NATO Headquarters June 14, 1996

Press Briefing by Assistant Secretary Frank Kramer Assistant Secretary Ash Carter Ambassador Robert E. Hunter MR. BACON: Well, we recycled our team from yesterday to talk about the morning meetings which for the American side began ... and I must say a number of other Ministers including the Ministers from Great Britain, Italy, Denmark, and several other countries, met with the Partnership for Peace nations that are in the planning and review process here, and then there was a morning session, the 16-plus-1 with Minister Grachev and now the Partners are meeting with the NATO Ministers. So Frank Kramer, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, will start out talking about the breakfast, and then Ashton Carter, the Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy, will talk about the 16-plus-1. Ambassador Robert Hunter is also here to augment with some account of what's been going on with the Partnership meeting now. And we believe that although this is not certain, that there may be a press availability with Secretary Perry and Minister Grachev after their bilateral meeting; probably about 1330. It's still not definite, and it will probably be out in the front lobby if it occurs. Frank. MR. KRAMER: Good morning. Let me talk a little bit about the Partnership for Peace in general, and then Ash will cover the 16-plus-1. I think the first thing that is to be noted is that PFP is a real program. It's a key element of European security. It has substance. It's constructive. It's tangible. The fact is that the NATO ministers are spending a full day on it just as they spent on traditional NATO business. It's had consequences in improved relations, for example between the Romanians and the Hungarians. It's had consequences like the establishment of the BALTBAT, and these are the kinds of things that we talked about this morning. One of the focuses was the increased involvement of the Partners with NATO, and to continue that increased involvment and to continue the institutionalization of these countries in their relationships with the West. The second important aspect is the practical cooperation in Bosnia. The fact that we have done Partnership for Peace with all these countries, allowed, I believe it's a dozen -- but in any event its approximately a dozen of the countries, actually to be participating in Bosnia. We're doing peacekeeping together and Bosnia is both a peacekeeping operation in and of itself, and it's an operation that allows for greater future cooperation with all these countries and with the NATO countries. Some of the specific points that were discussed this morning were the need for greater interoperability between the countries. The desire to undertake non-Article 5 contingency planning to do operations like Bosnia with the Partners, but to do them even better. To do force planning with the Partners so that we know what forces would be available for these kinds of operations. To work on regional cooperation efforts like the BALTBAT. The Poles and the Ukrainians, for example, are organizing a peacekeeping battalion. The Partnership for Peace will also help the countries in their defense planning and procurement efforts, in civilian control of the military and air defense aspects in English language training. Some of the things that will happen in the future, and again were all discussed, was that Hungary offered to do a lessons-learned conference on the lessons from IFOR in October in Budapest, and I'm quite certain that that will occur. As many of you know Albania, a month or so ago, hosted a South Balkans Defense Ministerial, and Bulgaria will do a second. Poland is not only doing a peacekeeping battalion with the Ukraine, but it's also organizing one with Lithuania. And of course there were a variety of discussions with respect to Russia. And let me turn to Ash and let him pick up on those. MR. CARTER: Well, thank you Frank and good morning. Minister Grachev of Russia met with the NATO Defense Ministers in a so called 16-plus-1 format this morning. One of the things Minister Grachev noted was that he was first hosted here at NATO Headquarters by Secretary General Wörner, that is, the Secretary General -- twice removed from today's Secretary General, which is indicative of the way in which meetings of this kind have now become normal and routine. And several of them have occurred. This particular one really focused on areas of NATO-Russia cooperation in three categories.

First, and centrally, the real world operational experience of NATO - Russia cooperation in the Bosnian IFOR, and all the Ministers including Minister Grachev and Secretary Perry testified to the success of that operation in both military and political terms and discussed and agreed that this being such a success it should be consolidated, followed-up on, indeed institutionalized. And specifically, they discussed the plans which the Foreign Ministers also discussed last week to make permanent a NATO military representation at SHAPE. Many of you are familiar with General Shevtzov, who has served as General Joulwan's Deputy for Russian Forces. Shevtzov served as General Joulwan's, SACEUR's, Deputy for Russian Forces for the IFOR operation. General Shevtsov has been working at SHAPE in an office down the hall from General Joulwan's, and what was discussed and agreed was that there should continue to be, even after IFOR, a senior Russian military presence at SHAPE, and indeed not only at SHAPE but at other echelons of the NATO command structure -- and indeed, not just Russian officers resident in NATO's Headquarters. But reciprocally, NATO officers present in Moscow at the Russian General Staff. So, that's an important tangible way to consolidate and, if you like, make permanent and institutionalize the military cooperation spearheaded by IFOR. The second category of cooperation the Ministers discussed was Russian participation in the Partnership for Peace. I won't add anything to what Secretary Kramer said about that, except to note that we had last week an important instance of Partnership for Peace cooperation or exercising involving Russia, namely Peace Shield '96, a major exercise that took place in L'viv last week and included forces from the United States; of course Ukraine, the host country; also Poland; Russia and other countries from the region. So Russia is participating in the Partnership for Peace in many ways. The third category of cooperation discussed was NATO-Russia cooperation outside of the Partnership for Peace, a special relationship between NATO and Russia, and giving that substance and the topics discussed as appropriate for a deeper cooperation bilaterally, if you like, between Russia and NATO, we're countering proliferation, technology cooperation, and some other topics. So, those were the three categories of cooperation discussed at the meeting. Of course NATO enlargement was discussed as well -- there was nothing new in that discussion. Minister Grachev repeated the Russian concerns about NATO enlargement, with which you're all familiar, and the Ministers repeated points with which you're also familiar from NATO's point of view. Namely that enlargement benefits all of Europe and that the NATO that is opening its doors to new memberships is a new NATO, as yesterday's Ministerial testified. A new NATO that's adapting , and indeed, the Ministers invited Russia to part of the future adaptation to help shape the future of NATO. So those were the topics discussed at 16-plus- 1 this morning. HUNTER: In the PFP session, the major focus has been on IFOR and Partnership for Peace. I think they are a couple of remarkable things. It's a recognition by Partners of how their early experience here in this building, down at SHAPE and the Partnership Coordination Cell, and in everything else they've been doing with PFP enabled them to go successfully to Bosnia with us. And the rule that they already see -- the value they already see -- of taking that experience and playing back into Partnership for Peace. In fact, in the communique we have adopted a proposal for having an ongoing process of capturing the experience of IFOR for Partnership for Peace. This was actually a Hungarian proposal. We are now beginning to get the Partners taking responsibility for ensuring that this works. Just as Secretary Kramer indicated at the breakfast with these Ministers all of whom I think, except one when we ran out of time, spoke. They are now fully cognizant, I think, of how far we have come in two years with the Partnership of enabling these countries, irrespective of anything to do with enlargement, to be very much part of the NATO family. And they're beginning to understand the organic relationships that are being developed in this way. And the spirit in the room on that is, I think, really quite remarkable. Q: I'd like to ask Ash, on the cooperation on the NATO offices and the Russian General Staff Offices, and their permanent presence at SHAPE and possibly at Naples and other areas, is that simply a proposal or is that concrete? Is that going to happen? Did they agree that this is going to happen? When will it happen? And did Russia in any way indicate that this kind of cooperation would be or might be slowed down if NATO expansion goes ahead? CARTER: No, that's not a proposal. That is an agreed concept. But it is still, however, a concept, and one of the things that General Joulwan is going to be doing with his Russian counterparts over the next couple weeks is working out exactly who goes where. And that's something for, of course, the military to work out themselves. But this is a proposition that is agreed, and so also, Minister Grachev agreed to host and welcome NATO officers in Moscow, which will make for an even thicker network of relationships.

Q: And did Russia in any way indicate this kind of cooperation might slow or stop if NATO expansion goes ahead? Or, in fact, did they say that, despite NATO, this will go ahead? CARTER: All of our discussion about cooperation this morning was of new things and more in the way of cooperation in the three categories I described. Q: Then there was no link drawn for NATO expansion on whether or not this would go ahead or be completed? CARTER: No, Minister Grachev has said what Russian officials have been saying for quite some time, namely, as I indicated earlier, that NATO enlargement is not something that Russia is comfortable with and something that Russia opposes, but for the time being, at least, Russia is willing to go forward with cooperation in these other three areas. HUNTER: Let me point out that the proposal to have Russians permanently at SHAPE was made in yesterday's communique, and the Russians accepted it today. Q: I'd like to follow up with Dr. Carter. I want to make sure I've got my history right. As I recall, the negotiations that went on at the outset of IFOR, I remember Grachev being very reluctant to indicate any connection between the Russian officers and NATO, but rather that it should be a connection between Russian officers and U.S. officers, with sort of an invisible barrier with NATO. So this seems not just a sort of extension of something, but really a leap, a significant difference from what we had at the outset. Or have I got my history wrong? CARTER: Well, General Shevtzov has been at SHAPE, which is a NATO headquarters. He's been a deputy to General Joulwan, who is SACEUR. Russian troops have been participating in a multinational division organized by NATO-IFOR, and what we're talking about today is a NATO-Russia relationship, at the military staff level. So this would not only be between American NATO officers and Russian officers, it will be between Russian officers and NATO officers at various echelons who might or might not be Americans, and, in many cases, will not be Americans. HUNTER: Shevtzov and his team have been co-located at SHAPE with the Partners who took part in the Partnership Coordination Cell. CARTER: The key point is the Partners. Q: I just wanted to clarify this a little bit more, regarding the presence of a NATO officer on the Russian General Staff. Who made that proposal? When was it accepted? And at what rank officer would that be? CARTER: We made that proposal. It was accepted by Minister Grachev, and once again, as in the former case, who and when and where remains to be worked out by the military staffs. Q: Is that also in the communique? CARTER: No. This is a new development this morning at the 16-plus-1 meeting. Q: By "we" do you mean the Americans, all NATO-- CARTER: The United States. Q: Brooks Tigner, Defense News. I'd like to come back to this idea of strengthening Partnership for Peace between Russia and NATO. Russia's been officially a member of Partnership for Peace for over a year. It's done nothing with its program. So my question is, is this really a question for Russia to decide, to boost its -- to really begin participating in Partnership for Peace? Or does it fall to NATO to come up with some new proposals? CARTER: The premise of your question is not correct, which is that Russia has done nothing in the Partnership for Peace over the last year. Russia has participated in a number of exercises. I don't know the number, but quite a number of exercises -- Partnership for Peace exercises over the last year. Most recently, as I already noted, just last week, fairly substantial exercises. Q: The Partnership for Peace encompasses far more than just military to military exercises. CARTER: That is correct, but Russia has participated in a number of activities of the Partnership for Peace. I can get you a roster of them. Clearly, we want to intensify Russia's role in the Partnership for Peace. Secretary Perry's frequently referred to wishing Russia to take a leading role in the Partnership for Peace. We wish they'd do more. But it's not correct to say they haven't been doing anything at all. HUNTER: The technical answer to your question, Brooks, is that individual members of the Partnership make their proposal to NATO and we then negotiate it. In reality, what happens is there is a dialogue. We have a dialogue with the Russians.

Q: I'm sorry, two questions. First of all, you said that you've invited Russia to help you to form the structures. I really didn't understand what you actually meant by saying that you invited Russia to help you. And second, did you have a chance to mention that you (inaudible) had with enlargement and the fact that there had been (inaudible) reaction in other countries? CARTER: It was made clear by almost all the ministers who were speaking this morning that NATO enlargement was going forward -- not going faster, not going slower -- so that was understood very clearly on all sides. The point about inviting Russian views of the future of NATO is -- was inspired by meetings like this one, at 16-plus-1, at which Russia's views of the future of NATO are -- an opportunity is had by the NATO ministers to take into account Russian views as they plan the future of NATO. And they made that point to Minister Grachev, that they benefitted from his coming to meetings like this, and one of those benefits was that they were able to take Russian views into account as they shape NATO's future. HUNTER: But to pin it down, NATO takes NATO's decisions. Q: Thank you very much. Gyorgy Foris, Hungarian News Agency. Secretary Ashton just said that there wasn't any link between the cooperation object and the enlargement. On the other had, as far as we know, General Grachev during the meeting made it clear that cooperation could be easier with a non-enlarged NATO. Isn't it a direct indication that, according to the Russian approach, there is a kind of link and it could endanger the cooperation? And secondly, if I may, last week, Foreign Minister Primakov said clearly that don't move your military infrastructure -- structure -- closer to the Russian border. Have you touched that subject? And was it mentioned that what could it mean, exactly? Because the term itself -- military structure -- is quite large. CARTER: Well, I think that Russia has made it clear both that it opposes enlargement, and that it's prepared now to go forward with the forms of NATO cooperation I discussed. I can't speculate on whether that cooperation would go faster or slower in other circumstances, but I just repeat that Minister Grachev made the point that, for now, he is planning to expand his involvement with NATO in the three dimensions I described for you. Q: I'm Jacek Safuta with the Polish Press Agency. What's your response to Mr. Grachev's (inaudible) that PFP is [a] very reasonable alternative to enlargement? HUNTER: We consider Partnership for Peace a very reasonable effort by NATO, but we don't see it as an alternative to enlargement. We see them as complementary. BACON: Thank you very much.