Press Briefing

ASD(PA) BACON: The first speaker will be Frank Kramer, who is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. We also have Ambassador Robert Hunter, and Ash Carter -- Ashton Carter -- who is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. His specialty is Russia and the former Soviet states, and he'll be able to take questions on those and speak to those topics. So, without further introduction, Frank, take it away. KRAMER: Good morning. Let me give you just a short statement, then I'm sure it will be more interesting for you to ask us questions.

The meeting here is really a part of what we're doing -- all nations of NATO are doing -- in the overall to transform the European Security Architecture. They are forming elements: NATO's internal adaptation; NATO enlargement; enhancement of the Partnership for Peace; and constructive relations with Russia. The meeting here, of course, will focus on NATO's new roles and missions, including adaptation. We very much welcome France's decision, which will be enhanced by the decisions made here, as was true with respect to Berlin. We anticipate that the authorities will instruct the military side to do some planning so that we can bring together NATO's ability to do all its missions -- Article V, non-Article V, CJTF, and the WEU-led operations. We anticipate that there will be greater intensity on PFP, that there will be perhaps increased emphasis on funding, expanded exercises. Naturally, there will be discussions of the on-going mission in Bosnia that will focus on the time-frame from now through the elections. And, of course, as I said, always we will be talking both about relations with Russia and with the Russians, and there is a 16-plus-1 scheduled for tomorrow.

Let me stop there. Bob and Ash, do you want to add anything, and otherwise, we'll be glad to take your questions.

HUNTER: Let me just add a word. This ministerial, to a significant degree, builds on what happened at Berlin last week with the Defense Ministers, demonstrating their own unity and solidarity with the historic decisions that NATO is taking at this time. This is to adapt the Alliance to be, first and foremost, more effective at 16. We, the United States, expect to be involved in I would say virtually any security concern here in Europe, and certainly anything of any major significance. So the first element of adaptation is to help the NATO Alliance work more effectively with all of us engaged. But against the possibility that NATO might not, on some occasions, wish to undertake everything, we have now taken the decisive steps to enable the Western European Union to be effective with the use of some NATO assests under very precise and understood conditions. This will also help to meet the desire of our European friends and Allies to have an effective European Security and Defense Identity within the NATO Alliance: not outside, not in opposition to it, not somehow eroding trans-Atlantic links or eroding anything to do with NATO's command and control system. We do it on the basis of what we call separable but not separate forces and assets. This is all agreed. I think we're all delighted that this is something that all 16 Allies are at one with, and of course, today we have Minister Millon of France attending as a full member of the Defense Ministers ministerial, for the first time in 30 years.

BACON: With that, we'll take questions. If you could identify yourself before you ask the question, it would be helpful. Charlie.

Q: I'd like to ask Ambassador Hunter the question. I'm Charlie Aldinger with Reuters. I realize that IFOR still has a job to do in Bosnia and both the United States -- U.S. -- officials and Western officials have been very reluctant to carry the idea of putting troops into Bosnia again next year very far. Having said that, Secretary Perry said yesterday that when NATO did, in fact, decide to do it, that he would recommend U.S. ground troops if NATO decided that they needed ground troops. Do you see any move by Western, any consensus, any feeling by Western countries, that, in fact, it probably will be a need for some kind of force in Bosnia next year?

HUNTER: We have not discussed here at NATO what might happen after the expiration of the Dayton mandate, which was for a year. And it's not being discussed here at the ministerial meeting. We are focussing on doing the job we were asked to do, and doing it right, as we are doing it right. It's a stunning success, what NATO has been doing. That in particular is focusing on the period through the notional date for elections -- we call it D-plus-270, 270 days since last December 20th. And we're doing it for a variety of purposes, reasons. One, to focus on job one. And secondly, to reinforce the message to the parties in the region, NATO has bought them one year, and they need to get on with their part of the job. So that's not a topic today.

Q: But, I understand that. Do you see any feelings among the Western countries that there probably would be a need for some kind of force in there next year to keep war from breaking out again?

HUNTER: I see no consensus developing on what should happen afterwards. The consensus is the need to focus on job one, which is doing things right today, and making assessments later on, depending on what transpires.

Q: If I could follow up on that, Ambassador Hunter. John Diamond, with Associated Press. Accepting your answer, but also everyone understands that the military works with tremendous lead times. They don't just go into the fall with no plan at all, and then at that point start wondering what could happen in the next calendar year. Are the military planners working on options? And is it fair to say that those options basically boil down to the two roughly outlined by Secretary Perry yesterday, which were continue there or some sort of Rapid Reaction Force?

HUNTER: What we have asked of the military authorities is to operate on the basis of NATO guidance. Which is that we will continue through the notional election, to maintain forces at approximately the level that we've had all along, which is up to 60,000 troops, though the force mix changes now that the most important of the military jobs is done. And, also, on the day at which the mandate comes to an end, December 20th, to continue to have a robust military force able to do its job. We have not tasked the military authorities to do anything beyond that, but we obviously expect them to do their job.

Q: You said "up to the elections," and the elections, of course, are planned for the 14th of September, but in fact, there's a strong movement at the moment for delaying these elections. Would that mean that the force would remain at strength up to whatever date the elections were being held?

KRAMER: We're very strong to maintain the date of the elections.

Q: Yes, but...

KRAMER: I think that's the real answer.

Q: This is a U.S. --

KRAMER: I think all the Allies are very strong to maintain the date of the elections.

Q: Thank you.

Q: Yes, Steven Dierckx, Belgian Radio, Brussels. What do you make, then, in that context, of the reports by human rights monitors of the OSCE that the conditions are not yet right for free and fair elections in Bosnia?

KRAMER: I anticipate that the OSCE will make its determination based on all the factors. Our evaluation is that the elections can take place appropriately in September.

Q: No matter what?

KRAMER: Never no matter what, but we anticipate that the conditions will be satisfactory to have them take place.

Q: ...Ashton Carter a question...on Russia and Eastern European countries. Did you see any softening -- do you see any softening -- from Moscow toward expansion of NATO?

CARTER: No, I don't see any softening in the basic position of the Russian government, as it has existed for several months, which is that the -- they -- have expressed concern and opposition to the admission of new members into NATO. At the same time, however, they have acknowledged that they have an important relationship with NATO, within the Parthership for Peace and outside of the Partnership for Peace, that they have had a tremendous success in working with NATO on the ground in Bosnia. And so the relationship of Russia with this Alliance is growing and deepening in positive ways, even as they, as I observe, continue to retain unchanged their view, which is that they would vastly prefer that new members not be admitted to this Alliance, which is, of course, the Alliance's intention.

Q: (inaudible) from the Arab television. NBC. Ambassador, how could the election in Bosnia could be fair when Mr. Karadzic and his friends still free? And Mr. Kramer, a question, if you don't mind, would you clarify the U.S. position -- point of view -- about the rearmament of the Bosnian Army?

HUNTER: Let me speak to the first, and perhaps Dr. Kramer will speak to the second. Our position is clear because it derives from Dayton, which is none of the indicted or suspected war criminals have a role to play in the elections. They may not stand for election. There are requirements on the local parties to deal with issues of war criminals, and we expect them to follow through on those commitments. NATO also has pledges it has made in regard to war criminals. We do not deal with them. As we perform our duties under the mandate of Dayton, if we encounter them, we will detain them and turn them over to the Tribunal in The Hague, as we have already done once before. And we have worked out a relationship with that Tribunal about the way in which we will carry out our activities.

KRAMER: With respect to the second, I presume you were referring to the train and equip program. We anticipate that we will be able to go forward with that relatively soon. As you know, the Congress has appropriated some money for that. Turkey is willing to support that, of course, and we hope to get some support from some other countries, and we are in the last stages of the requirments to -- satisfy the requirements -- of U.S. law before we do, in fact, go forward with the program.

Q: Jim Mannion, AFP. In view of the fact that Karadzic is still loose in Bosnia, how do you (inaudible) military action (inaudible) capture them?

HUNTER: We believe that there are responsibilities, particularly on the government in Belgrade, to remove him from active participation in politics. The responsibilities for the delivery of indicted war criminals by the individual parties to the Tribunal in The Hague. We also believe it is important to, as we are doing, to develop alternative sources of political support and capacity to show people in the so- called Republic of Srpska that there is a better alternative than supporting Mr. Karadzic and his ilk. This is the course we believe is most beneficial and fits most within the mandate that we have at NATO under the Dayton Accords.

Q: (inaudible) from (inaudible) in London. Could you, could we say that the (inaudible) of Russia in (inaudible)?

CARTER: As I read Mr. Primakov, his views are, as I described in the previous -- in answer to the previous question, namely, Russia continues to voice oppposition to the enlargement of NATO, particularly to military implications of the enlargement of NATO, the questions of military infrastructure and so forth. Those concerns I see as having been more or less undiminished in previous months. What I think is new, and I think this is important, is that in recent months, Russia, by its words, but very importantly, by its actions, has begun to work with NATO in a positive way, while retaining its opposition to enlargement. And that positive working with NATO takes the form of cooperation in Bosnia, which has been successful, politically and militarily, and cooperation in such activities as the Partnership for Peace. So by its actions, the relationship between Russia and NATO is deepening even as Russia retains it opposition to enlargement.

Q: (inaudible) from (inaudible) television. (inaudible) What is the American position about the (inaudible) agreement with the (inaudible)?

HUNTER: This is not a subject of discussion here at NATO today. I don't know whether Dr. Kramer wants to add anything.

KRAMER: Our position, of course, is that both countries are our allies and we look to them to work out these issues. The United States has offered on many occasions to help to facilitate the dialogue, but that's all that we can do because of course, they are each two sovereign countries.

Q: In (inaudible), Primakov said that he would request to consider the (inaudible). Are you in agree [sic] with this position?

CARTER: In the first place, I would say that we have emphasized and will continue to emphasize to Russia that the enlargement of NATO is not something that's aimed at them or directed at them. Indeed, it's something that we think will improve the security environment of Europe, and therefore enhance their own security. In that sense, it takes into account Russia's strategic interest right there. Secondly, we've also engaged the Russians, as I've now said twice before, in a relationship with NATO which I think is mutually advantageous, therefore in Russia's interest. And the fact that Russia is engaging in that relationship shows that it has an interest in that relationship. So I take it from Russia's own action, in IFOR, and in its relationship with NATO, that it views a -- good relations with NATO as in its interests. Certainly, we in the Alliance -- all the Allies are unanimous in this -- wish to strengthen the relationship between this Alliance and Russia. Doing so is in our geostrategic interest and is in their geostrategic interest.

HUNTER: May I just add a word? We at the Alliance have taken the decision to enlarge, to take in new members. That's done. We're doing it in an open, transparent way, with no surprises, neither speeding up nor slowing down. We will take our own decisions at NATO, decisions taken by NATO alone, and the negotiations that we conduct on enlargement will be only with the countries in question who will be invited to enlarge -- invited to join NATO.

Q: France has set a timetable of more or less six months for practical decisions for what has come out of Berlin. Is that the realistic timetable in your view?

KRAMER: I think that the ministers will direct that the NATO military authorities provide them with the ability to take practical decisions in December. And those decisions will, I think, not only with respect to France, because looking at this as a France-only issue is the wrong way to look at it, but with respect to France and with respect to all the issues that are in front of the Alliance, will allow us to take some very significant decisions regarding adaptation in December. There will still be activities to do afterwards, transforming the Alliance to deal with new roles and missions is a significant process and will take some time. But I think December is a realistic goal, and I think you'll see them saying that today.

Q: Taniguchi with Mainichi Newspapers. Would you like to elaborate next year's PFP military maneuver concept in terms of geographical areas and natures?

KRAMER: With respect to PFP, first of all there are very many exercises, I think you know. There were 15 major PFP exercises this year by one count. You can count it a different way and say there were 30. They take place throughout the area of the Alliance. For example, there was a very significant exercise in Ukraine. Dr. Carter was there just last week. That exercise would probably take place again next year. But they go throughout the territory. I think that you will find that we will probably attempt to increase that. We will engage the Russians, if they are willing to do so, ever more closely. And these, building on the practical experience that we have with them in IFOR, we will, I hope, enhance the planning and review process in NATO for the PFP countries. We will, perhaps, be able to have an expanded look at the different kinds of PFP peacekeeping missions. The PFP countries are, many of them, at least, involved in IFOR. And we will build on that experience. So I think that you will see PFP -- which is only, I might say, two years old and has really developed to a remarkable extent -- be extended even further.

HUNTER: Let me underscore the importance of that, just so that we're all on record here for that. Partnership for Peace is one of the most important departures in NATO history, certainly over the last 20 or 30 years, with two grand purposes. One, it's critical in helping countries get ready to be NATO Allies. So that the moment we invite someone to join NATO, they will have gained a very close and intimate relationship with everything to do with NATO. Secondly, it's critical for those countries who do not join NATO, including not on the first day. So that they will have a deep, permanent, lasting engaged relationship with us. And, in fact, we're trying to make the difference between being an ally and being an good partner as small as possible, so that no country, whether it joins NATO or does not, need fear that its security is being diminished by what we're doing.

Q: (inaudible) CNN. Today -- this week -- the (inaudible) is having their first (inaudible) here in Belgium. Could you please tell us what is your view about it, what is your connection (inaudible) Eurocorps?

HUNTER: Well, we welcome the Eurocorps, which was established about three years ago and began with France and Germany, and it's now added Belgium and Spain, and, I believe, Luxembourg. So we welcome that as a supplement, but let me underscore supplement, or complement, to NATO's security. We are comfortable in the United States, and I think other Allies are, because of our knowledge and the agreement that if NATO ever needs to use the forces involved in Eurocorps, we have first call. That assures everyone that NATO will be able to function. And if Eurocorps has functions to do, operations to do, we would certainly welcome them.

Q: I want to clarify something. Secretary Perry said that the issue of a follow-up force would be discussed by ministers here today. (inaudible) informally or not at all?

KRAMER: We were both there together. That's not what I heard him say. I think that what will happen is that there will be discussions, but that the serious discussions will take place, or begin to take place, in September. There's the informal -- so-called Informal Meeting at Bergen, and they will discuss it then in a serious way.

Q: So there have been no -- there will be no discussion--

KRAMER: The plan today, they're actually on-going now--

HUNTER: It's not on the agenda.

KRAMER: It's not on the agenda. The discussions are supposed to focus on the time from now through the elections. I'm not in there at the moment, but that's what they're discussing now.

Q: How about tomorrow? Will the PFP members, some of whom do have forces in Bosnia, (inaudible)?

KRAMER: That would be the same discussion, the discussion with the PFP members is going to focus much more on the PFP aspects.

Q: Carmen (inaudible), CBF, German television. During the discussions of reform and change within NATO, has the position of an American being the Supreme Commander ever come up for debate? And could you imagine a European in the near or further future having this role.

HUNTER: Nein, und nein. Let me be clear. The United States will provide SACEUR as long as our Allies want it. They all want it.

BACON: Any other questions?

Q: (inaudible) about the joint command with a European one, that's what they (inaudible) European general.

KRAMER: There are already European generals. I'm not sure what you mean. This was the discussion of the Supreme Commander. It's universally agreed that to maintain the trans-Atlantic link, it needs to be an American. It's still our view -- it's both our view and the unanimous view in the Alliance.

BACON: Thank you very much.