Taormina, Italy 9 Feb. 2006

Questions and answers with NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Antonio Martino, Minister of Defence of Italy at the news conference following the informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers Event Informal meetings of NATO Defence Ministers Multimedia Audio file of the questions and answers (.MP3/6866kb) Q: Secretary General, (inaudible) from Reuters. The cartoons controversy has obviously increased tensions between the west and the Islamic world. Did Ministers discuss precautions or other pre-emptive actions that could be taken in the event that there is a repeat of the violence we've seen early this week in Afghanistan? De Hoop Scheffer: No they did not in this sense. But it's clear that what happened at the Meymaneh PRT has relevance. And it's of course an argument for NATO to look at our force posture, at force protection, not only that PRT, but elsewhere as well. I spoke twice by the way with President Karzai this week and you know the statement President Karzai has given showing the voice of moderation. But I can repeat that after the incidents, immediately after the incidents near the Meymaneh PRT, NATO acted as it should have acted. Good evening. Q: Good evening. Ingrid (inaudible) from the Spanish News Agency EFE. Spain has asked NATO to mediate with NAMSA to have an arrangement on the Yak-42 accident. Can I know what the response of NATO has been? De Hoop Scheffer: Yes I can tell you because I have tried to play a role in this, realizing how still this drama is working in Spain. I mean they still have the families, the loved ones of the victims. So what we have been able to do is that NAMSA will go into arbitration and I think this is important for the loved ones, the families of the victims. It's important for Spain and it's important for the aftermath of this major drama in Spain, which is making an impact I know until this very day. So I can bring the news that NAMSA will go into arbitration and that all NATO Allies support this. Q: Amir (inaudible) from the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Mr. Minister and Mr. Secretary General. Last week Mr. Minister you raised the suggestion that Israel be invited to NATO and one reason you mentioned was the Iranian threat. Did you raise this idea again here at the informal meeting? And Mr. Secretary General, once such an idea is on the table, what is your response to it? Martino: First of all let me say that of course I did not mean to imply that NATO can draft a new member. The precondition is that the country in question is interested in joining NATO and it's an absolutely necessary precondition. I made this statement to signify that NATO countries, which are all democracies, certainly attach great importance to the security of the state of Israel. The state of Israel is the only state in the world whose existence is called in doubt by others. The security of Israel is vital for all of us and in order to stress that point, I made that suggestion. But of course it's up to the Israelis themselves to decide if they want to apply or not. De Hoop Scheffer: Let me answer that question by saying that it is, for NATO, a virtual one, because the issue of Israeli membership is not on the table. Having said that, and echoing what Minister Martino was saying a moment ago, we have an important luncheon tomorrow because it will be the very first time that all the Mediterranean Dialogue partners, of course including Israel's Mr. Mofaz, will be represented together with the NATO partners. Israel is ambitious in the Mediterranean Dialogue. I think that's good; it's a plus. As I've been able to say in a speech in Israel almost half a year ago, the issue of membership is not on the NATO table. So in this respect, your question is a virtual one. Q: (Speaking in German) ... De Hoop Scheffer: (Speaking in German) ... Q: Is there a language you don't speak? De Hoop Scheffer: What I said was that it's important to have this dialogue. May I wish you and your countrymen all the success in the final of the African Cup tomorrow? Q: (Inaudible) from DPA, the German Press Agency. And I must say I'm very deeply impressed by Egyptian journalists talking in German with the Dutch Secretary General of NATO. My question is the expansion to the south is underway, but if I understand it correctly, Secretary Rumsfield, on his way to here, said that of course he expected NATO to be present in the east as well and he thought that this would be possible, if not this year, then next year. So how do you see the prospect of NATO expanding to the east as well and when do you think a decision on that subject will be taken? De Hoop Scheffer: On your last question I'm afraid I cannot be too specific. But on the first part of your question, it is clear that we are now seeing what we call "Phase 3" of the expansion of ISAF and there will be a Phase 4 absolutely. That is clear. That has always been in the cards. When that exactly will be, as I said, I do not know. You know... the Phase 3, you know what allies are now going to participate in Phase 3; Phase 4 is the southeast, of course on the basis of the U.S. presence mainly. So in that sense we have a Phase 4 in the sense that the U.S. are there. Let me add that the ISAF operation and Operation Enduring Freedom are and will be distinct operations, of course in synergy with each other, but will be distinct operations. It will certainly happen; about the when I can't be more specific. But I would say it should not take too long a time to have the Phase 4. But again, when, I cannot give you any details now. NATO Spokesman: Two more in order here and then (inaudible). Q: Constantine (inaudible) at the BBC World Service. Secretary General, Mr. Martino, what do you expect tomorrow from the NRC meeting? And specifically Mr. Scheffer, how would you comment on the continuing tension between Russia and Georgia, an aspirant and a country that is a partner? Martino: After you. De Hoop Scheffer: I know. I have a very polite friend in Antonio. (Laughter) De Hoop Scheffer: Let me answer you that what we are doing in the NRC, and it's also an informal NRC... like we're meeting informally at 26. We have no formal agenda. It is clear that we discuss NATO's operations and missions. It is also very well possible that we discuss other political subjects. I think the NRC is a council where it is of course not necessary that we have to agree on everything. We discussed in Brussels at ambassadorial level, we discussed, for instance, Georgia not that long ago. Georgia has an individual partnership action plan in NATO. You know all this. I do not exactly know what to expect, but any subject is free to be raised by Sergei Ivanov, our Russian colleague, or by NATO Ministers. And I think if the NRC would be only forum way to discuss subject on which you agree, it would not serve the right purpose. Let me say on the other hand that on the practical side of NATO-Russia co-operation, we are doing very well indeed. Let me stop here because tomorrow we have the NRC and afterwards I might be able to give you more. Martino: Very briefly I would first make an obvious point. If you compare today's situation and the relationship with Russia with what it was 25 years ago, you realize that we are light years ahead in a positive way. This does not mean that there are no differences between us. And I believe that in future NRCs, maybe we will engage in discussing exactly those issues where we disagree in order to make them more fruitful. Q: (Inaudible) the Associated Press. In the light of the recent events in Afghanistan that past few days, will NATO be considering a re-think of the deployment of Danish troops when it expands into the southern sector in the south? De Hoop Scheffer: No. No. No (inaudible). Q: Thank you. Q: German Public Radio. In referring to the description of Minister Martino's NATO as a security alliance, we all know those security contributions are not welcomed everywhere where NATO is present. So how does NATO try to cross the bridge between on the one hand, the attempt to de-escalate the situation on different places right now; on the other hand to enlarge its engagement, its contributions, that is not always welcomed as we know. So isn't it a contradiction somehow? De Hoop Scheffer: To be quite honest, I would start answering you that I do not exactly know where we are not welcome. I think all our operations and missions we are welcome. If I mention Darfur, the African Union has asked NATO to be of help. In Afghanistan, it was crystal clear at the London Conference, that the Afghan people, the large majority, is very supportive of NATO. The same is true in Kosovo. The Iraqi government is pressing us to expand the training mission. If you say, for instance, in the Mediterranean Dialogue, do we have to work on NATO's image, for instance in the Mediterranean Dialogue? I would say yes. Yes, we do need, as I said in a speech in Egypt, (inaudible) of course we do need to work on perceptions of NATO. But I say again, it is not that long ago that nobody in NATO or elsewhere thought about NATO being very active in Afghanistan; 16,000 soldiers defending values at the Hindu Kush. Two years ago, if I have had to answer your question, I would have not answered the question, if you had asked me about Darfur, that we would be supportive of the African Union. In other words, and there I entirely side with Minister Martino, a security organization, a political military security organization in the 21st century, has, by definition, to face the new threats and challenges and has to find answers. And it's not always possible to immediately find those answers. I mean we are debating things, as I said, on financing, on which we have not consensus. Let me be quite honest that that's a difficult subject. Who pays what? How do you exactly define financial solidarity? But nevertheless we do it. And I think that in the operations and missions where we are, my experience (now two years plus in this job) is that NATO is very welcome indeed. Martino: Very briefly on the issue of the premise, I agree with the Secretary General. I think we are welcome in all the operations NATO is engaged in. On the second part in your question, I do believe that there is a problem making people understand the changed nature of NATO. You see in the past men in uniform outside their country represented a symbol of aggression, an attempt to colonize, to annex. Today NATO soldiers in foreign countries are not there to take; they're there to give; they're there to help; they're there to bring security, stability and peace where it is missing. So I think by people of goodwill, they are always welcome. This does not mean that they're cannot be episodes of violence. Of course we do not go bring peace where there is peace. It's not needed there. NATO Spokesman: That's all we have time for. Thank you.