NATO HQ, Brussels 22 Mar. 2006

Background briefing by the NATO Spokesman Multimedia Audio file .MP3/9309kb Biography James Appathurai SPOKESMAN (NATO): Folks, let me address a couple of... a few issues, and then I will be happy to take your questions. Again, sorry I'm late. I'll try to be reasonably quick. First, just to give you a read-out from the Secretary General's trip to Washington, where he met with, as you know, President Bush, Secretary Rice, Secretary Rumsfeld, Undersecretary Burns and many others. Steve Hadley was also there in the meeting with President Bush. They discussed a number of issues. You won't be surprised that one of those was the Riga Summit. Also they discussed Darfur . You know that Darfur is very much on the mind of the President, and indeed of the entire White House and the State Department as well. And of course, on the mind of the Secretary General. To give you a sort of a brief conclusion of what the discussions were, and I think you've probably seen this already, they, that is President Bush and the Secretary General, both agreed that if the AU mission does indeed transition to a UN mission in six months, that a request from the African Union or the UN may well come to NATO. And the Secretary General said that it was his personal belief that if that request were to come to NATO, in those circumstances, that NATO would certainly look upon that request positively for NATO to play, not the role of sending a force into Darfur, but to play an enabling role. Enabling in the sense, for example, of planning of logistics, or of airlift, but that we need to, of course, follow the necessary steps and clearly a request from the UN or the AU in the context of a transitioned force would be necessary. They did discuss Afghanistan . They did discuss Iraq . We heard two weeks ago from General Dempsey, who is the commander of the NATO Training Mission in Iraq, and from the Deputy Chief of Defence of Iraq, who had come to the Council, who said that after the Samarra bombings NATO-trained officers played an important role in helping to restore order and this was definitely a positive sign and it was mentioned again in Washington. That the Training Mission is having an effect. So the President just reiterated his support for that Training Mission on the Iraq side. On Afghanistan there was simply a commitment to keep going, and that is to continue not only with the expansion to Stage 3, but expansion to Stage 4 as soon as possible. Finally, the Secretary General did raise, with the President, the issue of the U.S. decision to withdraw its fighters from Iceland . This is something which the Icelandic Prime Minister and the Secretary General had discussed before he went and after discussing it with President Bush he once again spoke to the Prime Minister. In essence the path forward is as follows: The U.S. will, I believe, next week continue their discussions with the Icelanders on modernizing the decades-long defence agreement between the two countries. If and when the U.S. and Iceland feel that it is appropriate for NATO to consider playing some kind of a role in the ongoing air defence of Iceland, then that request would come to NATO and NATO could consider it, but the first step is for the U.S. and the Icelanders to continue their discussions and that's what they will do. Let me now turn quickly to two issues of relevance from today's Council. One is the visit of Prime Minister Buckovski to the Council. You will not be surprised that this is of course in the context of the Membership Action Plan. His country has been working hard for many years to help to meet NATO standards for membership. He made, once again, a presentation on the progress that has been made, the reforms that they have implemented, including, for example, and ensuring proper distribution, geographic and ethnic distribution in the Armed Forces and in the government, something for which he was congratulated by the NATO Allies. The Allies, of course, welcomed the progress that had been made and encouraged more progress, it will not be a surprise to you, and the Secretary General and the Prime Minister will have a press conference, I think, in about 45 minutes, so I'll try to finish up here in time for those of you who are interested in going. APPATHURAI: One other issue of note is there was an extensive discussion today in the Council of Belarus. The ambassadors reiterated what the Secretary General had put into his statement on Monday, I believe, and that was their condemnation of the electoral process in Belarus . They committed to keep the continuous and ongoing eye on developments in Belarus from now on. And agreed that they would consider, in future, possible measures to support the democratic process in Belarus . Next issue to mention to you, the new Prime Minister of Kosovo, Mr. Ceku, will be at NATO Headquarters late this afternoon. There is no press availability. I understand that he might have done something already in front of the press this morning at 10:30 with Javier Solana, if I guess correctly, but de toute fa çon , he will be at NATO Headquarters late this afternoon. And I will be able to give you a report on that conversation later. Tomorrow the Deputy Secretary General will be in Leipzig to sign the agreement for what we call SALIS, which is a Strategic Airlift Interim Solution, to participate in the ceremony for this agreement. This agreement is a contract to help provide to NATO and the European Union access to outsize airlift. So what we call outsize airlift, very, very large aircraft. For example, in this case it would be the Antonov 124. It is comparable, for example, and I think it's even bigger, than the U.S. C-17. There is obviously a pressing requirement for both EU and NATO to have access to oversized cargo aircraft. It is... A, there is a lack of it in the Alliance . I'll speak for NATO in this case. The United States has quite a few outsize cargo aircraft. The United Kingdom , I believe, has four. And no countries... no NATO European continental countries have any outsize cargo aircraft. When faced with sudden developments, such as, for example, what happened in Pakistan , it is obviously difficult to arrange airlift of a sufficient amount and sufficiently quickly when one doesn't possess the aircraft. And of course, going out to he commercial market on a very, very short-term basis can be sometimes difficult, because there are pre-existing contracts for these aircraft. So this arrangement will provide to NATO, and indeed to the EU, access to this aircraft. This arrangement flows from Prague , the Prague Summit, where allies committed to working to provide to the Alliance and by extension now to the EU as well, access to this capability. What will it mean? The contract is for six outsize cargo aircraft Antonovs in the following configuration. Two aircraft available within three days, based in Leipzig ; two aircraft available within six days, based in Russia or in Ukraine . And by the way, the contract is with Ruslan, both which has a Ukrainian and Russian element to it. And finally, so two available within three days, two available within six days, and two aircraft available within nine days. Again, based in Russia or in Ukraine . APPATHURAI: As of tomorrow, there will be 16 countries participating in this project, and it will be managed by NAMSA, NATO's agency. Q: How do you spell Ruslan? APPATHURAI: R-U-S-L-A-N. Q: And what is that? It's a Russian and Ukraine company? APPATHURAI: Well, it'll be drawn from two companies. One in Russia , one in Ukraine . UNIDENTIFIED: Joint venture. APPATHURAI: Joint venture, which I believe is called Ruslan. APPATHURAI: Anyway, knock out Ruslan. It'll be drawn from two companies, we'll get more details for the Ruslan element. Q: So it's not Ruslan anymore. UNIDENTIFIED: Right. It's a joint company. It's a joint venture. Q: It's a joint venture, it's called Ruslan. Q: I'm sorry, do you have the final (inaudible)... of how much Ruslan will be paid for this service? APPATHURAI: The only thing I can say is that the cost per flying hour is significantly less than current market prices, which do fluctuate with supply and demand. I don't want to get into the exact details because I'm not sure that that's public, but what I can tell you is based on what we used to pay, and I know what we used to pay for simply chartering on the commercial market, this is significantly less. It is also, by the way, the initial contract duration is for a three-year period, and can be extended. Last thing I wanted to tell you and that is the Secretary General will be visiting Spain , Prime Minister Zapatero, Ministers Moratinos and Bono on the 30th of this month. And that's all I have for you and I am open to your questions. Q: What are the 16 countries involved in this agreement? APPATHURAI: Are you ready? Q: Yes. APPATHURAI: Canada , Czech Republic , Germany , which has the lead, and frankly, which should be recognized for having put this together; Denmark , Finland , France , U.K. , Hungary , Luxembourg , Netherlands , Norway , Poland , Portugal , Slovakia and Slovenia and as of tomorrow, Sweden . As Robert points out, Minister Jung will be there tomorrow in Leipzig as well as potentially other ministers of Defence, but I don't know who the others might be. Q: When you say this is contracted out for the EU and NATO, how is that going to work exactly? I'm trying to... APPATHURAI: How do you mean? Q: Well, I mean, officially the EU and NATO, both as partners are contracting it out or it's NATO... APPATHURAI: It's open to EU and NATO countries. And NATO led this project. This project got its genesis from the Prague Capabilities Commitment. The Prague Capabilities Commitment high-level group on strategic airlift, and this was formed at the Prague Summit. Germany took the lead. And the EU is supporting it in the context of the ECAP, the European Capability Action Plan. So it is not simply a NATO initiative in that EU countries are participating in it as well. Q: But it could be for EU missions? APPATHURAI: Yes, absolutely. Q: Not just NATO missions. APPATHURAI: Absolutely, absolutely. Q: James, I know you say you can't tell us about how much this is costing, but can you tell us at least who's paying for it? Is NATO paying for it? Is the EU paying for it? Are the national governments paying for it? APPATHURAI: It's the participating countries. Q: Participating countries pay for it. And how is that divided out amongst them? APPATHURAI: In terms of cost share I don't know. Q: And is there, apart from you say that there are flying hours, is there also a fixed amount, which is being paid just to have these planes on standby, or is it purely on a as-you-use-it basis? APPATHURAI: I have no information on that. Certainly they haven't provided any information that says that there should be a fee that is being paid simply to keep it, but we'll check for you. Q: And is there a kind of a structure when, for example, the EU or EU nations would need these things for missions and NATO nations would at the same time? For example, if, you know, the EU needed to go to the Congo whereas NATO was going to Pakistan or somewhere? APPATHURAI: It's an interesting question. Robert and I were discussing it in the car. And neither of us came up with a particularly good answer to that question. I'll have to check on it to see if there's something available. UNIDENTIFIED: It's the nations (inaudible)... APPATHURAI: I mean, of course it is true, it's the individual nations that will be booking this, but I have to check on this to see if there's any kind of an agreement in place to manage this. I can't see it, frankly, being a very likely scenario, because these are principally NATO-EU nations anyway, who will manage a very large pool of potential aircraft in a variety of ways. For example, for the Pakistan airlift, because we had a limited amount of outsize aircraft, basically only the U.S. and the U.K. could provide it, they set up a rotation of C-130s making shorter jumps to get to where they needed to go to. So in the end capacity will be provided the way it needs to be provided, and of course, it can be chartered outside of this particular arrangement. So I don't see a situation in which there's an inability to provide lift simply because one or the other country has already booked the six for one or the other mission. There are many other options available from commercial to smaller aircraft, to U.S. aircraft, to U.K. aircraft. But all this to say whether there's a particular arrangement between the two organizations, I doubt it, but I will check. Q: James, what is the role of NAMSA in this project, and why haven't the other ten countries joined it? I mean, why isn't Spain in it, for example, because you know that they had this problem with NAMSA with the Jak-42 and it was a Ukrainian plane. APPATHURAI: I certainly couldn't comment on why individual countries haven't joined. Some haven't joined because I imagine they don't consider that they have a requirement. For example, the United States has its own capability and doesn't need to participate in another arrangement. It is also true that NATO has many projects like this where all 26 don't participate, and AWACS is a perfectly good example, where some do, some don't, depending on their needs or requirements. So I wouldn't read into participation or non-participation any larger political issues. I don't think it is. But this is being organized through NAMSA. NAMSA certainly is playing a very important role in coordinating all of this. UNIDENTIFIED: Managing. Q: In managing the project, yeah. Q: Sir, what kind of safety controls are being put in place with regard to both the planes... presumably they'll be flown by crews provided by the Ukrainian-Russian company or will they be flown by NATO crews? How is that going to work? APPATHURAI: I'll have to check. Good questions. I'll get back to you. You're only interested in outsize aircraft. That's very interesting. Q: Another question. Darfur , I guess it's a question of interpretation, but looking at the quotes by President Bush in Washington he specifically mentioned strategy where NATO would be in the lead. He didn't mention a UN mission. He actually said, where NATO would be in the lead. And the answer he got was what the Secretary General said, which is, NATO could do enabling, or whatever. So I'm wondering, I know it's difficult to go into interpreting what President Bush meant, but there's a sense of lack of clarity in there. What did the Secretary General understand really that the request was? APPATHURAI: Well, I can tell you, I was in the room when they were discussing it, and there is no lack of clarity between the Secretary General and the President on this issue. They are all talking about a UN mission and the importance of a UN mission taking place. They are all talking about a potential NATO role that would not go beyond the enabling that the Secretary General mentioned. I can tell you when the door was closed that's exactly what President Bush was talking about as well. So there was really no lack of clarity between them. The President does see this as A, a very important issue; B, an issue where he supports the AU decision, with all of the considerations that they've built into that decision, but to hand over to the UN; and third, sees a NATO role, again, in all the ways that I mentioned, logistics and planning and airlift, but that kind of an enabling role. Not the idea of sending a NATO force into Darfur. Q: Not sending a force, okay, and not obviously, by deduction, NATO lead. APPATHURAI: I don't want to parse out what that means, but this would be a UN mission, supported by NATO. If and when that takes place. Q: Again, concerning Africa , has there been any consultation between NATO and the EU concerning Congo ? Is it going to be an autonomous EU operation or with some Berlin Plus arrangements? APPATHURAI: There has been no discussion, that I'm aware of, between NATO and the EU on Congo . I don't believe that the EU does wish to take recourse to Berlin Plus arrangements, as far as I am aware. So in those circumstances, no. That being said, of course, for example, today in the Council Ambassador Ricketts, speaking for the EU, briefed allies on the decisions that have been taken in the EU that will be considered in the coming days precisely on Congo . So it is not that we're unaware and not being briefed. That is happening. But as far as I know the EU does not wish to make use of Berlin Plus in this issue. Q: In the meeting between U.S. President Bush and the NATO Secretary General was the issue of Iran raised, Iran 's nuclear program? And my second question is, what is NATO's assessment, since you are involved in Iraq , on the situation in Iraq three years after the war was launched? APPATHURAI: Sorry, the second question again? Q: Your assessment on the situation, the situation in Iraq , three years after the war was launched. APPATHURAI: The President raised briefly the issue of Iran . Only to say that it was obviously an issue of great concern to the United States, as well as to the European allies, the EU 3, the Secretary General only responded to say that there has been discussion of this issue, informally, amongst ministers, in NATO, but it was not a main subject of discussion at the meeting by any standards. It is clearly not for me, I think, to give an assessment of the overall situation in Iraq . Everyone has their own views. What I can say is that it is clear that the only long-term solution for Iraq is that the Iraqis are able to provide for their own security. That is why training Iraqi security forces is important. That is why NATO is considering expanding that training mission to include training non-commissioned officers and to take over some training of the basic officers course that is currently being provided by the United Kingdom. That's all I think I should say on that subject. Nick? Q: Just on Congo again, does the EU... I mean, technically, does the EU have to ask NATO first? I mean, does there have to be a right of first refusal or have I misinterpreted? APPATHURAI: On Congo no. Q: I seem to remember that being an issue during Operation Artemis, that there seemed to be some sensitivity about the fact that the EU had not asked NATO if it didn't want to support it before going. APPATHURAI: I have seen neither any discussion nor certainly any sensitivity in NATO on the fact that the EU has taken on this mission. I have to say on the contrary everyone in NATO certainly believes that this is an important mission, and supports the EU entirely in taking this on because it needs to be done. So certainly no sensitivity whatsoever. Q: On Belarus , what were the possible measures being discussed to support democracy there? APPATHURAI: There were no specifics discussed in today's meeting. As I say, they... the ambassadors want to keep an eye on the situation and they want to be able to support the democratic process in Belarus . Any specifics beyond that, if they are... if they will be developed have not yet been developed. Q: (inaudible)... are you talking about funding of civil society, that type of thing, or...? APPATHURAI: There's a committee in NATO called the Political Committee, and it will look now at this issue, or it may... it will look at this issue. But beyond that I just can't give details until they have finished their deliberations. I really don't know what they might propose. Q: Yes, in Iceland , is that thinkable to have a kind of second air policing operation next to the what's happening in the Baltic states ? APPATHURAI: I wouldn't want to get too far ahead now of what the U.S. discussions with Iceland may be. I think what is clear is that NATO has always had a principle that NATO airspace should have appropriate defence and that is a principle which has been applied, as you know in the Baltic states, also in Slovenia, with rotations of aircraft from other countries, but of course, each individual NATO nation also provides... or many individual NATO nations also provide for their own air defence, and in different ways. For example, there are not, as far as I know, constant air patrols over Wales because it is not deemed necessary. So the question is what is an appropriate, but effective regime for the protection of airspace in each and every individual countries. But the principle, the founding principle remains, that will be provided, the modalities have yet to be determined, and the first step is that the United States and Iceland need to speak together. And if NATO is brought into the discussion then we will see how that goes. Leon ? Q: Yeah, I was wondering, last week you said you'd have more, by this week, on Cape Verde , so I'd like to know if there was a decision on that. APPATHURAI: Did I? APPATHURAI: I'm not sure that has been done. Q: You said that they talked about it last week and that you were expecting to know more about it this week, so... APPATHURAI: Well, I have to say, I got back from the States this morning so I haven't seen anything new on that subject, because I got in, went to the Council and came here. So again, I will have to go back and get more details. If there has been any change since last week, I'll... Q: Dates (inaudible)... APPATHURAI: Yeah, I'll have to go and see. I really haven't had a chance to look. Q: I think several NATO allies have expressed concern about the possibility of the death penalty in Afghanistan for the person who wants to convert from being a Muslim to a Christian. Was this raised at all in the NAC today? I mean, and what implications could this have for NATO activity and NATO's presence there if it's carried out? APPATHURAI: Well, it wasn't raised in the NAC, but I can tell you the Secretary General is quite aware and focused on this issue. While, of course, all NATO allies respect fully the sovereignty of Afghanistan , it is also a fundamental principle for all NATO allies that individuals should have the right to choose their religion freely and safely. It's an important issue, and I can tell you that the Secretary General will be speaking later today to President Karzai on this subject. Q: And his message would be? APPATHURAI: I don't want to characterize what his message will be. I can tell you that if you come to the Buckovski press conference and ask him yourself he might well answer it himself, but I can't speak for what he will say. Except, I think he will certainly, at the very least, say the things that I have just said. But to go beyond that, I can't. But he may well in the next half hour.