Opening statement

Good afternoon. This week the Defence Ministers of allied nations and our partners will meet here at NATO Headquarters. We will discuss our current operations and our future capabilities; what we're doing now, but also what we will and must be able to do in the future.

Our operation to protect civilians in Libya has been a great success. The United Nations Security Council called for action, NATO decided to respond, we put together a complete package of measures by air and sea to protect the people of Libya. And we are near to successfully completing that task.

Operation Unified Protector has done what we said it would do. We have kept our commitment to the United Nations, to the region and to the Libyan people.
We will also meet with our ISAF partners to discuss progress in Afghanistan, because there's been significant progress since our last meeting. Transition is fully on track and we will not allow insurgents to derail it. Already Afghan forces are providing lead security for a quarter of the population. I expect the next stage of transition to be announced soon , and I expect it to be substantive.

And at the same time, our military authorities assess that the insurgency has been weakened overall.

Of course, the levels of violence are of concern. A number of spectacular attacks have captured the headlines recently and created the perception that security incidents are on the rise. However, our commanders are confident that security incidents initiated by insurgent groups are lower than last year.

And let me tell you about a specific case. About a year ago we were talking about the security situation in Central Helmand. This was a focus of our efforts. And we said things would get worse before they got better. Now we are seeing the results of our efforts. Attacks since June are significantly lower than last year. In fact, some districts in Central Helmand have seen reductions in violence of nearly 80 percent, nearly 80 percent.

So our strategy is working. And we should concentrate on the competence of the Afghan security forces in dealing with attacks. That will remain our focus as we complete transition by the end of 2014 and as we continue to stand with the Afghan people after 2014, because NATO will not abandon the Afghan people. We have agreed an enduring partnership and we will live up to it.

Finally, we will discuss developments in Kosovo. We have seen sharp reminders of how quickly tensions can arise and how important NATO's mission remains.
KFOR is there to maintain a safe and secure environment for all the people of Kosovo regardless of their ethnicity. And we will continue to do so firmly, carefully and impartially, in full compliance with our United Nations mandate.

That is what our troops have been doing for the last 12 years at considerable risk to their own safety. NATO forces will always use the minimum force necessary, but they have the right to self-defence. That is what they did on the 27th of September.

So I urge all parties to avoid unilateral actions and inflammatory statements. I urge everyone to put their efforts into dialogue, not confrontation. Because all the people of Kosovo have an interest in a secure and stable future, and NATO supports the aspirations of the whole region towards integration in the Euro-Atlantic family.

Le débat portera ensuite sur les capacités; ce que l'OTAN doit pouvoir faire demain. Et ce que nous devons faire pour qu'elle y parvienne.

En cette période d'austérité, cela peut paraître irréaliste. Certains critiques diront: "Nous dépensons déjà beaucoup pour la défense, pourquoi dépenser davantage?" Laissez-moi souligner qu'il ne s'agit pas de dépenser davantage, mais de dépenser mieux pour obtenir davantage.

Mon message est clair. Améliorer nos capacités n'est pas seulement nécessaire. C'est vital. Nous devons dépenser sur les priorités et dépenser ensemble en finançant des projets qui amélioreront notre sécurité à tous. La solidarité pour la sécurité, voilà ce que j'appelle la "défense intelligente" ou "smart defence". Nos opérations en Libye et en Afghanistan ont montré les domaines où les alliés doivent continuer d'améliorer l'accès à des capacités comme les drones, le renseignement et le ravitaillement en vol. Nous ne pouvons pas compter sur un seul allié pour fournir ces moyens.

We are considering a wide range of projects. Some can keep our soldiers safer, for instance, vehicles that detect and clear roadside bombs. Some can make our operations more efficient, for instance, pooling maritime patrol aircraft. All can make better use of the resources that we have.

There are many different examples, but the bottom line is this: no capability, no operation. If we want NATO to remain credible we have to be able to act, and if we want to be able to act, we have to keep and acquire the capabilities to act.

I will be encouraging Ministers to identify projects their nations would be willing to lead in the coming months. And I will ask them all for their commitment to making these projects a reality as we head towards our Chicago Summit.

One excellent example is missile defence. Poland, Romania and Turkey have already agreed to host key elements of this system, and I expect other contributions soon. Step by step NATO's territorial missile defence is becoming a reality, and I expect that in Chicago we will declare an interim operational capability.

So this Defence Ministers' meeting will indeed be a milestone on the road to Chicago Summit, which will reinforce NATO's status as the indispensable Alliance.
And with that I am happy to take your questions.

OANA LUNGESCU: We'll start with DPA here.

Q: Thank you, Alvise Armellini from the German Press Agency, DPA. Secretary General, on Libya, there were reports over the weekend that the ministerial meeting might consider ending the missions. Could you comment on this? Perhaps also say if not a complete end of mission you might want to decide a significant reduction in the operations that you conduct in Libya?

And on smart defence, can you may be more specific? Is there any concrete deliverables that you expect from the ministerial? For example, something on the AGS program, a wider sharing of the costs of this program between the nations? Thank you.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: First, on the Libya operation. Yes, we will discuss the Libya operation, but I don't expect any decision on the termination of the operation. We are... I would say, we are pretty close to the end of this operation, but, as you know, we have decided to extend the operation by up to 90 days.

However, we will review the operation on a regular basis so we stand ready to terminate it as soon as the situation allows. On the one hand we have declared that we are ready to continue our operation as long as it takes to make sure that we fully implement the United Nations mandate to protect the civilian population against any attack, and there are still attacks, against the civilian population. This is the reason why we continue our operation.

But on the other hand, we will not continue for one single day more than necessary. So we stand ready to terminate the operation as soon as the situation allows, but I wouldn't expect that decision to be taken during the Defence Ministers' meeting. We will make that decision based on a comprehensive military assessment and in close coordination with the United Nations and the new authorities in Libya.

As far as smart defence is concerned, at the Defence Ministers' meeting we will discuss a report from our Allied Command Transformation. A task force has prepared a report with a number of concrete proposals as to how allies can cooperate on acquiring military capabilities as well as conducting running operations like training, logistics, maintenance of military equipment.

So we will discuss a range of very concrete proposals and decide to continue that work with a view to the upcoming defence ministerial in February and later the Summit in May.

So we will not make concrete decisions on concrete projects at this meeting, but we will ensure that work can continue with a view to the Summit in May.

OANA LUNGESCU: AP.

Q: Yes, Secretary General, over the past couple of days there's been a spat between Afghanistan and Pakistan over the role of the Haqqani Network in the attack on former President Rabbani. Does NATO have any information about who actually killed Rabbani?

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: No, we don't have any information. But let me stress that it's obvious that the Haqqani Network constitutes a threat, both to the Afghan people and to our troops in Afghanistan. And we encourage the Pakistani government and the Pakistani military to deal with the safe havens in the border region, because it's obvious that there is a cross-border traffic that makes it possible for the Haqqani Network and probably also other terrorist networks to operate in Afghanistan, constituting a clear threat to our troops and to the Afghan people, and then go back to safe havens in Pakistan.

It is a matter of common concern, and we need a positive engagement of Pakistan to address this issue. In general we need a positive partnership with Pakistan.

OANA LUNGESCU: AFP.

Q: Une question en français. Que peut faire l'OTAN pour éviter la dissémination d'armes et de munitions en Libye? Et est-ce que vous confirmez des chiffres faisant état de plus de 10 000 missiles sol-air qui auraient été perdus en Libye?

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: Hum, je ne fais des commentaires sur des questions de renseignement particulier. Mais en règle générale, toute arme qui se retrouve entre les mains de personnes mal intentionnées constitue un problème. C'est évident. Et cette question relève avant tout du Conseil national de transition, comme l'indique clairement la résolution 2009 du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, le Conseil national de transition doit s'assurer que les armes sont sécurisées, contrôlé ou détruites de manière appropriée. Et il devrait s'efforcer d'ouvrir le pays aux inspecteurs du régime de vérification internationale pour contribuer à cet effort.

Comme vous le savez, le mandat de l'OTAN est de protéger la population civile libyenne. Mais les alliés sont en contact avec le Conseil national de transition pour traiter cette question. Et ils suivent de près l'évolution de la situation.

OANA LUNGESCU: Reuters.

Q: Yes, David Brunnstrom from Reuters. Secretary General, I was wondering if you could comment about the current debate in the United States about budgets and the need to trim spending, which has raised the possibility, at least, of perhaps significant reductions in U.S. force levels in Europe in the future.

Is that something that is going to be discussed this week at all? And how much of a concern is it to you? Specifically, you mentioned missile defence, one of the areas which people who want to see cuts have been looking at is missile defence and the other is the tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and the whole programs to refurbish those. How much of a concern is this debate for NATO and what are the consequences if there should be significant reductions in troop levels?

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: First of all, let me stress that the U.S. commitment to European and North Atlantic security remains as strong as ever. And long ago the U.S. announced its plan for future troop presence in Europe; plans that were welcomed by allies.

And, in fact, I consider the decision to develop a NATO-based missile defence system a clear testament to a general commitment within our Alliance to our common security. The fact is that the United States provides an input to the NATO-based missile defence system, namely the American missile defence system. European allies provide input. Some of them have already announced input. Further announcement can be expected in the coming month. So all in all, I consider missile defence a very, very strong signal, and more than that, a strong commitment to our Alliance.

But let me add to this, that in general, of course, we will discuss resources and capabilities at this Defence Ministers' meeting. I have put it on the agenda because all Defence Ministers are faced with the challenge that they are forced to make deep cuts on their defence budgets, and we have to find ways and means to acquire the necessary capabilities in the coming years, and this is the reason why I have launched the concept smart defence.

Q: Nick Fiorenza, Defence Technology International. I haven't heard the term transformation used recently. I mean, you didn't mention it in the speech on Friday and you didn't mention it today. Has the concept of transformation, has that been replaced by smart defence, and if so, it seems to me as if it's only one element? I mean, a couple of years ago you mentioned eight points in the transformation agenda, so first of all, has smart defence replaced transformation?

And second, the eighth point of your transformation agenda a couple of years ago was Alliance reform. I mean, Headquarters or Military Headquarters at least, seemed to be being reduced, but I understand there are certain problems with the actual NATO Headquarters here, the reform of this Headquarters.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: First of all, let me stress that we have no problems at this Headquarters. And actually I have launched reforms of this Headquarters as well. We are in the process of reforming this Headquarters and further reforms will follow.

But more broadly, transformation is actually an integrated part of smart defence. We need to transform our armed forces in the direction of more flexibility and more mobility and that's part of the smart defence agenda. And at the upcoming Defence Ministers' meeting we will discuss not only how we ensure necessary resources to acquire necessary military capabilities, how to spend money more efficiently, but also how to ensure that input is followed by appropriate output.

So and that's actually the essence of transformation. So it's still on the agenda as an integrated part of smart defence.

OANA LUNGESCU: Chinese News Agency.

Q: Mr. Secretary General, it is reported that 10,000 missiles were lost in Libya? Do you have any detailed information on that? And what does NATO plan to do to lessen the possible damage?

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: Well, first of all, we do not comment on specific intelligence matters, but of course, in general, it is a matter of concern if stockpiles of weapons are not appropriately controlled and monitored.

But first of all, this is a responsibility for the new authorities in Libya, for the National Transitional Council. And according to the UN Security Council Resolution 2009, it is the responsibility of the National Transitional Council to ensure that stocks of weapons in Libya are appropriately controlled and ensured.

As you know, NATO has no troops on the ground in Libya. We conduct our operations from air... from the air and at sea, but individual allies are in contact with the National Transitional Council to ensure that they address this issue effectively.

OANA LUNGESCU: Beta News Agency from Serbia.

Q: Yes, (inaudible...), Beta News Agency. On Kosovo, if I may, Secretary General. First question, you said that NATO will... KFOR will use always minimum force, but also right to self-defence. The president of Serbia Tadić stated that he talked to you, he asked special investigation on the violence on the crossings in Northern Kosovo, invoking the fact that in (inaudible...) it's a hospital, live ammunition was extracted from the wounded Serbs who were shot by KFOR. So is it also that self-defence needed, that was needed really, to shoot with live ammunition, live bullets, not only rubber bullets?

And the second question, do you think that KFOR can... would continue to be some kind of de facto police on the border, because now on the crossings the situation is tense, is not as bad, but not there is no more violence. Normally that must be the role of police; EULEX or Kosovo police. Thank you.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: First of all, KFOR troops acted clearly in self-defence. I have received detailed information and I have full confidence in our commanders, our troops and the way they have acted. In general, I think they have really done a lot during recent months to calm down the situation and keeping a status neutral and impartial way of handling the situation.

And I would like to stress that. It is important for us; that we are there to protect all people in Kosovo.

According to our mandate, we are there to maintain a safe and secure environment and ensure the freedom of movement. In that respect we assist EULEX and we have an agreement that the point of departure is that KFOR is only what we call third responder. First responder is Kosovo police. Second responder EULEX, and KFOR acts as, so to speak, a back-up as the third responder.

During a crisis like the one we have seen KFOR... it has been necessary for KFOR to take action and actually act as a first responder. But we want, as soon as possible, to return to a more normal situation. So it's not our ambition to be the first responder. That's for other authorities. But of course we will stay and maintain a safe and secure environment.
Q: (Inaudible...) investigations. Investigation or situation...

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: I don't see a need for further investigation. I have received information. I have spoken with President Tadić. I have offered the Serbs information through the usual military channels.

OANA LUNGESCU: FT Deutschland.

Q: Klaus Hecking, FT Deutschland. Sir, two questions on smart defence. The first question is, you know, smart defence touches national serenity and national... these questions always tend to be very difficult, as you know from your time as Danish Prime Minister. Would you be happy if in Chicago at the Summit if the heads of the government, if they at least agreed on one, let's say, showcase project, or would there have to be more?

And the second question, who would have the command of what these common capabilities? Would it be common NATO capability under the command of the SACEUR, for example, or would it be, I don't know, under national command and then somehow being distributed or whatever? Thanks.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: Yes, of course, as far as the command structure is concerned it's very much dependent on how each arrangement is organized, so to speak. If we have a 28 arrangement, so to speak, if it's common funded, it's really a common NATO project then there's no doubt it will, of course, follow the usual chain of command.

You may have a multinational project, where a number of countries pool and share resources in order to acquire a specific capability. And then, of course, it will be based on a Memorandum of Understanding or another document how exactly the command structure will be organized.

But if such a capability is offered to NATO during a NATO operation, then, of course, it will be a part of the NATO command structure.

So I think basically as long as you are speaking about capabilities at the disposal of NATO during operations then there's no doubt it will be handled within the NATO command structure.

As far as your first question is concerned, yes, you're right that if we embark on specialization where not all allies necessarily have all capabilities at their disposal, then it may touch upon the question of national... maybe not national sovereignty, but at least it raises a number of questions. And we should realize that it is a specific challenge to address this.

But having said that I think the economic realities will move this agenda forward, because in the future it will simply not be possible from an economic point of view for all allies to have all military assets at their disposal. The only way forward is to cooperate and specialize.

It's not a handover of sovereignty. Let me stress that when it comes to defence and security policy I think nations will safeguard their national sovereignty for many good reasons. But it is about cooperation. It's about helping each other. And I think that should be possible within an Alliance of friends that we can help each other without considering it giving up national sovereignty.

Q: So just a quick follow-up.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: Yes.

Q: So a symbolic gesture as to say we (inaudible...)...

OANA LUNGESCU: You have to wait, Klaus.

Q: Sorry. So a symbolic gesture such as if the Heads of Government said at Chicago, okay, we will agree at least to build up one common capability, might it be, I don’t know, drones or whatever, that would make you happy already because that would be a start.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: Yes, but actually we are preparing a package of concrete proposals. I don't know yet whether we can reach an agreement, but that's at least the process we have initiated. The first start has been a report from our Allied Command Transformation. As I mentioned, a task force has elaborated in a report with a number of very concrete proposals.

Building on that we will try to identify further projects that could be elements in a comprehensive package to be endorsed at the NATO Summit in Chicago.
And to further facilitate that process, I have asked the Allied Commander Transformation, General Abrial, the French general, Abrial, together with our Deputy Secretary General Bisogniero, act as special envoys. They will engage with capitals in allied nations from now until the NATO Summit in Chicago, discuss with our allies how we can develop such multinational projects.

So I will not hide the fact that it is a challenging mission, but personally I do believe that it is the only way forward if we are to acquire the necessary capabilities in the future. Not only during a period of economic austerity, but also taking into account that there is a clear tendency that prices of, in particular, sophisticated military equipment, rise more rapidly than inflation and our GDP.

So taking all that into considering we have to find new ways and means to acquire, in particular, expensive military equipment in the coming years.
OANA LUNGESCU: One final question to Marisa from ANSA.

Q: Yes, hi. Marisa Ostolani, from ANSA Italian News Agency. If I understood correctly, it seems that you are pretty cold about the letter that the five member states, including Italy, but not only, France, Germany, Spain and Poland, wrote just three weeks ago proposing some project common for a common defence. That is true, my feeling that you are opposed to this initiative? And can you explain why exactly? What is the main reason that you are not so... well, so easy about this project? Thanks.

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: First of all, let me stress that I am not going to interfere whatsoever with EU business. It's for the EU to make such decisions. But I have been asked whether I think we need new Headquarters in Europe and I don't think it can be a big surprise that taking into account that we are reforming NATO with the aim to reduce Headquarters, to reduce the number of Headquarters, to reduce the number of posts within Headquarters, that my answer when I'm asked is that I don't think we need more Headquarters.

And then I have added, I think we need more hardware. And that's exactly my point, speaking about smart defence. That we need to find ways and means to use our sparse resources better in the coming years, to acquire necessary military capabilities.

And on a final note, our mission in... our operation in Libya has been a great, great success. But it has also revealed that we need some critical military capabilities, in particular the European allies when it comes to intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, air-to-air refuelling. It's not a secret. It's obvious. Still, it was, and it is, a great success, but it has also been a lesson learned on the capability side.

So in the coming years we have to focus investment on acquiring these necessary assets, and it is in that context that I stated that I think it's more necessary to spend sparse resources on acquiring these assets than building new Headquarters and new bureaucracies.

Thank you.

OANA LUNGESCU: Thank you very much. Hope to see you all on Wednesday at the Defence Ministers' meeting. Thank you.