|
| Updated: 30-Oct-2006 | NATO Speeches |
Taormina, 10 Feb. 2006 |
Closing press conference by
NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
NATO Spokesman: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Secretary General will make a brief opening statement for this final press conference and of the conference and then we'll have time for a few questions. De Hoop Scheffer: Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen; let me address, finally, two main issues. First, the second half of the discussions I discussed with you yesterday -the first half that is- of the discussions between the NATO Ministers which focus on transformation. This morning, and then of course the luncheon, which... just took place with the ministers from the Mediterranean Dialogue countries. In terms of the NATO 26 discussions first, I think we had a good and also a frank discussion on what I call the software and the hardware of the 21st Century NATO -of course, a discussion I consider a building block for the Summit in Riga we're going to have at the end of November. The discussion focused to a large extent on the circumstances in which we could expect to use the NRF. Of course, we discussed the NRF views after the Hurricane Katrina and assisting Pakistan, the relief operation after the earthquake there, and you know that Allies have already agreed a range of missions for which the NRF should be prepared, from the low-end to the high-end operations. And I can say that Allies took a pragmatic approach in using the NRF, will continue to do so, continue to use the NRF when it makes sense to use the response force. In other words, you'll see, every time a decision being made, is it useful to use the NRF or is it not...? By the way, the mandate of the NRF, as you know, is clear and was clear after the Prague Summit already some years ago. The second "volet", to say it in French, the second element we looked at were the mechanisms on making sure that the NATO Response Force delivers, and not only that it delivers but that it delivers on time. And that means that... that Allies share the goal, that the NATO Response Force must be fully up and running when we have our summit in Riga in November. And... that is going to happen and that is what we discussed. For the second part, we looked at longer term horizons for national commitments to help nations with their planning. There was a lot of support for an idea I was able to launch that we need for the NATO Response Force: a longer-term planning horizon so that nations know what they can do, but that they also know what others are going to do. And finally, the third element, we looked at how we are going to help pay the bills for long-term NRF deployments in a way that shares the costs more fairly -which of course, will encourage nations to participate. Now this issue, I must tell you, that's a complicated one; I will not beat around the bush here. The relationship between the basic principle cost (inaudible)... full -which nobody wants to touch- and impossible increase in common funding is a discussion we'll have to continue. Because it's... of course, it entails financial solidarity on the one hand but you also have to make sure that some nations are not going to pay twice. Nations participating in operations, having the helicopters or the ships or the soldiers then pay... pay for their own bill and then... when you go for increased common funding, pay for a second time. In others words, this is clearly a discussion we have to continue to find the right balance ensuring financial solidarity between the principle of the (inaudible)... and more common funding. In other words, this discussion is to be continued. What we also did, leaving the NRF now, is we discussed the capabilities that we believe NATO needs more of in the 21st Century, and possibly multinational arrangements to acquire them. Think about air-to-ground surveillance, think about air-to-air refuelling and think strategic lift. An interesting discussion... How that could be done, how it should be done -it is certainly a discussion which shall also be continued in the... in the run-up to Riga . No decision was taken here -that was not the object of this inform... informal meeting-but we... we have it on the table and we should have it on the table. In other words, what will be the main subject if we look at the summit in Riga as far of the modernization of NATO's capabilities for the 21st Century are concerned. That's, as far as I can tell you about this morning's meeting; let me then say a few words about a first, the luncheon the allied ministers had with their colleagues, defence ministers from the nations of the Mediterranean Dialogue. The fact that the meeting took place, that it was an excellent meeting is a political signal in itself, that Allies and Mediterranean Dialogue partners are on the course of reinforcing this dialogue, reinforcing our practical corporation; and as you know, the activities in the framework -and are taken in the framework of the Mediterranean Dialogue- are growing each year. You know that the Chiefs of Defence of the Med Dialogue Partners and NATO meet on a regular basis, and some nations, more particular Israel, Algeria and Morrocco showed a keen interest in supporting the operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean, which I think is a good sign that also on this... on this account we are making progress. We looked at a range of areas of cooperation in which we will engage in '06. I mentioned the military cooperation, of course, in areas such as logistics, defence planning, language training, NBC defence, civil emergency planning -or in normal english, how do we respond to emergencies- the public diplomacy part of it; very important -I express this again. There's important work for NATO to do in the region... to work on its image, and I think our Mediterranean Dialogue partners are helping us with this; so I underline the importance of an effective public diplomacy, of speaking clearly, and also with a sensitivity to each other. This, in sum, I can tell you, it was a good meeting focusing on practical operation -and I think a sign of the deepening of trust in our relationship between the 26 NATO Allies and the Mediterranean Dialogue Nations. Let me stop here, I'm open to your questions. |
|||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
