Sofia, Bulgaria 27 April 2006

Q&As Session Exhibition on Bulgaria's participation in NATO's operations and missions JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER (Secretary General of NATO): This is my spokesman, James Appathurai, and he is the moderator. JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): I have a list of speakers who have requested to speak. Can I ask... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: James, do it here. APPATHURAI: Tatiana Andreya(?) to please come to... is there a microphone there? Q: (SPEAKING IN BULGARIAN)... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: My Bulgarian is not what it was, so I have... could you please start again? Q: Okay. (SPEAKING IN BULGARIAN)... (APPLAUSE) DE HOOP SCHEFFER: The question really deserves an applause, I can tell you, because it's a difficult one. And when I say it deserves an applause it means that I can think about the answer, it's a good one. It's a very good one. At the moment we have criteria for what is commonly funded in NATO and what is funded on the basis of the criterion... what we call the "costs lie where they fall." If Bulgaria participates in NATO operations the bulk of the costs will be paid by the government of Bulgaria. And there are criteria for common funding. What we all pay together from the NATO budget where the nations have a cost share key, where one pays, of course, a bit more than the others. And our biggest and most important ally, the United States, pays the brunt. Now, if you see our different operations and missions you can imagine, let me take Afghanistan as an example, that that is very costly. Now what we're trying to do and what I think should be done, but we need, as I said, consensus, of course, about that, it is... and we have done it already to a certain extent. Couldn't we, to a certain extent, enlarge the criteria for common funding so that you get perhaps a more balanced cost share between the nations. Now in any organization, be it the Bulgarian government, be it in a private organization in Bulgaria, discussions about who pays what are the most complicated ones. So it is a difficult discussion. We have made progress over the past two years, because we are already paying more from the common budget, but on the other hand you must realize that nations who are actively participating in operations at great costs--sending helicopters to Afghanistan, and keeping helicopters in the air in Afghanistan costs a lot of money--those nations say, excuse me Secretary General, interesting what you're saying, but we're not going to pay twice. First, to send those helicopters, have them up in the air there, and then you come and say well, you know, you're going also to pay more from the common budget. So we have to find formulas to balance this discussion even more, but I commend you for the way you have prepared yourself for this afternoon, because it is a key discussion. I must quite honestly tell you that we have not found the ideal or the right solution, but we'll go on doing that. And I tell the ambassadors in Brussels that it was prominently brought up by one of the students in Sofia; it might help. (APPLAUSE) DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Ms. Denitsa Nikolava(?), are you around? Q: (SPEAKING IN BULGARIAN)... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: (inaudible)... APPATHURAI: One second. The moderator would like you to start again, please. Q: Okay. APPATHURAI: And do we have interpretation? Is that working okay? Yes? Okay. DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Would you please start again, then I can... Q: (SPEAKING IN BULGARIAN)... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: I have nothing. Yeah, okay. Q: From the very beginning. (SPEAKING IN BULGARIAN)... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: J'ai compris. I was listening to the French translation. I've got your question, which is another very relevant one, I think. My... I think the one liner I would use in answering your question, and I'll say more about it, of course, is that we are learning lessons in this respect. Afghanistan... take Afghanistan again, which is I think a very good example. In Afghanistan, and you'll see them without any doubt in the exposition, we have the so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Those teams are a combination of military and civilian. What do the military do? They try to create a climate of security and stability under which nation-building can take place. The civilians in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or the non-governmental organizations active in Afghanistan, are there as well and are cooperating with the military in what they are doing there; be it in education, be it in building schools, be it in creating a water supply or what have you. And we do realize in NATO that although NATO is, of course, not a development cooperation organization, I think we should not water down what NATO is. I mentioned Pakistan and a humanitarian operation. NATO is not a humanitarian organization. Nor should it develop into one. We should keep our core responsibility. But you're very right, we are learning, and I would almost say learning by doing, that after the military phase of a conflict, in other words, after the Taliban were chased out of Afghanistan, we're entering a new phase, a phase of reconstruction, a phase of development, and that is... and that you said in the second part of your question, why it is so important, and that's one of the reasons that this dinner tonight is important, that NATO relates very closely with other international organizations, with the United Nations, with the European Union, with the bilateral donor countries of Afghanistan. And that's why I'm permanently advocating and constantly advocating, and that's not always easy, I must tell you, to build these more structural relationships between NATO, the UN and the European Union. I mention the UN because do not forget that in Afghanistan we're operating under the umbrella of the Security Council of the United Nations. In Kosovo it's exactly the same. This is the way we are going, but let me make my point once again. We should not confuse the lessons we are learning and the facts that NATO responsibilities, of course, have shifted to a certain extent when you look at Afghanistan. Let's not water down what is the core function and the core mission of NATO. APPATHURAI: Ms. Marianna Pintava(?) please. Q: (SPEAKING IN BULGARIAN)... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: The agreement, as I've been informed, which will be signed between Bulgaria and the United States, is a bilateral agreement, so it's not an agreement between NATO and Bulgarian. It's an agreement between the United States of America and Bulgaria. It has, of course, an indirect value for NATO. NATO as such is not planning to use these facilities, but it has, of course, an indirect value for NATO because the fact that the United States, as usual, and as they have always been, is committed and show that commitment by entering into this bilateral agreement, shows that the transatlantic link is there and it is strong. And that is, I think, the relevances, over and above the relevance for the United States of America and Bulgaria when Secretary Rice will come and sign the agreement. APPATHURAI: Mr. Peter Manjukov. Q: (inaudible)... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: I think you need a microphone. Q: (SPEAKING IN BULGARIAN)... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Let me start where you finished. I was making my remarks about the core of NATO, integrated defence, the integrated structure, the Washington Treaty, Article 5. It is crystal clear that since NATO's inception and the coming into force of the Washington Treaty. That has never changed and that will not change. It's important to say in a time, of course, where NATO I would almost say has to spread its wings because the international community calls on NATO much more frequently than before. You see it around you. Second remark: NATO, of course, plays its role in the fight against terrorism. Together with other international organizations. In fact, apart from assisting the Afghan government and the Afghan people, the other main argument that we have now many thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan is to prevent that country becoming the black hole, again, it was under Taliban. Because it was exporting terrorism, it was training terrorists, it was exporting terrorism. We also have a great number of practical measures where we fight against terrorism. We have our naval operation in the Mediterranean, which is an anti-terrorist operation. By the way, it's an operation based on Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. But now in the wider context: Of course the NATO allies are as worried as you are and as I am on the subject of nuclear proliferation. And you mentioned quite rightly biological and chemical agents as well. And the most dangerous, of course, is the combination. Terrorists getting their hands on these kinds of weapons of mass destruction. And that is why this fight against terrorism is so important and that is why I use the word global. The threats and challenges are global. Again, no misunderstanding, I am not telling you here this afternoon NATO is becoming the world's policeman, but nobody can deny that the threats are global. NATO participates in that discussion, although if you mention Iran, you know that there the EU 3 and the United States of America, in the framework of the Security Council, are trying to prevent developments in Iran that you, nor I, nor NATO would like to see. And that is, as you know, as well as I do, a very intense diplomatic debate at the moment. I share your worry, and you mentioned North Korea as well, I share your worry very much and I think we have to do everything to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and as you rightly say, the weapons and the missiles to give them distance. And I'm, of course, very open in saying that although NATO is not playing, if I may use that expression, the first violin in the orchestra in the whole discussion on Iran--we have the EU 3, we have the U.S.-- what happens in those discussions is of course a very NATO relevant subject, and I think that, that for instance at the dinner tonight when we discussed numerous subjects... when ministers will discuss numerous subjects, Iran will be one of them. I think I can safely say that. So that is the situation we are in, but do not forget, and you give me the opportunity to say so, that's... what is this Washington Treaty all about? What is NATO all about? It is about solidarity, helping each other and we have the Washington Treaty. APPATHURAI: I have been given direction that this should be the last question because of the time constraints. I'm sorry to those who haven't made it, so the lucky last question asker is Miss Stella Sokeva(?), please. Q: (SPEAKING IN BULGARIAN)... DE HOOP SCHEFFER: I don't see Iraq joining NATO. What I do see, at the moment, is NATO playing a role in helping the Iraqi people and helping the Iraqi government with one of the elements they consider essential, and that is the training of their armed forces, to be able to take the reins of their country into their own hand. That is what they want. That is what the consecutive Iraqi governments, provisional governments, interim governments, have told me and have told us. And that is why NATO is running a training mission in Iraq, I say again, with important Bulgarian participation and that is why we are going on with the training mission and hopefully expanding that training mission. I wish Iraq and the Iraqi people, with you and everybody here, a future where Iraq will be able to function as a normal country. NATO tries, in all modesty, to participate in that development. But you started your question by asking me about a membership. That I do not see. But the NATO allies show solidarity with the people of Iraq and will continue to do so. (APPLAUSE)