Weekly press briefing

JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): Friends, colleagues, thank you for coming to the newly redecorated hall. It looks very nice. I just have a very little bit to say, then I'm happy to take your questions.

First, to note that right now there is a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council at ambassadorial level, which is of, I think, some interest. One is there are briefings taking place, separate briefings, one by the Russian Federation and one by the United States on missile defence. The Russian Federation presentation is being conducted by Ambassador Anatoly Antonov. He's the Director of the Department for Security and Defence, I think, at the Russian foreign ministry.

The U.S. briefing is being conducted by the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Ellen Tauscher, and the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, James Miller. And they're each going to present national views on their current missile defence efforts.

The second topic...

Q: (Inaudible...).

JAMES APPATHURAI: Right now, as we speak. So I can't give you any detail on what they said.

The second topic will be on Summit preparations. They will look at the joint review, try to complete the joint review of 21st Century threats... or security challenges in time for the Summit.

Second, and this was discussed... or this was already in the media this morning, on broadening the transit agreement that NATO has with the Russian Federation, and by the way, of course, with other countries, to include reverse transit. In other words, to be able to take equipment out of Afghanistan as well as into Afghanistan, and also to broaden the eligibility criteria for what can actually go on the trains in both direction, to include, for example, armoured vehicles.

So not lethal goods, but a bit broader than what we had had in the past. Armoured vehicles to include, for example, mine-resistant vehicles, MRAPs, as Americans call them.

And third, expanding the NATO-Russia Council counter narcotics project. To give you an example of what that would mean, the Russian Federation is considering opening a second centre for training counter narcotics officials from Afghanistan and from the region. There is one just outside of Moscow already, a place called Domodedovo. The second one would be opened in Saint Petersburg, so that's under consideration.

Second, more countries would be eligible for training by NATO and by the Russian Federation. For example, Pakistani counter narcotics officials would be eligible for training under the NATO-Russia Council counter narcotics project if and when it is expanded.

Okay that's the NRC. Second to mention that the Secretary General will have a press conference on Monday, I think at 2:00, from 2:00 to 2:45, where he will discuss, of course, the Summit. So you are cordially invited to that.

Now let me discuss the Summit and give you a bit of the rundown. Yes, he'll be previewing the Summit, basically.

But now give you sort of the agenda of the Summit, the main topics, the main deliverables, and then I'm happy to take your questions.

One sort of technical note, but I think it's noteworthy, Damien Arnaud, who's here, has achieved probably the highest level of success in NATO-EU cooperation because I understand that if you are accredited for the NATO Summit you're also accredited for the EU Summit, and that's an historic...

Q: (Inaudible...) U.S.

JAMES APPATHURAI: Yes, the U.S. Sorry, the EU-U.S. Summit. So that's an historic achievement.

Q: (Inaudible...).

(LAUGHTER)

JAMES APPATHURAI: (Laughs). A little asterisk. Okay. The Summit. Before the Summit will be something called the Young Political Leaders Forum. This is on the 19th. The Secretary General will speak at noon to the Young Political Leaders. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will also address it. I don't know who else has confirmed. Those are the two that I know, but you may wish to check as the list gets updated we will certainly provide that information to you.

At 16:30 on the 19th is the first session, which is a meeting of the 28 Heads of State and Government. In essence, there will be two topics on the agenda. One is the Strategic Concept, and the second is reform.

The Secretary General will wish to discuss whatever, of course, issues are still open, if there are any open, to try to get agreement on the Strategic Concept. He, of course, has other opportunities during the Summit and you've all been at summits. You know, sometimes you don't get it all in the first session, but we will be aiming for that.

The second topic will be reform, with three elements. One is reform of the command structure. You know that they will be put to Heads of State and Government a generic model for a reformed streamlined command structure for NATO, with, in essence, fewer headquarters and fewer personnel. Cutting the staff from over 13,000 to around 9,000. So it will be a substantial reduction in the number of staff. That is, in a reformed command structure.

But to clarify for those who aren't always here, it will be a generic model, in that it will not say where these headquarters should be geographically. That will be decided in the next stage. It's just what the model should look like.

The second part of that is reform of NATO's agencies, to reduce them from 14 agencies to 3. And to find savings, of course, along with the improvements in efficiency and effectiveness that allies are seeking in this reform.

The agencies don't get a lot of attention, but I think it's worth noting that there are about 7,000 employees in the 14 agencies. Fourteen... Sorry, there are 14... yes, they are placed in seven countries, so 7,000 employees, seven countries, and budgets of several billion if you add them all together. So this is a big reform. It is not an easy reform because these are not wholly-owned and operated by NATO. They are put together by differing groups of countries, according to memoranda of understanding and operate along certain guidelines, but are owned and operated by the countries that participate in them.

So it is a very, very complex reform, but one which the broad lines of which are already agreed—this is the reduction from 14 to 3—and the general effort to improve efficiency and effectiveness and to find savings. The details of this are being worked out now.

And finally, another element of reform, which basically has been accomplished or is being accomplished, and that is reform of the Headquarters here in Brussels. As many of you know the Secretary General has already created a new division to focus on emerging security challenges and taken resources away from other priorities to focus them on that, and we are making other steps, including moving the military and civilian staff, who work on the same issues, closer together, so that they get the synergies of greater effectiveness.

So that's the reform discussion. He will give... the Secretary General's press conference will be at 7:15 (19:15) on Thursday. Friday, Friday! Excuse me, excuse me, Friday.

Then at 19:45 will be a working dinner with two issues. First, missile defence. As you know there are intensive discussions under way now within the Alliance towards a decision, which the Secretary General believes should be taken in Lisbon, that NATO should develop a capability to defend European territory and populations against the threat of ballistic missiles, or against ballistic missiles.

The Heads of State and Government will discuss it there, and hopefully agree it there. We expect that any decision to acquire this capability would be accompanied with an invitation to Russia to cooperate with NATO on missile defence, both for practical and for political reasons.

The Secretary General discussed this extensively with President Medvedev and Foreign Minister Lavrov when he was in Moscow last week. I think the Russian leadership had many questions, but they entered into this discussion with a very open mind. I think President Medvedev, after the meetings, made statements that indicated that the Russian Federation was certainly willing to move forward in exploring with NATO what it would mean to cooperate and how it would work to cooperate.

The Secretary General certainly left Moscow with a positive feeling about the discussions, at least, that we will have on missile defence.

The second topic for the working dinner will be capability priorities. In the fiscal environment in which we find ourselves, there will inevitably be cuts to defence. The point, from NATO's point of view, is that it cannot simply be cuts to capabilities. It has to be cuts in spending to invest in priority capabilities. The first step in that is identifying the priorities and the Heads of State and Government will agree in essence a top ten list of capabilities which we should prioritize for investment, including, for example, helicopter transport, strategic air transport, wide body aircraft for long-range transport, counter IED, counter improvised explosive device technologies and training, medical support, et cetera, et cetera, and we will make this list public to you there.

08:30 Saturday morning will be the ISAF meeting; a meeting of the, of course, ISAF troop contributing nations. But there will be participation, as well, by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Afghan president, of course, President Karzai. The EU will be represented at high level. I understand that... now I'm saying this... I can't confirm for the EU, but I believe Mr. Barroso will be attending.

I have heard positive indications, but cannot confirm about Mr. Van Rompuy and I believe High Representative Ashton will be in attendance, so strong participation from the European Union. As well as the head of the World Bank, Bob Zoellick, and the Japanese Prime Minister. Japan participates in these meetings as a very, very significant donor to, in particular, our... now our police training mission NTM-A.

There will be two main, what we call, deliverables, two main decisions taken at this meeting. One will be to launch the transition process; the process by which the Afghan Security Forces will take lead security responsibility steadily throughout their country, starting in the first half of 2011, with an aim—this is President Karzai's aim, which we endorse—to be in the lead throughout the country by the end of 2014.

So that's part one. Part two is that we will... the Secretary General will sign with...

Q: (Inaudible...)?

JAMES APPATHURAI: Fourteen. Fourteen. You bracketed it. End of 2014. I am informed, and rightly so, that I should phrase this as a meeting on Afghanistan rather than a North Atlantic Council and ISAF format. It's a meeting on Afghanistan. That's a better label for it.

Second decision will be to agree a long-term partnership between NATO and Afghanistan, which will endure beyond the end of the combat mission, whenever the end of the combat mission might be.

And the point of this is practical. It will have elements of long-term support, which will NATO will provide to Afghanistan in terms principally of training, development, capacity building and political dialogue. It will also be to send a political message that NATO is not leaving, that transition does not mean exit, that our commitment is for the long term. Our military commitment will also be for the long term, even as we shift from a combat role to a support role, it will still be for many years. And beyond that we will have an enduring political commitment to Afghanistan, which is an important signal to send to the Afghan people it is an important signal to send to the Taliban. And it is an important signal to send to the region. There will be no vacuum as a result of the transition process. On the contrary we will stay as long as it takes to finish our job.

At 11:40 the Secretary General will have a press conference with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and President Karzai. Similar to what we did in Bucharest, wasn't it? Similar to the Bucharest... 11:40. Karzai, Rasmussen, Ban Ki-moon.

And then at 14:00 will be the NATO-Russia Council meeting with, of course, President Medvedev and his NRC counterparts.

There will be, I think, three concrete elements to this meeting. One is to agree on an Afghanistan package, and I discussed many of the elements of this already. Broader training for counter narcotics officials... actually that's the only element I mentioned. Oh yes, sorry, and second, reverse transit or a broader transit agreement. I mentioned that as well. The third will be what we call the helicopter package.

The Secretary General, when he went to Moscow last time, requested of Moscow that it could consider providing support to Afghan Security Forces in the form of helicopters, training for pilots and spare parts, as well as fuel. We hope to agree a package by the NRC Summit, which would include a number of helicopters, around 20, training for pilots, spare parts, and a funding mechanism for how this would all be provided.

Details of this are still under discussion.

Second, we hope to agree the joint review, which I mentioned already, of 21st Century security challenges. The importance of this is that it will set a baseline for our future cooperation by establishing what we agree, what the NATO-Russia Council countries, the 29 countries, agree are the threats that they face, and that's the platform for developing cooperation. Much of it, of course, we already do, but it will make a very clear... set up very clear guidelines for where we will cooperate.

And finally, of course, there is the potential for discussion... No, there will be, I presume, a roadmap for future missile defence cooperation in the NATO-Russia Council context. Both at the theatre missile defence level, where we have already had some cooperation, which slowed down a little bit after August 2008, for some reason. But could pick up again, and looking at how that could be broadened to include cooperation on territorial missile defence.

And then my final point, the Secretary General's press conference, as Secretary General for the NATO-Russia... chairman of the NATO-Russia Council will be at 15:45.

And that is my introductory statement, and I will stop right here and take my first question.

Q: Hello James. I have several questions. Going in order, when you said about the transit agreement with Afghanistan... in Afghanistan with Russia, you said armed vehicles, or armoured vehicles?

Second, after the Summit, after the first day, there is no any press conference at the end of the working dinner?

And third, the 20 helicopters more or less that you are looking from Russia for Afghanistan, are transport, combat, (inaudible)?

Thank you.

JAMES APPATHURAI: Okay. Easy questions to answer. I like these ones. Armoured vehicles, not armed. Armoured. Like, as I mentioned, these mine-resistant armoured personnel carriers. The Americans have them called MRAPs. You've seen them, they're very distinction, with a triangular bottom and that sort of thing.

For the moment there are no plans for a press conference after the working dinner. However, of course, if the Strategic Concept is agreed at the working dinner I would encourage the Secretary General, if he has time, to come and brief you himself on it. And in fact, whenever it is agreed we will encourage the Secretary General and find time for the Secretary General to come down and brief you personally.

So that's one sort of element that's a bit fluid, because we just don't know when it'll be agreed, but I will certainly hope that he would do that and this is his achievement, and I hope he can brief you to it.

And yes, we're talking about transport helicopters, not combat helicopters.

Q: James, have the partner countries, like the Mediterranean or the ICI countries, have they been invited to the Summit? In some sessions?

JAMES APPATHURAI: No. This is a NATO, Afghanistan and Russia, but no other formats. No NATO-Ukraine Commission, no NATO-Georgia Commission. Just this.

Q: I have some related questions quickly. This NATO-Russia discussions on helicopter package, whose helicopters and who would provide training? That's not clear. Can you clarify that?

Second, agency reform, it's a bit of a fudge, bringing it down to three. This is on paper. Are they actually going to mesh these various organizations together, because of course the geographic decisions haven't been made? Are they going to mesh these organizations?

JAMES APPATHURAI: Mesh is a good word.

Q: And not just keep... and not just keep things separate in seven or fourteen different locations. Thanks.

JAMES APPATHURAI: I like mesh. I've been explained that English has more opportunities for constructive ambiguity than almost any other language and I'm going to...

Q: (Inaudible...).

JAMES APPATHURAI: I'm going to put that into my lexicon. We're talking about Russian helicopters, and specifically Mi-17 Russian transport helicopters. I presume the training would be provided principally by the Russian Federation because these are their helicopters and they know how to fly them, though of course we have many countries in NATO that have flown, or continue to fly Mi-17's as well.

The real question, I think, that is being looked at now, is how the financing for the training piece would be arranged. For example, could it be through a trust fund into which all the allies, or maybe even partners, could put some money, as well as the Russians, or to help fund this aspect. That's one idea that's in the air. It is not yet decided.

I was careful to fudge on agencies only because the details of this and the mechanics of this are really not yet clear and this was discussed extensively this morning in the North Atlantic Council. So I'm not obfuscating. They just are not clear.

But what is clear is that there are functional groupings of agencies where there are groupings that do kind of the same thing. For example, a number—you're very well aware of this—that do procurement. Or a number of others that do support for operations. Or a group that do communications.

So their work can be made more coherent. The support for them, in particular, could be rationalized, and I think that there is an area where allies are considering where savings could be possible.

But really the details are not clear, and certainly not decided. So it's too early for me to go into that.

Q: James, sorry, three questions. Two potentially easy ones, one hopefully slightly less so.

You said that today's NRC is talking about expanding the counter narcotics project. Am I right in understanding that the idea is that that would then be signed off in Lisbon.

JAMES APPATHURAI: Mmm.

Q: Yeah. Secondly, I saw at one point that there would be an extra meeting at 28 between the ISAF segment and the NRC segment, so is that still on? Or what's happening with that?

And on the question of transition, I remember the foreign ministers in Tallinn agreed to what the process of transition should be, and by the sound of it what leaders will be saying in Lisbon is that transition will start next year.

So what actually changes in Lisbon, other than the fact that the leaders say okay, we're starting transition now, but we're not actually starting it until the first of 2011? Thanks.

JAMES APPATHURAI: Two answer yes, in order. Right now there are intensive discussions, including at ambassadorial level on exactly what the whole NRC package would be, including expanding transit. But yes, the aim is to agree this at the Summit.

Second, the extra meeting at 28, yes, you're right, there is sort of an hour built in for what you might call any other business, to use the North Atlantic Council agenda title. In other words, this is built in to take any final decisions, any final discussions, on outstanding issues. If we get all our work done before then, or if they get all their work done before then, it could be a very short meeting and we just approve some reports and then it's all done.

So it's an any other business kind of meeting, which is why I didn't mention it. There's no specific agenda item.

On transition. You're quite right that the broad outlines of transition have already been agreed. And we know the route forward in terms of mechanics. But there's one thing to have a map. There's another thing to set off on the route and that's what we're going to do. we've had the map. Now we're going to put the car in gear and start moving.

Preparing the ground for the actual moment of transition, let's put it that way, is part of the process. Part of that is the analysis, and of which provinces or districts are ready for transition and when they'll be ready for transition, and what needs to be done to prepare them for transition.

That analysis work has already been started. General Petraeus and Senior Civilian Representative Sedwill have been sending up monthly assessments province by province, district by district, green to red, what's ready, and it shifts and changes.

And it includes an assessment, not just of the security environment, but also of the political situation in the particular area under discussion.

So once the Afghan government and the NATO... or the ISAF countries, because this is a collective decision, agreed to launch the process, then based on the analysis that is already ongoing, resources are moved to implement the process, including Afghan resources, very much. When we know that we're going to start the Afghans will, of course, move their military and other... and governance resources more in the direction of supporting the transition process.

So that's the point. But you're quite right that the actual handing over of lead responsibility in those areas that are ready for it won't happen until the first half of next year.

Q: Just I want to follow up on the helicopter issue. We've been saying... some of our stories out of Moscow that the Russians have agreed to sell the American navy 20-something helicopters. Is this a different deal? Or it's the same one?

JAMES APPATHURAI: I don't know about the navy issue, and I haven't seen that story, but there is, let me put it this way, there is a discussion of some of the helicopters, in fact the majority of them being sold commercially, and a limited number being donated by the Russian Federation. And let's put it this way, based on media reports the Russian Federation is looking at a combination of having some of them sold to one or more nations, and donating them as part of the package.

Q: (Inaudible...).

JAMES APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: Are you expecting any kind of discussion from some of the European allies on the question of tactical nuclear weapons? And could that be linked to the missile defence discussion at the Summit or what's happening on that discussion?

JAMES APPATHURAI: I wouldn't exclude a discussion on tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, more broadly, not just NATO, but Europe more broadly, in the context of the discussion surrounding the Strategic Concept. or potentially a new declaration, but I have not seen a directive or declaration so I don't know.

But yes, I don't know what to say. I wouldn't exclude it. I think if it takes place it'll take place in the context of at least the Strategic Concept around the table, but I don't have any information... it's not a specific topic of discussion. I don't have any information that it's going to be raised specifically, but it could be. So that's the best I can say.

Q: My favourite question, Jim, is... James is...

JAMES APPATHURAI: At least you didn't say James (inaudible...) all these years.

(LAUGHTER)

Q: Is how much does missile defence cost? The Secretary General always says $200 million for NATO, but the Americans had plans under the Bush administration, they wanted to have some bases in Eastern Europe... they had a figure that it cost several million dollars. So what is your figure that you can offer, and do the Americans expect the others to participate in this burden? Or what is your information?

And the second one is, will President Obama will hold a press conference at the NATO Summit? Do you know that?

JAMES APPATHURAI: I can answer the second question first. I don't know. I have no idea.

Missile defence. I can explain the costs very easily. Each of the nations that have missile defence capabilities, of whatever kind, pay for those capabilities themselves. So the U.S. investment in missile defence is paid for by the United States and I suspect it's in the billions, the many billions.

The number of European allies have theatre missile defence capabilities, Patriots, (inaudible), et cetera, for protecting their troops. NATO has been, for some years now developing the capability to provide missile defence for all NATO deployed troops. In essence, by linking together through a command and control system and enhancing slightly the capability of theatre missile defence capabilities.

The cost of that, which has already been decided, because that program has already been agreed, is 800 million Euros. But that, as I say, was a previous decision, already in essence banked.

The cost of expanding that system to connect it to the U.S. phased adaptive approach, to be able to provide missile defence protection for European territory and European populations, not just deployed troops, but including deployed troops, is an additional 200 million Euros from the NATO common funding budget.

So this is, in essence, for a command and control ability. The ability to link it all together into protection for all of European territory and populations.

Any cost for equipment, as I say, are borne by the nations, but in essence this is already equipment that has been purchased, or is being purchased, based on existing technologies, not things that need to be developed from a computer somewhere. And much of it has already been programmed, if not already purchased.

Is that clear? No?

(LAUGHTER)

I think we'll come up to Julian and then come back.

Q: A couple of questions on that, on the missile defence. You need, presumably, all 28 countries to agree for that money to be spent? That's one.

Second one, the Russians have... there's been talk of them offering a radar facility, but also that this radar facility would probably be too out of date to be used by NATO. What's the status of that?

And also, on cyber defence, is there any decision expected on that? For example, there was talk about adding that to Clause 5 of the Washington Treaty.

JAMES APPATHURAI: Thank you. Yes, all 28 NATO countries need to agree for common funding of anything. But it's more than that. It's also a political question. This is about solidarity. It's about the glue that binds allies together, and it's about collective defence. So for all those reasons, not just the technical, financial reasons, it's very important to get a decision by all 28.

I have seen the same report that Russia has offered a radar, and I think, of course there are extensive discussion with the United States about that radar, and I understand in the past U.S. officials have actually gone to see it. But I have no information about its technical capability, and to be very honest, and not least flowing from the discussions that the Secretary General had in Russia, we're at a very, very early stage in any discussion that would focus on NATO-Russia cooperation on missile defence.

We haven't even decided to do it in NATO, yet. Nor have we made an offer to Russia. Nor has Russia accepted that offer. Nor have we explored the very many fundamental questions relating to financing, technical interoperability, coverage, et cetera, command and control. All questions Russia has raised and which, by the way, are issues that NATO has to look at as well.

So I think we're not yet at the stage where we can discuss the technical capability of a Russian radar in Azerbaijan, and whether or not it could contribute to greater coverage. We're just not there yet.

Cyber defence. You will see, I am quite confident, forward-leaning language in the Strategic Concept on cyber defence. Because this is a growing threat to... I don't need to go through this again, to many aspects of our daily lives, and can reach a level that threaten the fundamental security of allies. And because it is a transnational threat that requires multinational cooperation for effective defence.

For all those reasons the Strategic Concept will ascribe to NATO a role in cyber defence, and a robust role in cyber defence.

As I say, it can reach a level that threats the fundamental security of allies. But as to exactly how that will be framed with regards to specific articles of the Washington Treaty I think we have to wait and see for the last stages of this discussion.

Q: Sorry, (inaudible...) missile defence issue again. Maybe I didn't hear, but what you're saying is... the Americans are investing billions of dollars in this phased adaptive approach and the allies are going to be able to take advantage of that for free, is that right? They don't have to pay anything to the Americans to be part of that system. It's just the 200 million and the 800 million that they've already invested? Are there any... I think what everybody wants to know is whether there are going to be any hidden costs associated with it.

JAMES APPATHURAI: I understand that. The U.S. is contributing its phased adaptive approach on its own ticket. It is not asking allies to pay for its phased adaptive approach. That is the U.S. contribution to a possible territorial, NATO-territorial missile defence for Europe.

So yes, it is quite a substantial contribution and many would say it's a bargain.

Q: If, as you hope, and the Secretary General hope, that this final decision on missile defence is taken in Lisbon, when will it be fully ready? And how does that fit with what we expect as a time schedule on when the countries we perceive as our threats will be ready to attack us?

That is what's been said, you know, that we need to be ready before Iran is ready, but it doesn't look like we're going to be there.

JAMES APPATHURAI: Well, I don't want to talk about specific countries' development. No, I don't. But when it comes to NATO there is actually a very clear timeline. And when it comes to theatre missile defence I think there's going to be... I believe there is either already or within the next six weeks an initial operating capability for the theatre missile defence capability.

But the U.S. phased adaptive approach, which is a very core element of a possible NATO system, has a very clear timeline, which of course, I can't off the top of my head remember, but I think the first phase of it would be in place by next year, then it's 2014, then 2016, then 2018. Something like that. But you can easily look... if you Google it in one second it's all there.

And that is, I think, in essence, the core of a NATO-European missile defence system and therefore, would heavily influence the development of a NATO system as well.

That's the most I can say. The timelines beyond that are not clear.

Q: On missile defence again. Which systems are necessary to start? Can you say something on the plans. Do we need, for example, Germany system MEADS or other European systems, or is it possible to start the whole missile defence only with the American system?

JAMES APPATHURAI: No, it is not possible to start the European missile defence, or to do European missile defence exclusively using the American system. It requires participation by European allies and the attribution of their system, not on a permanent basis, but when necessary, to a NATO-European missile defence system.

So the Americans can do this alone. It has to include, and does include, would include, the contribution of, for example, German systems or Dutch systems or others.

Back there, and then up here.

Q: (Inaudible...), it's working? About participation of the Japanese Prime Minister, did you get a confirmation from the Japanese side, or it's kind of the... how can I say, a pre-arrangement?

JAMES APPATHURAI: Let's put it this way, an invitation was sent to the Japanese side. My understanding, but I could be wrong, my understanding was that he would attend. That's what I heard, but it was in the hallway, so I do believe he is coming, but I don't have formal confirmation of that.

We have two here.

Q: Are you expecting an answer from Russia on missile defence cooperation at the Summit?

JAMES APPATHURAI: I think based on the conversations that the Secretary General had in Moscow: a) of course it will be discussed, b) I think what we would hope for as a group of nations, 29 nations, is that in the NRC context a willingness to discuss cooperation on missile defence and a way forward, in essence, to set out the questions that need to be answered. And I identified, I think, some of them, how it would work, how it would be paid for.

Technically, and procedurally, how would we do it? I think these are questions that will now need to be asked and answered before any final decision could be taken on the cooperation.

So I think what we would hope for from the Lisbon Summit is a willingness to take forward a discussion at 29 on how cooperation would work, with an aim, of course, ultimately, for there to be cooperation, if we get the right answers to those questions. To the mutual benefit of all 29 countries.

Q: Sorry, James, it just occurred to me, on missile defence, all the talk today has been about setting up missile defence settlements in Europe. What about Iceland and Canada? Are they already covered by some other systems? I mean is Canada covered by the phased adaptive approach already? What's the system there? Thanks?

JAMES APPATHURAI: Doesn't Iceland count as Europe? As an intellectual question? I guess...

Q: (Inaudible...).

Q: Pretty far away from it.

(LAUGHTER)

JAMES APPATHURAI: The short answer is this is missile defence for Europe. It is not for Canada. That's not the plan. It's not technically capable of doing that. (Laughs). Ah...

Q: (Inaudible...).

JAMES APPATHURAI: Yes. I include Iceland in Europe, but I don't... that's just...

Q: (Inaudible...).

JAMES APPATHURAI: (Laughs). Okay. About the reform of the agencies, do you have any projections on savings? And another question, the Secretary General has mentioned several times, has urged (inaudible...) allies not to cut too much on defence. Do you have any kind of average figures on allied budget... defence budgets for next year?

JAMES APPATHURAI: Reductions? Or just how much they will be?

Q: I don't know if it's any reduction or freezing or... I mean, an average?

JAMES APPATHURAI: Well, to answer the first question, no I don't yet have a projection on savings, but they will have one by the time of the Summit. They're working on that right now.

Second, cutting too much on defence. I have seen that at least 15 countries have in the past two years, so since the financial crisis of 2008, at least 15 NATO countries have announced cuts from between... in their defence budgets, sorry, from between less than 2 percent to 47 percent in one case. Only five NATO countries now meet the 2 percent of GDP target when it comes to defence spending.

So there already has been, I think, quite a substantial amount of reduction in defence spending, and it's not... we're not done yet.

Greece, Turkey... yes, Greece, Turkey, the United Kingdom, France and the United States. I think there may be one more. Like Albania or someone like that.

Q: (Inaudible...).

JAMES APPATHURAI: Estonia's 1.9. We can confirm it for you. We'll check.

Q: Just one more question for the missile defence. Already back in Bucharest everybody was talking about the threat from Iran. For me it sounds like you don't want to mention any countries anymore. Is that because Iran is in the quiet getting out of the text because of protests from Turkey, or are you going to mention Iran, like all the other years?

JAMES APPATHURAI: Well, I don't know what's going to be in the final documents, but what I can say is the way that we're approaching this is that there are at least 30 countries, more than 30 countries, acquiring, that have or are acquiring ballistic missile capability. Some of those can already hit Europe. And the ranges of those missiles are increasing and the number of missiles is increasing, the number of countries that are acquiring those missiles is increasing.

So this is not just about one country. It's about a growing and, in essence, generic, potential threat to our territory. Which has enormous impact, literally and in other ways, if it ever happens.

So for all those reasons I think the allies are not ignoring specific countries, because they exist, but as I say it's 30-plus countries, and I think allies want to look at it in that sense.

Q: (Inaudible...) very specifically to Iran as the Secretary General used to on frequent occasions in the past.

JAMES APPATHURAI: Well, I guess we'll see in Lisbon.

Q: Thanks.

JAMES APPATHURAI: Oh wait, wait!

Q: (Inaudible...) agency reforms (inaudible...). Can you be slightly more specific in what you meant by support could be rationalized? Are we talking about setting up one unit that does procurement for a group of agencies, for example? Is it that kind of thing?

JAMES APPATHURAI: Well, I think that's the kind of thing that's being looked at, but again, the agency discussion, having sat through it this morning, is not yet ripe for detail. That's the bottom line and I don't want to go farther than the nations have gone. They don't yet have a way forward.

Colleagues, any of you coming to Lisbon?

Q: (Inaudible...).

JAMES APPATHURAI: Good, then I'll see you there.