Press Briefing

JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): Friends, thank you for coming. I know there's a lot on the agenda today and I haven't had the opportunity to brief you for a little while, so let me open with a few remarks and then I'm happy to take your questions.

Let me start with today's Council, and a decision that was taken at the NAC. Today the North Atlantic Council gave provisional approval for the transfer of authority of forces in the South from the coalition to NATO. In other words, the Council approved today, on a provisional basis--the approval is provisional, I'll explain in a moment--the expansion of NATO operations from the capital, North and West where they are currently, to the South.

I say provisional because now that the Council has taken this decision upon the recommendation of General Jones--and by the way General John Abizaid, the Commander of U.S. Central Command was also at the Council today, and gave his support, of course, as well for this--now that that decision has been taken by the North Atlantic Council it will be now forwarded to the non-NATO contributors to ISAF, who will, we presume, give their approval as well tomorrow. And then the Council will give final approval on Friday.

At that point then the Supreme Allied Commander will issue what we call an activation order, an ACTORD, which will give direction down the chain of command for transfer of authority formally to take place. The date for that is not fixed until the ACTORD is issued, the activation order is issued, but we expect that to be at or around the 31st of this month.

So we expect that by the 31st of... or on or around the 31st of this month NATO's operations will expand to the South. We will have at that point approximately 18,000 forces under NATO command in Afghanistan .

That is what I wanted to say on that. I will come back to it. Let me turn to General Abizaid for a moment because I think there's a few points that he made that I think would be worth repeating here.

General Abizaid came to brief the Council on two main theatres of operation; one being Iraq , one being Afghanistan . As you know NATO has a training mission in Iraq . Ambassadors, of course, were very interested to hear General Abizaid's assessment of the security situation and the ongoing and planned U.S. operations, coalition operations in Iraq as well.

General Abizaid also briefed on Afghanistan , and while I'm not at liberty to reproduce you his briefing, I think it is worth noting that many of the themes that he hit mirror some of the conclusions that the Secretary General has drawn from his own trip that he took last week. And I thought I would draw some of those lessons for you that he has drawn, and that, as I say, were mirrored by General Abizaid.

One was--these are the Secretary General's conclusions--that there is a need for much greater resources devoted to reconstruction. That is, through the UN, through the EU, through the bilateral donors and the non-governmental organizations, as the Secretary General has said in a recent op ed. Security development without security can't begin, but security without development cannot last, and the clear impression that we got, and that he got, while we were there, was that while NATO was expanding its security operation quite dramatically there needs to be a much greater effort made on two other channels.

One is on reconstruction and development, and the second is on improving governance. Andthe Secretary General spoke directly to President Karzai to encourage him to take as many steps as necessary and as quickly as possible to improve governance in the country. And that includes very much rooting out corruption and putting in place officials who can make a non-corrupt and effective contribution to improving governance in the country.

The second point that I think is mirrored by both the Secretary General and General Abizaid, and I'm quite sure by COMISAF as well, and that is that on the one hand Afghan army training is proceeding well, with over 28,000 Afghan troops in the field. But while the ANA is generally performing credibly, and is popular with the population, it lacks some equipment. General Wardak, the Defence Minister, has requested NATO to look at whether it could provide equipment to the Afghan National Army. As many of you know, NATO is providing quite a substantial amount of equipment to the Iraqi armed forces, but the ambassadors are now looking, NATO nations are now looking at the question of whether we can provide, as an Alliance , more equipment to the Afghan National Army.

They are critical to the expansion, the extension of central government influence in Afghanistan . They represent the government in areas where a central government has never been represented before in Afghanistan , and they are the backbone to the overall effort to control and eventually defeat those who are trying to prevent the extension of Afghan governance throughout the country.

The Afghan National Police, however, lags behind the Afghan National Army. That was another clear lesson that came from the Secretary General's visit to Afghanistan . Much more needs to be done to support the development of the Afghan National Police. They are a critical pillar of the Afghan security establishment, and while NATO does not have a lead role in trying police, other organizations, for example, the European Union, could step up the effort and provide more when it comes to training the Afghan National Police.

The United States has just recently significantly increased the resources available for police training, but I think much more could be done.

International community coordination. Some of you may have seen a misquote of General Richards' speech in London last week. I went to look at the quote in the actual speech. He was quoted as saying, and don't repeat this, because it wasn't what he said, that Afghanistan was close to anarchy. In fact, what he said was, and even that may have been a little strong, that it was international community coordination that was not up to speed. And I think it is true that one of the lessons that we saw was that there could be much greater coordination on the ground between members of the international community and the United States , the European Union, NATO could work more closely together.

Another lesson that we drew, or the Secretary General drew from this trip, was that the Provincial Reconstruction Teams are doing a better story than we are managing to get out through the press. That roads are being built, bridges, schools clinics, electrical projects, and mosques are all being established by Provincial Reconstruction Teams in the field, but we have not effectively managed to communicate the success stories and we will try to do that.

I might add that the universal impression that we got was that the staff, the personnel in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and I think that colleagues who are here who travelled with us can confirm that their level of motivation is extremely high. They feel that they're making a difference, and I think and hope that they are.

So those are the lessons I wanted to share with you of Secretary General's visit to Afghanistan .

Let me mention two more issues, then I'm happy to take your questions. One is that we also had today a visit to the North Atlantic Council from the Georgian Prime Minister who came to discuss with the Allies the state of progress in working to make the reforms necessary t move closer to NATO in what we call the Individual Partnership Action Plan. It is no surprise to those of you who follow NATO that Georgia wishes, as quickly as possible, to enter what we call an Intensified Dialogue with NATO, which is a more formal and structured relationship. It is not yet the Membership Action Plan, which is formally the preparation ground for NATO membership. But it would be a step closer to that, so the Allies, of course, discuss with the Georgian Prime Minister Georgia's intentions, its state of preparation.

You will have heard, if you came to the press conference earlier, the Secretary General give, as all the Allies did, strong words of support for what Georgia has done until now.

There was, of course, a discussion of the ongoing security situation in Georgia . And the Georgian Prime Minister himself spoke to this subject. I don't want to repeat what he has said, as I don't speak for him, but that issue, the issue of what is going on in and around Abkhazia was certainly discussed today as well.

Finally, let me turn to what I imagine has brought about 50 percent of you here, and that is Lebanon .

I can tell you that there was a political discussion today in the Council of the situation in the Middle East . Ambassadors discussed both the humanitarian situation and the ongoing diplomacy that is taking place in the international arena. You'd know that NATO Allies, the United States , Germany , France, U.K. and many others, are fully part of what is intense diplomacy taking place. Today, of course, concentrated in Rome in the press conference from that meeting has just concluded, as I just saw.

There are a number of issues that remain clearly open. And that is... those include what the mandate of any force would be put into the region be; what its mission would be, in very precise terms; the duration of the mission; the support of all the relevant parties of the region. All of these question remain open.

In that context, there has been no political discussion in NATO of a specific role for the Alliance and there has been no military planning for a role by the Alliance in addressing this issue.

As the Secretary General has said, nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out. But as I say, there was a political discussion today of the overall situation. The Allies are firmly engaged in what is intense diplomacy on this issue in other fora.

I think that is all that I wanted to bring to your attention today, but I certainly remain open to any questions that you might have. Please.

Q: Nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out. What are the personal opinions of the Secretary General? Is he lobbying for any... doe she believe that NATO could actually make a difference? Would have an added value in doing something there?

APPATHURAI: The Secretary General often says that he has personal opinions, but he shares them at home with his wife over a glass of wine. His job as Secretary General of the Alliance is of course to help shape allied views, and reflect allied views. At the moment the diplomacy on this issue is not taking place in the NATO context. It is taking place right now in Rome , and I understand from the conclusions of the Rome conference that now the focus of diplomatic activity should be shifting to the United Nations where discussions of a mandate, I believe, are expected to begin relatively soon. And that is where the diplomatic process stands.

Q: The Secretary General has always been in favour of the force... NATO force for the Israeli and Palestinian conflict under certain conditions. Do these same conditions apply for a possible Lebanon force by NATO?

APPATHURAI: Well, the Secretary General has said, and many of you have heard him say it, that he could envision a discussion that NATO, were a request to come, from all the relevant parties for a NATO force, in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement, and that is not just in relation to the Lebanon issue, but of course, to the much wider security situation, and of course a UN mandate.

That was in the context of a very different scenario. That is not what we're discussing here. So I would not try to relate the two. He was talking about a very different scenario than what we're addressing here.

Q: The British Prime Minister has said that because NATO forces are deployed in Afghanistan against some terrorist elements there could be a possibility that NATO force could be deployed in Iraq to prevent terrorist attacks to Turkey by PKK. Do you think this is feasible proposal that NATO can work on?

APPATHURAI: I've seen those comments. There has been no political discussion of any kind of NATO role in Iraq beyond the training initiative. I will be frank, I do not anticipate a political discussion within NATO of a broader role. I don't anticipate a political discussion within NATO of a broader role beyond the training mission.

We do have all 26 Allies on board for the training mission in a variety of ways, offering trainers, offering financing, offering equipment. But for the moment that's where NATO's engagement in Iraq stands.

Q: James, just back on southern Lebanon . As you know, NATO has a lot of experience of mounting international military operations. I'm wondering if you can envisage any other organizations would be capable of mounting some form of intervention force in southern Lebanon and in particular whether the EU would be capable of doing so?

APPATHURAI: Um, I feel very thin ice and as a Canadian I know my ice. You'll excuse me if I word my response carefully. You are quite right to ask the question about capability. An operation of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 troops of a multinational nature requires a robust planning capability, a robust command and control capability, and it requires experienced forces. Especially in the volatile security environment that we're discussing.

In whatever configuration a force might be put in, all of those questions, in other words, the planning, the command arrangements, and the experience and capability of that force, would have to be looked at very carefully to ensure that they were satisfactory, because clearly this would be, if it were to take place, a very complex and challenging mission in a highly volatile political environment.

So the question of the capability of those who put together the force, whoever those might be, if it were to take place, would be absolutely critical. I can't really go beyond that.

Q: So in other words, no. My other (inaudible)... a different (inaudible). Afghanistan . What kind of equipment has the central government requested from the Allies, and would this be an outright donation on the part of the Allies, or something they would lend.

APPATHURAI: The Afghan government is still developing a more precise list of what it is that it might require, but it is clear that the Afghan National Army is, through no fault of their own, starting at a relatively low basically, simply in terms of small arms and in terms of mobility, for example, being able to move around, having vehicles and small arms and even medium strength weapons.

So they can use a lot of help. That is what the Afghan Defence Minister has made clear to the Secretary General and to the Council, but they are making more precise their own list.

Afghanistan is not a very rich country, as I think we all know, so I don't know what kind of financial arrangements will be put in place. But in general what has been given to the Iraqi armed forces has been donated.

I might add that the Afghan army in general uses a Soviet style equipment, AK-47s and the like, and there is, of course, a reasonable surplus of that kind of equipment in the former Warsaw Pact countries that have now joined NATO and are in many cases moving towards western standard equipment, and those stockpiles have been useful when we've tried to look for donations for the Iraqi government. So they may well be looked at again, if this all comes together and the Afghan government makes a request to which the Allies which to respond positively. NATO may be in a good position to do that precisely because of these stockpiles of older equipment.

Q: James, you said that several issues remain open, including the mandate, the mission and the duration. Can you give us an idea of the flavour of the discussion today, what kinds of options on these three questions were discussed. And how long do you think the Security Council will take before it comes back to you? Are you looking for some sort of urgent action by the Security Council, because then NATO will have to start its own planning operation, so we're talking weeks, if not months?

APPATHURAI: Well, I think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. The question of the mandate is not one for NATO to decide. It is one for the United Nations to decide. And I believe, based on what I've seen at the press conference, that that's precisely what the United Nations will turn its attention to relatively quickly. I understand that the EU is planning to hold a Councils of Ministers' Meeting next Tuesday as well, so there will be high-level political discussions at that level as well.

NATO is not as an organization now waiting for a mandate from the United Nations. We have to be clear. The mandate of the mission is one that the United Nations will determine. NATO is neither, as I say, is not looking for this mandate, NATO is not speculating as an organization on any potential role for the Alliance and I do not want to speculate here on any potential role for the Alliance .

The focus of diplomatic activity is now going to the UN and we will see where it goes from there.

Q: James, when you say, and the Secretary General said he does not include or exclude any NATO role, but it so happens that the French president has excluded a NATO role, saying that NATO does not even have the vocation to eventually send a force to Lebanon. I'd like to know if... how do you interpret that? I mean, is that for you... is now for you a NATO force out of the question, or do you still not exclude anything?

And the second question, if there were to be a force would the NRF be the appropriate leverage for that?

APPATHURAI: I have just seen the comments by President Chirac and I don't want to comment on them for now. I have seen his reports, and again, I don't want to speculate either on the NATO Response Force.

We, I think, do nobody any service by speculating on possible NATO formations, NATO roles. There is so much diplomatic work that needs to be done in terms of defining or developing a common international view that can get traction in the reaction, that it would be premature and unhelpful to speculate now on what kind of force and in particular which organization or group of nations might make up that force.

I think we definitely should not put the cart before the horse, and of course you will not be surprised to know that I will not speculate on that.

Q: What has been the feeling among the allied states, should NATO go in, should NATO stay out, it's too early to decide?

APPATHURAI: It is very clearly a feeling that it is too early to decide. I can tell you that in most of our capitals, I would suggest, the discussion is very much ongoing even within countries as to the most appropriate way forward, as to how they wish to engage as nations, let alone to what the mandate... what they believe the mandate should be. Even within our own countries between ministries and Prime Ministers and Presidents discussions are very much ongoing.

So it is absolutely premature and there is no shared NATO view, even an inclination in one direction or another, as to whether or not the Alliance should be engaged.

Well, let's go to Mark.

Q: On Afghanistan , as NATO gets closer to the expansion to the South you've been multiplying the kind of statements of concern, that the international community isn't doing enough, including, I think, last week the Secretary General said that he was concerned that the pledges that came from the London Conference on the Afghan Compact wouldn't come through.

Is there something specific which he's seen, which is causing these concerns, that these pledges won't be met?

APPATHURAI: The general impression, I think, that he and the rest of us received in Afghanistan was, for example, that the London Compact set out a list of commitments that contributing nations would make, but that the implementation of those commitments and the putting flesh on the bones of the London Compact the speed of that has not matched what we hoped it would match. That the disbursement of funds has not been carried out as quickly or as effectively as we in NATO, as the Secretary General would hope that it would be.

We in NATO are expanding. NATO is expanding significantly its military operation. We are putting a lot of people's lives on the line. Now 18,000-plus young men and women. Those personnel are coming from, in general, the same countries that are also putting in development assistance and reconstruction assistance. It makes no sense to invest very heavily in military resources, and that means people as well as equipment, to lay the foundations for peace, but not put in place the civilian resources to make peace sustainable.

And if the civilian commitment doesn't match the military commitment there will be no solution because there is no military solution to the problems in Afghanistan . People need to see their lives getting better. That will be the only way in which Afghanistan will manage to pull itself forward towards what it wants to be, which is a stable country.

So sorry, I extrapolated a little bit, but in general it is the implementation of the London Compact which he does not believe is actually matching the pace that it should.

Q: I don't know why I ask this question, because it'll confuse me more, but I was just wondering, on Afghanistan, you had last week in Oruzgan you had Dutch forces fighting Taliban and even their camp was attacked, or pretty close to it, whatever. Next week those forces come, if I understand correctly, under NATO control. Obviously one doesn't imagine that all of a sudden the force... these same Dutch forces will stop fighting the Taliban, so who does what, exactly, starting next week when NATO takes control of those troops?

APPATHURAI: I think it actually is pretty clear, in my head anyway, that the short version is, NATO forces, and that is in the south as well as everywhere else, will have a mission, and you know this of course, to extend the authority of the Afghan government, to provide security for the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, but they will have the right, and the responsibility, to protect that mission, and that means if they need to fight to protect themselves, if they need to fight to extend the authority of the Afghan government they will do it, they have the right to do it and will do it. That includes the right, and indeed, if the commander deems it appropriate, the responsibility, to take pre-emptive action if they feel that there is an impending threat to their mission or to their personnel. So you will see very robust action by NATO ISAF in the field.

Now the coalition will still be present. The coalition will be present in the East, but it will also be able to go and will go where it needs to go throughout the country, as it is currently doing, including into the area under the responsibility of NATO ISAF, to conduct targeted, intelligence-driven operations against terrorist leadership. They have a specific counterterror mission, which they will continue to carry out, as they have carried out in the North and the East under NATO command as well.

The two commanders are in full and regular contact, and of course you know that now we have, or will have, this deputy commander for security, which will ensure de-confliction and where necessary mutual support, for example, in extremis support.

So I think actually... I hope that was as clear for you as it is clear for me. You will see, as I say, robust action, but the missions will be distinct, and complementary.

Q: In case of a diplomatic discussion in UN NATO has already defined its own position about a possible mandate, and the rules of engagement?

APPATHURAI: You're talking about Lebanon now?

Q: Yes.

APPATHURAI: The answer is no. There has been no discussion in NATO about what mandate NATO might wish to have. Nor what rules of engagement would be appropriate.

Q: Yet the discussion will start very soon, as you said?

APPATHURAI: No. No, I didn't say the discussion would start very soon.

Q: In the UN, in Iraq ...

APPATHURAI: In the UN, yes. The discussion will take place in the UN, as far as I understand. I don't now if it will be on the rules of engagement, but I suspect it will be about what the overall mandate and mission...

Q: (inaudible)...

APPATHURAI:...about the mission. There are, of course, NATO Allies participating, not least as Security Council members, in that discussion. So Allies will be well represented. But NATO itself has not had a discussion and we have not scheduled a discussion on the political role or the rules of engagement that NATO might play. Right now the discussion is going to the UN.

Q: A follow-up question please.

APPATHURAI: Please.

Q: Do you think that at one point a high representative from NATO, possibly the SecGen, will be asked to come to such discussion in the UN?

APPATHURAI: I don't know. I don't know. I don't expect it. But I don't know. Certainly not the Secretary General. That I doubt. But I have had no information that that might happen.

A Kosovo question. Which would be great.

Q: Yes, okay. First, did Ambassadors discuss the last high level meeting in Vienna on Kosovo issue? Is it some positive or negative... what is the opinion? And the other issue, did NATO begin planning or to prepare future action of NATO in Kosovo after the solution of status(?) it finds? Thank you.

APPATHURAI: To answer your first question, Ambassadors received a report on the discussions that took place in Vienna from Ambassador Jim Pardew, who you know, of course, very well, is presenting NATO at the contact group discussions. And of course, they are kept fully apprised by their discussions... by their representatives, their national representatives as well.

The NATO position on this issue, of course, is relatively clear that it is for President Ahtisaari and his team and the contact group to take these negotiations forward, and the Alliance does not want, and does not try to in any way influence those discussions.

In terms of preparing, you know for example, that NATO has deployed an extra German battalion into Kosovo already now, to reinforce its capabilities as we go through the status talks. But there has been no political discussion yet because the status talks have not yet arrived at the appropriate point of a NATO... what role NATO might... I think, will play in Kosovo once the status talks come to an end.

So I believe that that discussion, I have to say, will start relatively soon. I would be surprised if it didn't come up at one of the two ministerial meetings that are taking place in September, just after the summer break. But for the moment that has not yet begun. I expect that it will begin, as I say, starting in September, and possibly at the ministerial level.

Q: Do you have dates for any of these things? Or (inaudible)... the one in New York .

APPATHURAI: There is one in New York and I should know the date. It's around the 20...

Q: (inaudible)...September.

APPATHURAI: Twentieth of September. Thank you, (inaudible). I thought it was around the 20th. But in fact it's the 20th. Carmen Romero sitting at the back has provided me the support I need. The 20th of September. Thank you.

It will be, just to give you an idea of the press arrangements though. I hope the Secretary General's not listening because I haven't actually told him this yet, but we're planning on a relatively low key press... set of press arrangements, not least because otherwise we would have to ship over a huge number of staff.

So what we're expecting is very simply just a press conference at the end of the meeting. And really nothing else. So it'll be light on press for all of you, and I'm sure you all have representatives in New York . And we have not chosen yet a venue. All of this is still to be determined.

Nothing else? No more questions on Lebanon . Great.