four,which is so to say, the core message of the military that has beendiscussed by the CHODS have been finalized, of course, so these are thethree main issues that we have on our agenda.

Good. That's it. Questions.

Q:(inaudible)... Atlantic News. Two questions on Afghanistan. Can youmaybe tell us a bit more about the question of synergy with OAF and howcould it work and when could we expect a decision on this? And second,on political guidance, I'm afraid I don't know exactly what thesepolitical guidances are, so if you could explain us what this consistsof.

KUJAT: Well asfar as your first question is concerned, we are now in the process ofimplementing our expansion into Area II, and the question was then, howdo we do that Area III and Area IV, and as a logical consequence ofthat question is, of course, then a new command arrangement because weare expanding into the area where the Operation Active... what is it?Enduring Freedom... sorry, I'm mixing them up in the meantime, istaking place, so we need of course, and we want to achieve the synergy,but we need also to coordinate our activities there.

So I think that this is an issue that will be on the agenda of defenceministers, I hope at least, in June. And it depends very much what theydecide. I don't know that when this process then will begin or continueactually, but we think that... we still need some time to expand intoArea II. Which is proceeding very positively, by the way, so we havegood offers and it's not that difficult as it has been in the pastactually. That's going quite nicely. But we need, of course, to do thatfirst one step after the other. And then we have the elections inSeptember. We need to prepare support for the elections as well.

So I think this is a step then that we'll follow at a later point intime, maybe at the end of the year. But this is something thatministers have to decide. We did not discuss the actual date.

And your second question...

Q: Political guidance.

KUJAT:The second question was political guidance. You know, I think we havediscussed here several times already what we call the comprehensiveapproach, that we have to change the way we are planning foroperations, the way we are planning to produce, say the forces that weneed on the ground for our operations; that this must be based onmid-term actionable intelligence, that we need to have contingency...early contingency planning. And of course, that we need to change thesystem, how we produce, let's say, the forces.

Andthat is the first step in that process is the comprehensive politicalguidance, to be issued by ministers. This is the instrument with whichwe kick off the process, so it's, of course, then very important fromour point of view, that the necessary elements are included in thatcomprehensive political guidance in order, of course, to allow thisprocess to take place. And that is what we have done.

This... yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah, go on.

Q: (inaudible)...Pourquoi avec les sept pays partenaires mondiaux Méditerranéens del'OTAN il y a eu des discussions particulières avec Israël etl'Algérie? Pourquoi des discussions particulières avec l'Algérie etIsraël?

KUJAT: It'svery simple, because we have offered participation in Operation ActiveEndeavour, and these two countries, so far at least, have respondedpositively. So now, we are, of course, in the process of discussingdetails with them.

But as I said, we have invited theother countries to participate as well, but that is maybe then a secondstep, the earlier the better.

(CELL PHONE MUSIC)...

Best wishes from me. Yeah.

Q: The Mediterranean Dialogue, who has participated from Israel's side at this meeting here? (inaudible)...from Israel?

KUJAT:No, he could not come because there was a... I think, a very specificholiday on 10 and so he could not come. I don't know exactly thereason.

Q: And the second question, was there any question from Israel raised for NATO to participate in...

KUJAT: No.

Q: ...concerning NATO's participating in this area...

KUJAT: No.

Q: ...between Palestine and Israel?

KUJAT: No. No they did not discuss that.

MODERATOR: Yeah, Mark.

Q:Mark John, Reuters. Back to Afghanistan. Are there any numbers at thisstage for how much the expansion to phase three and phase four wouldtake in terms of troop numbers? And what's your feeling? Would it bethe same kind of expansion as for Phase two, for example, or more?

KUJAT:No. Well first of all, numbers are secondary issue for me. So I don'tdeal with numbers. For you it's always the first priority. For me it'simportant that we provide the necessary capabilities. That is thepoint. So we did not discuss numbers at all. And... but obviously thenumber of forces would be very similar to the number in stage two. Andyou have to take into account that stage four, Area IV is alreadycovered because the U.S.-run PRTs are already in Area IV, and theywill, of course, continue to do so and they have forces put on theground already there.

So it is just III now that isthe bridge between II and IV. And once this is in place we haveautomatically, so to say, covered the whole of Afghanistan.

Q:Also on Afghanistan, even if the ministers have to decide it's hard tobelieve that you didn't talk about options, about the synergy effectsand how you could... how the relationship between Enduring Freedom andISAF could be.

Could you just give some details about the options on the table.

And if I may, the second question's on Iraq. Could you discuss in moredetail the state of play with the training mission in Iraq?

KUJAT:Well, we don't provide options. We provide a solution for ministers.Because we discussed already, including the ministers, we discussedoptions in February, so now we have been working out the details andbring forward a specific proposal to ministers.

But Idon't want to discuss that here because as you will understandministers would not wish to read in your newspaper how, interestingthis may be, but they wouldn't wish to read that in your newspaper whatfinally then will be proposed by us.

But we have... wemake specific... we recommend a specific arrangement, and how we aregoing to do that. And then... and as far as Iraq is concerned, this wasan issue, very general, in the update that we got from the strategiccommander operations, but we did not discuss every details there.

Q:Two questions, totally unrelated. As president of the MilitaryCommittee, and as a German... well, at least president until June,would you agree with statements from your Minister, Minister Fischerand Minister Struck that it would be time, or maybe a good idea tostart discussing withdrawal of U.S. nuclear warheads in Germany?

And second question, unrelated, when you mention the exchange ofintelligence with the Mediterranean countries, and specifically Israel,how far is Israel willing to go in the exchange of intelligence andcould you be a little bit more... is there a specific area in thisexchange of intelligence? I mean, what does it cover? What are wetalking about exactly?

KUJAT:Well, as I said, taking your second question first, we are talkingabout exchange of intelligence information concerning terrorism,international terrorism. And so that is the subject. So to what extentthe individual nations will provide input to that, I don't know,because we need to start that, and see then what the experience is.

And as far as... which country did you mention there in your first question?

Q:Just to follow up to what you just said, so this is discussions to setup exchange of intelligence. Nothing has happened yet? I mean, there'sno agreements yet to actually exchange intelligence?

KUJAT:Well, yes, there's an agreement that we will do that, but now we needto work out, of course, the details. I mean, that's a technicalquestion, because we don't exchange information, as you might think,that somebody with a dark suit, and a baseball cap and a piece of paperunder his arm is meeting in a dark floor somewhere in Brussels and handover... this is... we don't do that. That's already for some time thatwe don't do it this way.

So it's... it's primarily...primarily it's a technical question. There is... we have a system inNATO, a system with which we do that. I don't want to go into detailsof that. And so you need to discuss the technicalities, so to say, howto plug into that system and things like... more. And then of courseyou need to have the necessary arrangements, security agreements andthings like that.

That is the subject. And what was the country you mentioned?

Q:The first question was, as a German and as president of the MilitaryCommittee, do you... would you agree with the statements made byMinister Fischer and Struck that it would be not a bad idea, or time tomaybe start talking, including inside NATO, of the possibility of U.S.withdrawal of nuclear warheads in Germany?

KUJAT:Well, not as a German, but in my international capacity as chairman ofthe Military Committee, I do not comment national statements, so tosay. I'm representing NATO. I'm not representing a specific country.And it's impossible for me—we have 26 nations in the Alliance—tocomment on every internal issue actually.

Butgenerally I can tell you, I don't think that the question of nuclearweapons is something that should be discussed... well... how should Iphrase it?

UNIDENTIFIED: In public. That's one point.

Q: Well, in...

UNIDENTIFIED: Andthe other point, it's a bilateral thing. It's not a NATO thing. In thefirst thing. It's something which concerns the United States andGermany. And it's not a topic within the NATO organization.

Q: But you do have a Nuclear Planning Group with NATO. I mean... there is a Committee for that.

(CELL PHONE MUSIC)...

KUJAT: That is true. Is it the same... or is it somebody different?

(LAUGHTER)

KUJAT: Well,I mean, you will appreciate that I don't want to comment that. Thatis... that's a purely... for the moment it's a purely national, and Iwould even go further, it's an internal issue. The debate is aninternal debate in the country you mentioned, what was it? Which onewas it? Somewhere in Europe. So I don't say anything.

Government Maybe in July you'll want to respond (inaudible)...

KUJAT: Well, no no, that has nothing to do with July or not July. It's ... for me it's not a subject.

MODERATOR: Any further questions, please?

Q: (inaudible)...National News Agency of Ukraine. Sir, you characterized meeting withRussian and Ukrainian Chief of Staffs like routine. The question is,was it there something interesting in there? This is the firstquestion.

And the second, was there some changes informat of negotiations or maybe intensity of negotiations since Ukrainegot the status of Intensified Dialogue?

KUJAT: Yeah.Well, you are right, of course this is a new aspect. You know thatwe... first of all, it was a routine meeting in that sense that therewas nothing spectacular. We are cooperating in a very nice manner, verysubstantial, but you are right, we have... we discussed the work donefor 2005 and gave guidance for the... for drafting the work done in2006.

So and of course we need to take into accountthe Vilnius decision. So what we will do is of course we will look intothe work done in 2005 and see whether there is a need to adapt the workplan, and of course, we were in the process of drafting the 2006 workplan. This question of do we need to change something, do we need toincorporate new initiatives, that's an issue that of course has beendiscussed. But not as far as the substance is concerned. We discussedthat just as guidance to our collaborators to take this into account.No more. Otherwise it was a good meeting. I'm tempted to use diplomaticlanguage, but I don't think you appreciate that.

Q:Girard Godin, (inaudible) News Agency. There will be elections inAfghanistan in a few months time. Have you got any idea... could youtell us what...

KUJAT: Who will be elected?

Q: ...NATO is going to do to increase the support?

KUJAT: Yeah,oh yes. Well, we have... of course we have plans. We will support theelections in the way that we provide for stability there, and we haveidentified the military capabilities that we need for that, and theyare available. Which is the most important question, of course. Theidentification process is always easier on the military side, but thequestion whether these forces will be made available is in most casesdifficult. This time that's absolutely clear. We'll get the forces thatwe need, they are ready and they will be moved in time before theelections and they will stay in place beyond the actual date, I thinkit's 18 September, and they will provide security.

Additional security, I should say.

Q:General, from time to time... sorry... General, not only discussing thetechnical implications, but also the political implications of whatthey are doing, and how far... did you speak, for instance, about theSchröder approach, and later on the approach of the Secretary General,to NATO to become a more political, relevant forum?

KUJAT: No,we did not discuss that because that is something for the Council todiscuss and I think they are doing that already. My impression was inVilnius that this was a very good meeting in that sense, that there wasa good political discussion. But we in the military, we don't discuss,of course. Obviously there is no need for us to discuss that.

And by the way, specifically here in these last two days we were sooccupied with technicalities that there was no room, even if we wantedto discuss that, but I don't see a need for us.

Q:If I can follow up on the previous question on the elections inAfghanistan. When you say the forces are available, I mean, does thismean in precisely which country and which units are going to go?

KUJAT: Yes.

Q: Or you just have promise in general?

KUJAT: No, it means precisely which unit we will use and which country is providing this unit.

Q: How many people will that be in total? You know we like numbers.

KUJAT:I don't know. I must tell you, I don't know. I have no idea. We have...the battalions in NATO have different strengths, of course. I don'tknow the exact figure.

Q:(inaudible)... from Kuwait News Agency. Just questioning about themeeting, the Mediterranean Dialogue countries. Did you sense that thereis sensitivity on the part of the Arab countries regarding dealing withIsrael militarily? You said only one out of six Arab countries acceptedto participate in Active Endeavour, so it's only Algeria to approve to(inaudible) with Israel. What about the rest? Did you sense there issome sort of sensitivity? On the part of the Arab countries?

KUJAT: What do you mean... What do you mean when you say sensitivity? To what?

Q: I mean, dealing with Israel on a military basis.

KUJAT: Therewas... well, the discussion was very open. There was... very friendly,I should say. There... I could not identify any strange behaviour. Theybehaved like NATO nations. I couldn't see anything. I could... really,that was a very good atmosphere. Very much to the point. Nosensitivities at all.

I mean, that's the idea. Wewant... of course our opinion is when you sit together you discussthings together, you have lunch together, then of course there is abetter understanding of each other, and that may help.

And my impression is it does.

Q:General, I'm Tanichi(?) from Japanese News Media. Afghanistan, youmentioned the synergy between ISAF and coalition forces. Thinking ofthe non-member states of NATO, non-member states of EAPMC, do you thinkit's better to have the singlized command and control under NATO in thefuture, or do you think militarily it's possible to have a sort offlexible, harmonized command and control in the future this synergy...?

KUJAT: You mean to OAF?

Q: Yes.

KUJAT:Yes. What we want to achieve is, I should say, a 100 percent unity ofeffort. That is what we need. And of course, on... but on the otherside, of course, a lot of nations are interested in a clear distinctionbetween the two missions. So... and we need to take that, of course,into account. So what you then wish to have, of course, is a commandstructure that allows for unity, a 100 percent unity of effort, and atthe same time, allows for to have a distinct difference between the twomissions. And I think that is possible. I think...

Q:General, you speak about exchange of information... intelligenceinformation about terrorism. You speak of the bilateral exchange NATOwould reach of the Mediterranean countries or (inaudible)... among thepartners along the Mediterranean.

KUJAT: Well,you know that there is no NATO... by definition, no NATO intelligence.So what we have in NATO is we have an input from the individual nationsand that is this information is being made available to NATO, to membercountries. And in future, of course, to the Mediterranean Dialoguecountries.

The same applies to their input. We wouldexpect them to make information available to NATO member countries, butat the same time they would, of course, be available for theneighbouring Mediterranean Dialogue countries. So that is... that isobvious.

And then beyond that, of course, just forcompleteness, only when there is a need, then of course, we sittogether and we produce something that we call NATO-agreedintelligence.

But that is, of course, not the normalthing because what we actually need is the information itself. We don'tneed to say harmonize our views among the 26. But that's a possibility.

MODERATOR: Mark.

Q:If we could just go back to the Afghan elections, please. Given thatyou're saying that the capabilities have been identified and areavailable, but you seem unable to give us more detail on the numbers,I'm still trying to get a sense for what level of reinforcement thiswill entail. So could you give us details on the countries that havecome forward and what battalions?

KUJAT: Details of what...

MODERATOR: Countries.

Q: On the countries that have come forward to offer capabilities and what battalions are being offered.

KUJAT:I leave that to the countries concerned. For me it's not relevant whichcountry is providing the forces, the battalions. What is relevant isthat we have the forces that we need. And I mean, you see, just toexplain... In most cases the countries have to go through aparliamentary decision-making process. At least the cabinet has todecide or they have to go to the Defence Committee. They would not wishme to go public before they have done so. So, and that's the reason whyI don't discuss details. That's an issue that they have to take up.

Q: Isthere any detail on these capabilities that you can give us, over andabove simply saying that the capabilities have been identified?

KUJAT:Well, what we would... well, we have the necessary forces, thenecessary numbers, I should say, the necessary capabilities. That isall I can say.

MODERATOR: The lady here, on the right.

Q: IngridKlintborn from the Spanish News Agency EFE. I was just wondering, withthis new political dialogue going on in NATO, have you seen anydifference, I mean, are the forces now in Afghanistan available due tothis new political dialogue? Is it easier to gather these forces, togenerate them, or do you expect any improvement in the future thanks tothis new initiative?

KUJAT: Which dialogue do you mean?

Q: Well, you know, that they're starting to discuss the political issues among the nations at NATO?

KUJAT:I'm not quite sure what you mean. When you refer to what I call thiscomprehensive approach, then I think that we will be in a betterposition, as I said, to produce the forces we need for the individualoperations. However, I should say, the question whether forces arebeing made available is always a question that the individual nationshave to answer. And that is always a difficult issue.

Why is that difficult? It's primarily a political issue. Because that'sexpensive, of course. I've said that several times in the public aswell. Most of... if not all our nations are undergoing a reform processof their armed forces and that costs money. So and when you can onlyspend the euro once, so either you spend it for the reform, or youspend it for operation.

So that's the reason whynations are reluctant to offer forces in great numbers. But the processitself will help, I think. I'm a 100 percent convinced it will help. Itwill make the force generation easier. Why? Because we provide earlyinformation. We increase transparency in the whole planning process, sonations are better prepared to take a decision, and of course, we willhave a decision earlier than so far.

So it will helpthe process. But at the end of the day, that is the reality in NATO.NATO doesn't own forces. Nations own forces, so the final decision hasto be made by nations.

MODERATOR: The last three questions: You and then Mrs. Raul(?) and then Mr. Muller(?).

Q: Tofollow on Afghanistan, without getting into specific numbers, can yougive us an idea of the scale? I mean, do we speak about the samenumbers as the presidential election, or regarding the fact that it isparliamentary so many more candidates, much more complicated, are wegoing to get more numbers?

KUJAT:It is roughly in the order of what we deployed last time, because lasttime we had more than the actual requirement. This time we need alittle bit more than last time, and we will get what we need.

MODERATOR: Mrs. Raul.

Q:During the last NATO meeting in Vilnius Secretary Rice mentionedDarfur. Do you see any NATO mission there for the near future, and ifyes, which kind of mission?

KUJAT: Well,where are we now? You know that there is a request from the AfricanUnion to provide logistic support. What we need to know in more detailwhat kind of logistics. I don't know. So far so we are in the processof finding out, and this is an ongoing process. And only once we knowexactly, and of course, have coordinated with the United Nations andthe European Union and those nations that are already present on theground, then of course we can start planning, if, if the NAC decidesso.

What is not clear so far? You know, we needconsensus here, and that may be the case, it may not be the case. Butwe are, from my perspective, we are far away from a firm decision sofar.

MODERATOR: Mr. Muller.

Q:Sir, 40 years this Alliance has influenced your military career. Youhave now the highest position. You're leaving in four weeks. What wasyour impression about this Alliance? I think this is the last timetogether with us here in (inaudible)...

KUJAT: Yeah, yeah. Although I wouldn't say that. Maybe...

Well, you all know that the world has changed in the past 14 years,quite considerably we've changed, and when you look backwards yourecall that in November '91 we had the first strategic concept, whichis actually security policy concept. We never had that before.

So the Alliance has become more political actually. And after the endof the East-West conflict, because at that time we all concentrated onthis possible part of hopefully never-happening defence situation—wecall Article 5 situation. It was time to plan for that extensively.

Now we are an Alliance that is in operation. It's... we are... oursoldiers are close to the Chinese border. Actually, the Germansoldiers. So we are running an operation in the Mediterranean, which isa very successful one, which has a major impact on other relatedissues.

So... and the temper is very high, theoperational temper is very high. So we need to change, of course, theway we are planning, we need to change the way we are generatingforces. We need to change the structure, the equipment of our armedforces. A lot has happened during that time.

We have anew command structure. They established a strategic first time inhis... NATO's history, a strategic command for transformation, which isdoing an excellent work. We initiated on the military side thistransformation process. And so the world looks completely different.

Now, when I look at my different hats; I'm the chairman of the MilitaryCommittee, 26 nations. Some of them have been on the other side of theIron Curtain 15 years ago. I'm the chairman of the Euro-AtlanticPartnership Council, 46 nations. From Georgia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,what have you, in the east, to Canada and the United States in theWest. We have Russia being an equal member in the NATO-Russia Council.We're discussing very important aspects of common interest, of securityrisk, so that's a major change, isn't it?

The Chiefsof Defence of the Mediterranean Dialogue countries are sitting togetherwith us, and we talk about the exchange of intelligence. Could youimagine that 15 years ago?

So a lot has happened, alot has happened. The Warsaw Pact disappeared. And this Alliance isstill a very successful Alliance, very attractive for everybody. And itis the most powerful Alliance in this galaxy. Not only on thisglobe.