|
| Updated: 02-Apr-2004 | NATO Speeches |
| NATO
HQ
2 Apr. 2004 |
Joint Press Conference by
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
de Hoop Scheffer: Ladies and gentlemen, let me first of all tell you that you have seen this morning how efficient the 26 NATO Allies can operate, because we finished our ceremonial North Atlantic Council early. It is my great pleasure to be here in the midst of seven new Foreign Ministers of countries who last Monday formally, and today again, I can say, joined this unique Alliance. And, if you would ask me, and ask them, I think, "What is this all about, NATO?", why we are so pleased, and why we're saying this is a historic day, it is first of all because this is a unique Alliance, but secondly, of course, because it is an Alliance of solidarity, it is an Alliance of sharing values, it is an Alliance about collective security. It is an Alliance which has, over the decades, defended the values which, for many of us having grown up and born in a certain part of Europe, were so normal and so automatic, but in the countries these Foreign Ministers represent were not automatic at all. They had to fight for them. They had permanently to fight for them. And this is why this is such a great day, that they are now standing here and take their places at the table this afternoon in the Foreign Ministers' meeting as full members of the Alliance, defending those same values they now enjoy in their own countries, and I think this is a notion which may never been... ever been underestimated for the struggle this was, for the fight it was. We rejoice. We are glad. We are happy. We are a 26-nation alliance, and you know the NATO door is open because there are more countries aspiring and have the ambition to share those same values in the Atlantic Alliance. And, if I say we defend the values, and we do that together, then you know we don't do that anymore only at our borders. We do that from time to time in faraway places like, at the moment, Afghanistan, where so many of these nations actively participate already in NATO operations, showing their solidarity, sending their military people abroad, the men and women in uniform to whom we owe so much. We had an emotional flag-raising ceremony. We had an emotional but festive North Atlantic Council to have these seven countries, represented at this moment by these Foreign Ministers, in our midst. It is a day of joy. It is a privilege, may I say, to be Secretary General of an organization, this unique organization defending these values, and may I once again say welcome, welcome, welcome to all of you. Questions and answers de Hoop Scheffer: Ladies and gentlemen, this is now the time for you to come in with your comments and questions, of course addressed to the Foreign Ministers. Q: Question for some of the Ministers if they can answer me, the Alliance NATO is quite different from that one you wanted to join 15 or 10 years ago. Do you agree with me that from the NATO is a defence... collective defence organization it's transforming to the worldwide security organization and it's maybe already time to change also the name of the organization from North Atlantic Organization to another name don't you think so? Eduard Kukan (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic): He's from Slovakia so I would volunteer to answer it. Yes the Alliance has changed, of course, we are joining the Alliance which is quite different from the time when it was established and from the time let's say fifteen years ago. The world has changed. Many issues have changed so I think it's only natural that the Alliance is also changing in order to face the new challenges. To face the new threats and to face the new situation in the world. It is quite natural and I think that the fact that there is a new Alliance is perfectly okay, we are fully aware of what kind of Alliance we are joining in and we are ready to assume all the responsibility which comes from the membership. As far as the name of the Alliance is concerned I think that decision cannot be taken that hastily, not at this press conference (Laughter) Q: How do you plan to calm down Russia and how do you plan to react on the latest resolution of Russian Duma and convince Moscow that this enlargement is not of concern for Russia? de Hoop Scheffer: Let me start by answering this, first of all of course, we're very happy that Foreign Minister Lavrov will come to this NATO buildings, this NATO Headquarters late this afternoon when we'll have the first NATO-Russia Council... 27... 26 NATO nations and the Russian Federation. We need a constructive partnership. I think it's in the interest of NATO and it's in the interest of Russia as well to have this good partnership where discuss all forms of practical cooperation and I think the NATO-Russia Council has done very well over the past years. We discuss subjects on which we agree but we also discuss the more difficult subjects on which we not immediately might agree. But this is what the NATO-Russia Council is for, so I think that we can with an enlarged NATO have the same good constructive partnership with the Russian Federation as we have had over the past years. Minister Lavrov is coming here, I as Secretary General will go to Moscow very soon. We'll have intensive contacts and discuss all possible subjects. Q: Secretary Generation, NATO once more failed to arrest Radovan Karadzic. Is NATO going to leave Bosnia without completing that mission and how you are responding to the critics of the Serbs politicians over excessive power by SFOR? de Hoop Scheffer: Well the first part of your question... to the first part of your question, my answer is that they can perhaps, for a moment, keep hiding but they cannot hide and they cannot run forever and you see over the past weeks - and I would of course have liked and have preferred this operation to be a success - that everybody is doing everything he or she can to get them because I think it's important for the region that they would go where they should be which is to The Hague, to the International Tribunal. The second part of your question. It is important for all countries of the region to cooperate with the Tribunal that is certainly of course the ambition not only of NATO but also of the European Union and other nations, also NATO nations. So this is the key I think, we'll go on because they should not be on the run. They should be in the Tribunal in The Hague and it is of course a clear ambition to make that happen as soon as possible. Q: Just in one month's time these countries joining the European Union as well, so my question would be for the ministers are you ready to take a lead being in the European Union to find a solution for the... in the relationship between European security and defence policy and NATO? And Mr. Secretary General will you support these efforts? Antanas Valionis (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania): Thank you for your question. Of course I think the Lithuanian position was and is very clear. We are in favour of a very united Europe. Strong transatlantic link and a very strong NATO. That's why we are in NATO and we understand that common foreign and defence policy is needed for Europe but in any case this politic is, I think, mustn't duplicate activities and duties of NATO and it think the solution we are looking for will be found. Kristiina Ojuland (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia): I think Antanas already said most important things, but it's clear that if we want stronger and more capable NATO then we in Europe must also make our defence forces more capable and much more relevant to today's security challenges and threats. Therefore if we cooperate closer within the European Union in order to make our defence capabilities or if we want to bring our defence capabilities on a better situation then I think those two memberships in these organizations are not in contradiction. So... and the main task at least from the part of Estonia we always said is not really to create parallel structures which will not strengthen Alliance... which will not strengthen NATO but rather weaken that. Therefore I would say that the close cooperation in the European Union in the defence field in the recent capacities is our common aim and purpose and that we are going to that as members of the European Union. Rihards Piks, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Latvia: And as my dear colleagues said, but I just can add, because I have had the privilege to work in EU Convention especially in defence working group and long time we discuss about capability, about capacity of European Union defence and now just... that is how to say, raising up that possibility. Nowadays I think the umbrella of NATO is very important for all European Union countries and in the future as my colleagues said the main is not to duplicate, to share responsibilities. Thank you. Q: Can we assume that all your nations favour deeper involvement in Iraq on behalf of NATO? Mircea Geoana (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania): A tough one for me... a tough question for me. Thank you. There are many disputes over the Atlantic on how the military intervention in Iraq started. I think all of our countries present here, supported or are now part of such an operation. I think the time has come for us on both sides of the Atlantic to put these divisions aside and I think we have a fundamental interest as in the West - Europeans and North Americans together - to have Iraq becoming, as soon as possible, a self-governed democratic more prosperous and gradually more stable nation. We have troops in Iraq, we have more than 700 troops in two or three places with the British and the Italians and also the Polish and we've decided to maintain our participation in Iraq also in the future. The next few weeks and the next months will be decisive for the way in which we can really handle power to the Iraqi authorities. Romania is a member of the security council of the UN and we have the presidency of the council in the very month of July when one or more resolutions will be politically and legally needed to assure this transfer and I can say, I think on behalf of my country but I think also on behalf of my colleagues if I can do so, that all of us... the countries that have suffered under communist dictatorship that they are not only a strategic necessity to stabilize Iraq for the sake of a broader region but they also have the moral obligation to assist this nation that has suffered a similar or even worse dictatorship than the one we had under Causescu. Solomon Passy (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria): Well I strongly support what my Romanian colleague and neighbour said. We are participating in Iraq and we are supporting the international efforts. Indeed we are for much stronger international involvement in Iraq. We would support stronger NATO commitment in Iraq. We would support stronger UN commitment in Iraq. That's why we shall be happy to see new resolution of the security council and I hope that our Romanian colleagues will do a very good job there. Bulgaria also has a contingent, 500 troops, in Iraq and to understand how important it is for the international community to get committed there. Also my country is at this moment chairing an office of OIC and in this capacity we are urging the OIC member states to have some greater involvement in the area in which OIC has expertise namely policing, organizing collections, building democratic institutions. Iraq needs our help. Eduard Kukan (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic): The short version of my answer to your question on behalf of Slovakia is yes sir. Q: Can an Alliance with 26 members and no clear threat as there was during the cold war really continue with the decision making processes that you have had in the past? i.e. making every decision by consensus isn't it inevitable that there will be camps, groups developing in NATO, perhaps along the lines as Donald Rumsfeld has suggested an old NATO, an old Europe and a new Europe. I mean isn't it the new European voice in the Alliance that is being strengthened today? de Hoop Scheffer: There was, there is and there will be one Alliance. Let me first of all that I have a bit of a different approach to the first lines of your question where you more or less indicate that there are no threats anymore. My rhetorical counter question would be "Why is NATO under UN umbrella so heavily involved in Afghanistan?", "Why are we already so long and so successful as far Bosnia-Herzegovina is concerned and are we staying in Kosovo in the Balkans?", "Why are NATO ships preventing terrorism or the transport of weapons of mass destruction in the Mediterranean?" In other words, I mean of course the Alliance is transforming fundamentally but that is just because the threat picture and the new threats... the threat has so fundamentally changed. We are in partnership with the Russian Federation. These Ministers are much better able to judge what that old threat was like, the threat NATO was facing but the threat under they were also in a different manner. I just said it in my introduction. To come back to the heart of your question, definitely, NATO also at 26 will very well be able to operate on the basis of consensus. The consensus principle in the history of the Alliance has never been the stumbling block. Of course, the Alliance has had its differences of opinion. Minister Geoana was referring to last year, every so many years of course there is an issue which divides allies, but what is the uniqueness of NATO is that we have this political forum, this unique political forum here, to discuss these things with each other and we'll use it and we'll use it on the basis of consensus. Dimitrij Rupel (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia): ...and for me and for Slovenia I would like to add just a couple of words. Now I think that consensus was the starting point. It's not something that we have to achieve, it is something that we have started from. And I don't see any problem with consensus among ourselves in the group that is working together here. Second, regarding the threats, Slovenia is as you know not so far from an area, a region which is disturbed by threats by some serious conflicting situations and I've been recently in Pristina, I've been recently in Belgrade and I can tell you that certainly NATO, KFOR in that case, is still needed and I think that there are great expectations in the region regarding the future role of NATO. Thank you. Kristiina Ojuland (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia): ...very shortly have a say just a little about this. Because NATO is an organization of shared values and I think this is exactly the common ground for consensus as well and even if the threat is changing, if the enemy is changing I believe that the values remain. Thank you. Q: Mr. Secretary General I want to ask you, Bulgaria is already involved in some NATO operations but what will be Bulgaria's new responsibilities after it became a member... NATO member state and my second question is what more reforms have to be done in Bulgaria? Thank you. de Hoop Scheffer: Bulgaria's responsibilities will be the same as of all the other 25 allies. We're all sharing as Minister Ojuland just said. We keep sharing those same values so Bulgaria is not different from all the other allies of the Atlantic Alliance and as far as the second part of your question is concerned like very single ally be it just recently... having just acceded to the Treaty or all the 19 allies which were members of the Alliance, it's a matter of going on restructuring their armed forces to make them ready and able to respond to the modern threats we discussed just a minute ago which means less focus and emphasis on territorial defence, making armed forces more usable, more easily deployable but again here Bulgaria... because you are from Bulgaria, for Bulgaria I could mention any other NATO ally. Q: A question for the Secretary General and our Romanian Minister. If you might consider Transdniestria region as a second Kaliningrad and what are you going to do about this heavily armed and uncontrolled area? Thank you. Mircea Geoana (Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania): Being the closest new NATO ally to Transdniestria, this is a subject of concern and we can really find some similarities between what's happened in Kaliningrad and Transdniestria and some other hot spots in the Caucasus. I do believe that the fact that NATO is enlarging also with Romania will have a positive influence on the evolutions in the Republic of Moldova and an encouragement on a settlement of this frozen conflict which is I think of concern for Romania and I think now also for the Alliance. There is a current ongoing negotiation for a solution. We had an impasse as the OSCE Ministerial when Jaap was in his former incarnation. I'm convinced that with political will and engaging also our Russian colleagues we could eventually have a breakthrough. I can tell you one thing that Romania will not hesitate to bring to the forefront of our Alliance and also for European Union and the OSCE this very complicated and unfortunately prolonged and protracted frozen conflict which is affecting European and international security. Q: I really don't mind two answers to this question. Given that there's been great calls on both sides of the Atlantic that Europeans increasingly should take on more of their defence responsibilities especially in Europe and now that NATO's expanded by seven new members, what do any of you think and would you support a radical reduction of U.S. troops in Europe? Solomon Passy (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria): Well I cannot speak about the reduction because just like other countries Bulgaria also offered to host some of the American troops after their redeployment but obviously the new security needs are different. We do not need so many troops in Europe. Moreover we need troops at the edge of the borders of the Alliance. The terroristic attacks are coming from outside, mainly from outside the Alliance, and that's why in order to protect ourselves we need our troops in the right place.
|
|||||
