Monthly press conference

Almost ten years ago, NATO took an unprecedented decision – it invoked article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Allies made clear that the September 11 attacks on the United States were an attack on all.

This week, the United States marked a significant success for the security of all Allies, and the security of the nations which have joined us in our efforts to combat the scourge of global terrorism. I congratulated President Obama and all those involved in the operation against the founder of Al Qaeda, the man who was directly responsible for the loss of thousands of innocent lives on September 11 and in other terrorist atrocities across the world. 
 
You may ask: what does that mean to NATO, and what does that mean to our mission in Afghanistan? And my message is clear.   We will stay the course. International terrorism continues to pose a direct threat to the security of our nations and to stability across the world.
 
Our reason for being in Afghanistan is clear and our strategy will not change. NATO Allies and partners will continue the mission to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for extremism, but develops in peace and security.

With gradual transition to lead Afghan responsibility for security, we have entered a new phase. That transition process remains fully on track and, with our Afghan partners; we aim to complete it by 2014.

NATO stands for the values of freedom, democracy and humanity that Osama bin Laden wanted to defeat. We will continue to stand for those values -- from Afghanistan to Libya. And the democratic upheavals across North Africa and the Middle East show a clear rejection of extremism and indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

It is now just over a month since NATO took command of all military operations to protect civilians in Libya, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. That is our mandate - and we are fulfilling that mandate.

NATO aircraft have flown over 5,000 sorties, at a consistent rate of more than 1,000 per week.

Almost half have been strike sorties. NATO pilots are striking persistently, but with care and precision. In Misrata, and in other parts of this vast country, we have protected large numbers of civilians against the onslaught of Qadhafi's regime - and we are steadily degrading his ability to harm his own people. NATO is saving lives in Libya.

We are making sure that critical capabilities can no longer be used to launch and sustain attacks against cities and civilians, such as battle tanks, heavy artillery, and multiple rocket launchers. We are undermining the regime’s ability to command and control those brutal attacks from bunkers and communication centres. We are reducing the Libyan regime’s ability to sustain, supply and reinforce its forces in the field.

Because of the arms embargo we enforce, Qadhafi cannot buy the arms he wants to continue his attacks against civilians. Because of the no-fly zone we police, he cannot strike at men, women and children from the sky.

 And because of the skill and courage of our pilots, he can no longer use massed formations of heavy armour to threaten cities, as he did to Benghazi before our operation began.

So, the nature of the conflict has changed significantly in a month.

But what has not changed and will not change is the resolve of NATO and our partners.

Because our responsibility is clear: to protect civilian life, as the United Nations Security Council mandated.

Our task is clear: to make sure that nobody can threaten or attack civilians or civilian populated areas anywhere in Libya.

We have set three goals, first all attacks and threats against civilians must cease. Second, all forces that threaten civilians, including snipers and mercenaries, must verifiably return to their bases. And three, free and unhindered humanitarian access to all those in Libya who need them must be guaranteed.

That is what NATO and partner foreign ministers agreed in Berlin. And that is what we will continue to do, for as long as necessary.

Certains d’entre vous se demandent peut-être combien de temps cela prendra. C’est là une question dont la réponse ne dépend pas seulement de l’OTAN. Mais il est difficile d’imaginer que les menaces envers les civils puissent cesser tant que Mouammar Kadhafi restera au pouvoir.

Nous avons toujours dit clairement qu’il ne peut y avoir de solution purement militaire à cette crise. C’est la raison pour laquelle nous nous tenons pleinement en contact avec nos partenaires régionaux et internationaux, en nous employant à trouver une solution politique à ce conflit qui réponde aux aspirations légitimes du peuple libyen.

Je participerai demain au Groupe de contact à Rome pour y informer mes homologues de nos opérations militaires. Nous parlerons également de la voie à suivre sur le front politique en vue de trouver une solution qui réponde aux aspirations du peuple libyen. 

NATO will not sit by and watch history unfold. We are playing our part: to fulfil the United Nations mandate. To save lives in Libya. And to help the people of Libya shape their own future.  

I am ready to take your questions.

Questions and answers

Q: Stephen Fidler from the Wall Street Journal. A few weeks ago I think you or one of your colleagues gave an estimate of the degrading of Qadhafi's forces by 30 percent. I wondered if you were able to update us on that, not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively in the sense of specifically what has NATO done and to reduce the capabilities of operation of the Qadhafi forces. Can you be as specific as you can? And what kind of briefing would you give tomorrow to your colleagues in Rome about what NATO's operations have achieved?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: I'm not able to give you updated figures, but I can assure you that we continue to make progress. We have hit important military targets. Tanks, armoured vehicles, as I told you, rocket launchers, command-and-control centres, all these military facilities could be used, and have been used, to attack civilians in Libya.

So every week, every day, we make new progress, hit important targets, but I'm not able to quantify the degree to which we have degraded Muammar Qadhafi's military capability. But definitely it is much weaker now than it was when our operation started.

Oana Lungescu: Bloomberg.

Q: Jim Neuger from Bloomberg. A question first on Libya. You said the nature of the conflict has changed significantly since NATO took over. Does this also require a change in tactics given that many of the most easily recognizable targets have been taken out and the Qadhafi forces have become more adept at evading detection. So would you see a need for new tactics such as the use of more helicopters?

And then secondly, on Afghanistan, you mentioned the goal of eliminating Afghanistan as a terrorist haven. You didn't mention Pakistan in your opening remarks. What concerns do you have given the criticism that's been levelled at the United States for not involving the Pakistanis in the raid on bin Laden's compound; that Pakistan will become an even more difficult problem to manage in the future?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: First on tactics in Libya. As you all know the Qadhafi regime has changed its tactics by hiding its military units in populated areas by using human shields and in other ways, and of course we have had to adapt our tactics as well. It's a more challenging task now than right at the beginning. But we are making steady progress.

As regards Pakistan, it goes without saying that it takes a positive engagement of Pakistan to ensure a long-term solution to the conflicts in Afghanistan. And this is also the reason why we have invested some efforts in developing a partnership with Pakistan and recent events do not change our strategy in that respect. On the contrary, I think it just underlines how important it is to continuously engage Pakistan positively. So we will proceed on that path and continue our efforts to strengthen bonds between NATO and Pakistan.

Oana Lungescu: EFE.

Q: (Inaudible), EFE, Spanish News Agency. Secretary General, you welcomed the operation that led to the death of Osama bin Laden. With all the details we know now, such as he was unarmed, wouldn't you have preferred a different outcome, for example, that he was captured alive?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: I think the bottom line here is that the founder of al-Qaeda has been responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people, and I think it has been justified to carry out this operation against him, and I do hope that this very successful operation will lead to undermining one of the world's most dangerous terrorist networks.

And I think that is what counts for a huge majority of people across the globe.

Oana Lungescu: AP.

Q: Don Melvin, Associated Press. Secretary General, I'm sure you've seen the... or heard the remarks from Mr. Frattini in Italy and from Mr. Juppé. Are you sensing any fatigue among the Allies in terms of a long-term operation? And along the same lines, if forces return to their bases verifiably is there any possible way that you can foresee an end to this operation with Muammar Qadhafi still in power?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: We clearly defined the military objectives when Foreign Ministers met in Berlin, and the three very clear objectives are the following: First, stop all attacks against civilians; secondly, withdraw all forces to their bases; and third, guarantee free and unhindered access for humanitarian assistance.

These are the military objectives. I added to that that it is hard to imagine that the attacks against civilians in Libya will cease as long as Qadhafi remains in power. That part of it is not included explicitly in the three military objectives we have defined. This is the reason why it is so important also to include the political path, the political dimension, all the international political pressure on the Qadhafi regime with the aim to ensure that Qadhafi steps down, and the regime allows a peaceful transition to democracy and an accommodation of the legitimate demands of the Libyan people.

That's how we have defined this. And I don't sense any fatigue. On the contrary, we have just had a meeting today here at Headquarters among the participants in Operation Unified Protector and it has been a reaffirmation of the strong commitment to our operation.

Q: I just wonder if you are concerned at all about talks of a deadline for the military operation? Calls from important members of NATO for a very, very quick end to this?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: But what we have decided is exactly what we defined in Berlin when Foreign Ministers met and defined three very clear military objectives. And when these objectives are met then mission is accomplished. And I think we all... that's a strong desire for all of us to see mission accomplished. I'm not able to fix a date when the three objectives will be fulfilled, but these objectives guide our operation and there is an agreement among the participants in Operation Unified Protector that these three objectives define the length and the scope of our operation.

Oana Lungescu: Radio France Internationale.

Q: Oui, Monsieur le Secrétaire Général, Pierre Bénazet de Radio France. Deux questions si vous permettez. La première: "Est-ce que vous estimez aujourd’hui d'un point de vue maritime et aérien que l'OTAN fait suffisamment pour desserrer l'étau du siège de Misrata actuellement entre le mines et les combats dans les faubourgs?" Deuxième question: "Est-ce que c'est un sujet de préoccupation pour vous quand vous entendez le ministre français des Affaires étrangères dire qu'on pourrait envisager d'accélérer le calendrier des troupes françaises d'Afghanistan à avant 2014?"

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Premièrement, en ce qui concerne l'opération en Libye, en particulier à Misrata, je pense que nous avons le mandat nécessaire pour accomplir notre mission en ce qui concerne la zone d'exclusion aérienne et aussi en ce qui concerne l'opération maritime, c'est-à-dire l'embargo sur les armes.

En ce qui concerne l'Afghanistan, à mon avis, l'événement en ce qui concerne M. Bin-Laden n'échéance pas notre opération en Afghanistan. Nous allons maintenir le cap en Afghanistan. Comme cela dit, comme déjà dit, le terrorisme international continue de représenter une menace directe pour la sécurité de nos pays et pour la stabilité dans le monde. Donc, il faut rester en Afghanistan aussi longtemps que nécessaire pour accomplir notre mission, c'est-à-dire le processus de transmission va continuer selon la feuille de route que nous avons présentée à Lisbonne en mois de novembre, l'année dernière.

Oana Lungescu: German Television.

Q: I'm here. Secretary General, Kai Niklasch, German Television ZDF. If you allow two questions, one on Libya. You have the Contact Group meeting tomorrow in Rome and the rebels, the opposition in Libya suggested that they would like to have some money. They spoke of billions of dollars to support their mission.

Hillary Clinton said in Berlin that it might be a good idea to get some money from the frozen money Qadhafi had to give it to the rebels in Libya. What is your position? Would it help to fulfil your mission if the rebels were equipped with some more money?

This is part one and part two is on Osama bin Laden. There is a discussion ongoing whether it was on a legal basis, on a UN mandate, or something, that he was killed. What is your position?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: First on Libya and the financial aspects. As you know that goes beyond the NATO operation. We are there to fulfil the UN mandate, but I participate in the Contact Group meeting and I can tell you that I'm definitely in favour of taking all necessary measures to put the maximum of pressure on the Qadhafi regime, with the aim to protect civilians in Libya.

And I do believe that it would be protection of civilians in Libya if Qadhafi was forced to step down, and in that respect I think it would be helpful to make sure that the opposition can be financed appropriately. And I would expect such financial mechanisms to be discussed in Rome.

As regards the operation against bin Laden, I'm not a legal expert, but I think I speak on behalf of a huge majority of people around the globe when I express satisfaction that he was brought to justice after having been responsible for the death of so many innocent people.

Oana Lungescu: AFP.

Q: Pascal Mallet, Agence France-Presse. Je voudrais poursuivre une question qui a été posée par un de nos collègues tout à l'heure concernant le Pakistan à nouveau. Parce que ce qui s'est passé au Pakistan avec la découverte que Ben Laden vivait des jours tranquilles à quelques kilomètres 50 kilomètres d'Islamabad prouve que ce que l'on dit depuis longtemps à savoir que le vrai problème, c'est le Pakistan, est exact. Donc, comment va-t-on continuer à l'OTAN à se battre en Afghanistan en sachant que si la mort de Ben Laden ne signifie pas la fin du terrorisme comme vous le dites? Le fameux "haven" dont vous parlez existe, mais il existe au Pakistan et pas en Afghanistan. Est-ce que ce n'est pas là la contradiction fondamentale de l'intervention de l'OTAN en Afghanistan?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: Si je comprends votre question correctement, ma réponse sera la suivante. Il faut engager le Pakistan positivement en vue de trouver une solution du conflit en Afghanistan. C'est évident qu'il y a des problèmes de sécurité au Pakistan. Nous avons encouragé les autorités pakistanaises de renforcer la lutte contre les terroristes et les extrémistes en particulier dans la région de frontières entre le Pakistan et l'Afghanistan. Nous avons vu des progrès. Je pense qu'il y a un potentiel pour plus de progrès.

Et il faut coopérer activement avec le gouvernement et le militaire pakistanais en vue de renforcer ces efforts de combattre les terroristes dans la région à la frontière. Je comprends bien les questions qui sont posées après les événements de dimanche dernier. Mais ma conclusion est très claire. Il faut améliorer et il faut renforcer les liens avec le Pakistan.

Oana Lungescu: We have time for two more questions. NPR at the back.

Q: Eric Westervelt, National Public Radio of the United States. Sir, Misrata, the situation remains miserable and precarious. Qadhafi artillery and rocket fire has thwarted ships carrying vital humanitarian supplies from docking. Why hasn't NATO been able to do more to take out his artillery and rockets in and around Misrata?

And the second part, how is he resupplying those troops in and around Misrata with weapons, food, fuel with NATO planes overhead 24/7? Thank you.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: First of all, yes, I think you're right, there is more work to do, but as I have outlined today during a bit more than one month since we took over command, significant progress has been made with regard to taking out critical military capabilities. So that it has become much more difficult for Muammar Qadhafi to attack his own people.

I also have to say that of course we can't prevent all attacks, so we have to face it, when he uses snipers and hides military units in populated areas, and taking into account that we are very careful not to cause civilian casualties then, of course, he is still able to attack civilians. But I can assure you that we have done a lot, we will continue to do our utmost to take out all those military... critical military capabilities possible.

Oana Lungescu: German Radio.

Q: Andreas Heuer, Germany Public Radio. There have been at least two instances that have been interpreted as direct attacks on the person of Qadhafi and the response of NATO always was those were command-and-control nodes where attacks against civilians were masterminded and planned. So my question is, what is the definition of a command-and-control centre of the regime? Is every building where Qadhafi is present and has access to a telephone and can give orders of some kind by definition a command-and-control node for NATO?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen: First of all, let me stress that I do not want to go into operational details. But secondly, I can reaffirm that we target military capabilities solely, including command-and-control centres. And I have full confidence in our military commanders and their ability and capability to identify legitimate military targets.

Oana Lungescu: Thank you very much.