|
| Updated: 07-Jun-2006 | NATO Speeches |
NATO HQ 06 June 2006 |
Press briefing by the NATO Spokesman and John Colston, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning
JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): Colleagues and friends, thanks for coming. We, in the usual NATO fashion, will start right on time. We have the privilege of John Colston here with us again. The Assistant Secretary General who is leading our way into the Defence Ministerial Meeting to take place on Thursday. John has agreed to speak on the record, so you can use this on the record from beginning to end, unless we designate or he chooses to go on background or off the record. So without any further ado I'll turn it over to John just to say if there's any questions on other issues we're both able to answer them. In other words, if John doesn't feel like being on the record on the more unpleasant I'll happily do it. John. JOHN P. COLSTON (Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning, NATO): Thank you, James and good afternoon to you all. Nice to see you all again. Defence Ministers meetings on Thursday next week... this week. APPATHURAI: That was on background. (LAUGHTER) COLSTON: This is our one formal session when the NATO Ministers of Defence get together for a series of meetings each year. Let me just try to give you the highlights and then I will describe in a little bit more detail what I expect to be happening at each of the meetings that we will be holding there. The two big themes for the Ministerial Meetings are clearly going to be to ensure that we are continuing to create the conditions for success in our current operations, especially in Afghanistan . And the second area of focus is going to be to ensure that we're creating the conditions from the defence perspective for a successful Summit of NATO Heads of State and Government in Riga in November. Defence Ministers will meet as we prepare for a major expansion of the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan . And the meetings on Thursday will be a key opportunity to address this expansion and to ensure its success. It will be an opportunity for the allies to underline their commitment to the mission. It will be an opportunity for them to confirm that they have the capabilities and the will and the plan to carry out the mission. Clearly there are real challenges which need to be addressed in Afghanistan , as the headlines last week and this continue to remind us. But it will be an opportunity for Ministers to reiterate their determination to do their part to help the Afghan government to create the conditions of stability and security which are necessary for the future success of the country. It will also be an opportunity for them to underline the need to work alongside the international community in these efforts, and the need for the Afghan government itself to take ownership of the process. And that last point underlines the significance of the presence of the Afghan Minister of Defence, Minister Wardak, who will participate in a meeting with all the nations, NATO and non-NATO nations, who contribute to the ISAF mission, the 37 nations who contribute to that mission. Obviously there will be an opportunity also to look at other current NATO operations and missions, to look at Kosovo in what is going to be an interesting and very important year for Kosovo and for its future. But also to look at our support to the African Union in Darfur, to look at our training mission in Iraq, to look at our counterterrorist maritime surveillance operation in the Mediterranean, Active Endeavour. As far as transformation is concerned, a major dimension of the Summit will, we expect, be an opportunity to confirm that NATO has the means to match its political will in undertaking operations now and in the future. So we expect that the Riga Summit will have a consolidation element. What have we done since the summit in Prague in 2002, what have we done since the summit in Istanbul in 2004? In making sure that our military capabilities match what it is we want NATO to be able to do in the future. So there will be this week an opportunity for Defence Ministers to review what they have done over the last four years, and the process of adapting NATO to the day's realities. And they'll take, obviously, a particularly close look at the NATO Response Force. The NATO Response Force, which is designed to be a highly deployable, highly ready, highly effective fit-for-purpose force, responding to potential missions across the full range of NATO's interests. We have a big live exercise coming up in the Cape Verde islands later this month, which will be the final test of the readiness of the NATO Response Force to achieve full operational capability. Although, of course, it has been used... elements of the force have already been used in response to the call for assistance following Hurricane Katrina and the Pakistan earthquake. But this is their opportunity to make sure that the NATO Response Force is fit for purpose this year and that we have the right plans in place to ensure nations are going to be willing to contribute to forces to the NATO Response Force in the future. This is a demanding task. It's a lot to ask of the allies, but we do need to make sure that it is taken forward. It will also be an opportunity for NATO Ministers to look at what more might need to be done at the time of the Riga Summit in terms of ensuring that our forces remain capable in the future. And in the afternoon there will be an opportunity for Ministers of Defence to meet with Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko, the Ukrainian Minister of Defence, in a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission in Defence Ministers session. And there will also be a meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the PfP nations, the Defence Ministers from all those nations. Where there'll be an opportunity to discuss, in particular, the use of Partnership for Peace as a means of enabling partner nations to contribute effectively to NATO-led operations in the future. But also, I suspect, looking forward a little bit to Riga and the potential for broadening and deepening our patterns of partnership in the future. I think actually in doing that I have probably given you enough of a sense of what the range of meetings will cover on Thursday. The only meeting that I haven't mentioned in detail is the very first of the meetings, which will be a joint meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group and the Defence Planning Committee. That's the 25 Allies, in other words, the Allies less France, who does not participate in the integrated military structure. And that will be an opportunity for them, briefly, to review current issues related to NATO's nuclear forces, and to adopt the latest NATO force goals and to adopt the latest high level political guidance for our force planning procedures. That in itself will see a shift of focus in line with NATO's overall transformation on the need for highly deployable, highly ready, capable forces. And also a shift in emphasis towards the larger number of smaller operations that characterize today's experience and understanding of operational demands on us by contrast to the smaller number of larger operations for which we planned in the past. So in summary, Thursday's a big day in terms first, of making sure that we have the right direction and that we're following the right track in terms of our preparations for the Summit . But also to make sure that the approach which we're taking to our current operations is right and to give the necessary and full political backing of our Defence Ministers for what NATO's military commanders are doing in their name. James, I think that's it and I'll be very happy to take any questions. Q: Mark John from Reuters. Two questions. In merely reiterating the commitment of nations to the existing planning for Afghanistan rather than undergoing a proper review of existing planning, isn't there a risk that NATO's going into Stage 3 perhaps a bit overconfidently given the violence and civil unrest we've seen in recent weeks? And the second question on Ukraine , given the fact that the political stalemate there regarding the formation of the government has meant there's been very little defence reform in Ukraine for some time now, what's the message that NATO wants to give to the Ukrainian Defence Minister on Thursday? COLSTON: Okay, thank you. I mean, firstly in relation to Stage 3, it's important to note Stage 3 hasn't actually begun yet. Stage 3 begins towards the end of next month or thereabouts. I'm sure what we'll hear on Thursday is that Defence Ministers believe... are confident that they have the right plan, that they have the right means, the right forces properly equipped and that they have the right rules of engagement to undertake the job. And it comes as no great surprise... it will come as no great surprise to any of the Defence Ministers that NATO forces are being and will be challenged in the south. We're trying to create conditions of stability and security in the south and there are a number of people who don't like that. The insurgents, the terrorists, the criminals don't like that. So it's not surprising that we're being tested. But I think Defence Ministers will confirm that they are confident that they have the means. They, of course, are going to be alert to what's happening. They will keep that under constant review. But we're not planning to review a plan at the moment which we believe has been designed to meet the kinds of challenges that we're now seeing. In relation to Ukraine , I would take issue a little bit with your comments that not much has been done on defence reform in Ukraine . There's been a great deal done in the lifetime of the President Yushchenko's administration. Not least the production towards the end of last year of a defence white paper by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, which set out quite clearly the nature of the reforms that they're putting in place, the financial plans that back those reforms and their objectives in terms of moving closer towards NATO. So I think in terms of the Defence Ministers' reactions to the practical achievements of the defence sector in Ukraine there will be a warm welcome for what has been done. Alliance leaders have always said that the approach towards NATO is a performance-based process, and Ukraine is performing well in the defence sector, and increasingly is adopting a constructive approach towards the reform of the security sector more generally, those military-style forces which are not... which are separate from the Ministry of Defence. So I think there'll be a warm welcome for what is being done in Ukraine . There will be a confirmation that nations remain interested and want to support Ukraine 's movement towards and progressively coming closer to NATO. So it will be a positive meeting. As it stands at the moment there are no decisions in terms of further steps of Ukraine 's movement expected or needed at this stage, but I think it will be a reaffirmation of NATO's support for what the Ukrainians are trying to do. Q: Paul Ames from the Associated Press. I also have two question. First, to follow-up on Afghanistan , the view of many NGOs and analysts who keep an eye on what's happening in southern Afghanistan seems to be that the situation has mutated away from being a series of isolated attacks from various diverse sources, and it's developing into an organized and sustained insurgency down there. Is that an opinion which you at NATO share, and does that in any way affect how things are going to operate once you take over at the end of July? And the second question, we understand that one of the issues being discussed Thursday will be the creation of a training school... NATO training school somewhere in the Middle East , possibly Jordan . Can you give us some information about how that will operate and where those plans stand at the moment, please? COLSTON: Yeah, thank you very much. As far as Afghanistan is concerned I'm not sure that there's too much that I want to add to what I said earlier. What we're seeing at the moment obviously military commanders and our political leaders are following very closely, but the kind of patterns of activity which we're seeing in Afghanistan is not, in my view at least, inconsistent with what we're expecting or what we're planning for. I think that has been echoed by what David Richards and others have been saying in theatre. On the possibility of an initiative related to training, we are at the very early stages of considering whether there is something which NATO could usefully do, notably in association with those countries who are part of the Mediterranean Dialogue, those countries who are part of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Gulf countries, to see whether we could work together to develop ways in which NATO could contribute to training and education in the security and defence sectors. But there are no decisions on that at all at the moment. We're in the very early stages of considering what the options might be. Q: I'm Augustin Palokaj from Koha Ditore. I wanted to ask you whether ministers are going to discuss enlargement and possibility to have a new approach on Montenegro now, a new independent country in the Balkans offering them a PfP. And on the Kosovo, sure this is a very important year, but the situation is deteriorating in a lot of place, especially in the northern part of Kosovo. The local Serbs are breaking the relations with Pristina and asking even Serbian troops to return to Kosovo. So are Ministers going to discuss this and what is NATO planning to do to keep the situation under control? COLSTON: Thank you very much. There are... there will, I'm sure, be a number of Ministers who will want to talk about enlargement in the context of the meetings on Thursday. Not least because the readiness of individual countries who are acknowledged or are acknowledged candidates for future membership is of interest to Defence Ministers as it is to Foreign Ministers. So I'm sure that there will be some discussion. I'm not going to try to speculate today on what that discussion might be, but there are a range of meetings, as I have described to you, with the Ukrainian Defence Minister, with the partner Defence Ministers, which obviously includes a number of countries who are either already within the Membership Action Plan, or have aspirations to do so. So I'm sure that that will come up, but I don't want to say any more than that at this stage. On Kosovo, I think there will be a recognition amongst Defence Ministers that this is going to be a very important and a very critical year for Kosovo. And I would expect that Ministers will want to take the opportunity to confirm their commitment to the security of Kosovo and their determination that NATO will continue to play its part throughout this year to ensure that Kosovo remains stable and that any threats to that stability are addressed promptly. So I think it will be an important opportunity. Given the understandable focus on Afghanistan , but nonetheless for Defence Ministers to say that they are determined to maintain the capability of KFOR and to ensure that it does its job through what could very well be a difficult time. APPATHURAI: Three actually over here. One... Q: Shada Islam from the German News Agency, DPA. Do you, on Afghanistan again, Mr. Colston, do you expect Ministers to voice concern about Pakistan 's alleged involvement in the insurgency and the fact that the accusations are the ISI is once again heavily encouraging and arming the insurgents in southern Afghanistan ? And within that context, can you confirm that there's a meeting in Islamabad when NATO has actually taken part between Afghan, Pakistani and American officials? Thank you. COLSTON: I'm going to ask James whether he wants to comment at all on that second part, but the Defence Ministers will have an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the position in Afghanistan , but I would not expect them to be discussing or commenting publicly on any aspect related to third countries. James, anything you want to say on that other point? APPATHURAI: Nothing that I want to say now. I'd like to go and check first. COLSTON: Yes, okay. Q: You mentioned the position of Kosovo and that's a point that I wanted to bring up in any case, in that whatever happens will mean there's no troop reduction likely in the future in Kosovo, NATO. There's also this Afghanistan commitment and it is a commitment of more forces, obviously by everybody. And to my surprise you said that on the NRF exercise that it'd have to be shown whether nations are willing to contribute forces. So are there, in fact, enough forces available in fact for all these commitments if there's even some doubt now about NATO nations not perhaps committing the forces that are foreseen to be required in the exercise? COLSTON: Thank you. It's certainly true that we have an increasing number of NATO forces committed to operations. Alongside the 16,000 to 17,000 in Kosovo, we will be moving up to 16,000, 17,000, perhaps even a little bit higher in Afghanistan as well. Those are demanding numbers and as far as Kosovo is concerned, yes, we are determined to maintain the military capability of the force throughout this year and for as long as the security situation requires. And yes, we are determined to keep sufficient troops in Afghanistan , including the additional troops that will go into the south to make sure we do that job properly. That put alongside the fact that we are determined to maintain 20,000 to 25,000 troops associated with the NATO Response Force on a permanent basis, so that's 25,000 who were there for one six month period, plus 25,000 who are training for the next six month period, plus 25,000 who are recovering from their commitments, if you add that all up it amounts to a substantial bill. Now it's not a question of those forces not existing. We're drawing from a pool of some 1.4 million forces amongst the allies, but it does create real costs, and it does mean that nations have to be determined to make the troops available and be determined to find the money to ensure that they're properly trained and equipped. But that's what we have said that we want to do. The NATO Response Force is not only an instrument through which we can undertake operations more effectively at the moment. We have always, since the Prague Summit, described it as a catalyst for transformation. This was the means by which allies were going to adapt their own forces to today's military requirements. So yes, it's very difficult, and we have to keep working at it, and we have to keep the exchanges at the political level continuing, for Ministers to confirm their determination that the NATO Response Force should continue to be a success. But we will do that and I'm sure it will be a success. It's just not easy. Q: (inaudible)... You have just mentioned the PfP mission; also we touched upon by the Minister (inaudible)... details (inaudible)... This is one thing. Another is about the... the Ministers are going to talk about... discuss relation with the Asia-Pacific partners, like Japan , Australia , New Zealand (inaudible)...? COLSTON: Thank you. The discussion amongst the 46 nations of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the 26 allies and the PfP partners, will be very free-ranging. It's not a prescripted discussion. I would expect the discussion to focus on how allies and partners can work together most effectively in NATO-led operations. In other words, how can we best ensure that the forces from a NATO ally and the forces from Sweden or from Ukraine or from Russia or from... one of the Central Asian states, can work together most effectively when they decide to join a single military operation? So that's the main focus. But I think it's also going to be an opportunity for a number of allies and a number of partners to talk about their own views about how they hope that the partnership can continue to develop in the future. And that may lead some to talk about the prospects for closer links with countries such as Japan and Australia or South Korea . But that's not, let me be clear, that's not going to be a principal focus and there are no decisions scheduled in this area for the discussions this week. APPATHURAI: Let's start from the back and work up. Leon. Q: Leon Bruneau, Agence France-Presse. Just three quick questions. Could you put us in context... very quick, except the first one. Could you put us in context, DPC readings in the morning, to say a little bit more of what we should expect from those. Second, do you have any new developments on whether or not Uzbekistan would participate in the EAPC, and for that matter even Belarus ? And third, since this is a formal meeting of Defence Ministers, I don't see any decisions. Are there any decisions tabled in whatever area for this meeting? COLSTON: Thank you. Let me do my best. The Defence Planning Committee, which let me just repeat, is the 25 allies without France , and this is the body of ministers which is responsible for NATO's military force structure, and responsible for deciding on the detailed planning targets which nations adopt as part of the process of developing their forces in a manner which takes account of NATO's requirements. The Defence Planning Committee is doing two things. It is adopting the Ministerial Guidance, which is a classified document which sets out what NATO wants to be able to do militarily in terms of the number of missions it wants to be able to undertake, the kinds of missions that it wants to be able to undertake, the conditions it expects those missions and operations to face, how far away we're going, all this kind of thing. And we're adopting a new version of the Ministerial Guidance, the first new version which will have been adopted for three years, and this new version is forward-looking in terms of its recognition of the way in which the demands on military forces are changing in the light of today's security challenges, and the kinds of places we may need to go, the kinds of places we may need to fight, the kinds of places we may need to be undertaking peace support operations. So that's the big thing for the DPC Ministers. The second thing is that they will adopt an update to the force goals. In other words, the particular targets which are placed on each of the participating nations. And this will have a particular impact for the seven members who joined in 2004, who are going to be given a slightly tougher menu of targets to meet in the forthcoming years, now that they have made such good progress in their first two years in developing their forces to match NATO's standards. So those are the two big things for the DPC. As far as Uzbekistan is concerned, I'm afraid I have not heard about the Uzbek intentions to fill their seat or otherwise. James, I don't know whether you have. In relation to decision, I mentioned what the DPC will be doing. There are not decisions for ministers to take at this meeting which will result in any great change of direction in terms of the planning that we're taking. The decisions, to be honest, are more of a formal nature. The Ministers will be taking note of the six-monthly reviews of each of our major operations, and in other words, confirming that they are content with the way in which our planning for those operations is going forward. They'll also be taking note of a series of other reports designed to take transformation forward and to ensure that we are in good shape by the time of the Riga Summit to demonstrate that this Alliance continues to be fit for purpose as far as the demands of operations are concerned. We will be hoping that they will have a discussion of the kinds of particular initiatives in the defence area which they would want to be ready for the Riga Summit. APPATHURAI: Nick, I think you wanted to come in. Q: Nick Fiorenza, Jane's Defence Weekly. This Ministerial Guidance, is it the same as the Comprehensive Political Guidance that we heard... that some of us have heard about this morning and if so, I mean, we've been hearing of the number of major missions being reduced from... that NATO wants to be able to conduct being reduced from three to two. Is that only possible now because the EU has taken over in Bosnia? And then how many smaller missions can NATO conduct now? Has there ever been a number attached to it? I know that the new number is six for the comprehensive political guidance. COLSTON: Thank you very much. At the risk of being even more boring than usual I'll try and answer the question, but... and I will go on background for the end of it, but I'll indicate where the change comes. In Istanbul Heads of State and Government commissioned Comprehensive Political Guidance. And the idea was that there should be a common political guidance which underpinned all of the various ways in which NATO plans, whether it's planning for armaments, whether it's planning for future force structures, whether it's planning for the way we spend resources, whether it's planning for logistics. And of course, the way the nations themselves plan to develop their armed forces. That Comprehensive Political Guidance, commissioned by Heads of State and Government in June 2004, it was agreed by the nations in December last year. It'll be given the formal approval by Defence Ministers this week and we expect that it will be published by the Heads of State and Government in Riga in November. It's a very short, quite political document. The Ministerial Guidance is the detailed specification of ... detailed translation of that Comprehensive Political Guidance for the 25 allies who participate in force planning. In other words, the detailed process of planning the development of our future force structures. The number of operations that we plan to undertake is not directly influenced by the capacity of the European Union. Because there are 19 common members between NATO and the European Union we deliberately set our own force planning guidance at a level which includes the requirements of the European Union. I'll then go briefly onto background to say the numbers of operations won't formally be made public by NATO. APPATHURAI: Une autre question? Q: I have... (inaudible)... Frankfurt Allgemeine. I have two questions if I may. One on the NRF. We have had for a number of months now a debate on common funding and the General Secretary is supporting this debate. Could you give us an indication about the state of play there at the moment. And second question, more formal one: If I understand correctly there's a meeting of the troop contributors on Thursday. Is that the first meeting on this level? COLSTON: Yes, it's the first meeting at ministerial level of the troop contributors. The troop contributors meet regularly at ambassadorial level or at official level here in Brussels, but this is the first time that all 37, or at least as many as we can gather, but I mean, all 37 are invited, of the Ministers of the nations who contribute forces to ISAF will gather. As far as common funding is concerned, this will form part of the debate about how we can ensure the long-term success of the NATO Response Force, and how we can ensure that nations are willing to contribute forces to the NATO Response Force. We've been discussing the question of how the costs of deploying the NATO Response Force should be met by nations in future. And we're continuing to discuss this. We're hoping the Ministers' discussion will take the debate forward, but we do not yet have decisions... we're not expecting to have decision this week. What is clear is that there's going to be no real change to the principle that nations bear the costs of their own contribution to operations. What we call "costs lie where they fall." That's not going to change. Equally it's clear that what is really important to all the Allies is that nations make the necessary investment so that they have got the large aircraft and the sealift necessary to move their forces in the future. So what we're still continuing to consider is whether there is some particular case that we may need to address for assisting Allies with he unpredictable costs associated with a short notice deployment of the NATO Response Force or elements of the NATO Response Force. That discussion continues. Q: ITAR-TASS News Agency, Dainius Dubronan(?). One more small question about Ukraine. How can you commend the recent protestant(sic) manifestations and to NATO manifestations in Crimea region and will you discuss this issue during the meeting with Ukrainian Defence Minister? COLSTON: Thank you. The... I would be quite surprised if it was not raised, given the extent of media coverage recently. As I'm sure you'll know the particular circumstances are that this is not a NATO exercise, but it is a national exercise, conducted with support of Ukraine and a number of other allied and partner nations. I think it will be discussed. I think perhaps the one thing which I haven't mentioned, which perhaps I should, the one meeting which we're not having on Thursday, and this is by agreement--we've agreed to hold the meeting in September instead--is we're not having a formal meeting with Minister Ivanov, we're not having a formal meeting of the NATO-Russia Council. And I think in some ways this is a great shame, because it would have been an interesting counterpart to have NATO and Russia talking about the wide range of military exercises which proceed under the NATO-Russia banner at the same time as we're seeing the current level of local protests in Ukraine about a single exercise between NATO allies and Ukraine. So it's an interesting contrast there. Q: Martine (inaudible)... El Pais(?). Can you elaborate a little bit on this change of semi-paradigm, moving from three big operations to some more big and less operations. You've first spoken about the six small operations, but I understand there is also the understanding that there will be as well two big operations running at the same time in theory and could you say not only the number that would be implicated in a big operation, but some examples of what is a big operation, what is a small operation? Examples of some cases, please. COLSTON: Again, I'll go on background for this, because none of these numbers will actually be made public by NATO. APPATHURAI: We're running a bit short of time, so questions are going to have to be quick. Q: On Afghanistan... APPATHURAI: Identify yourself, please. Q: Oh, I'm sorry. (inaudible)... On Afghanistan, what do you actually expect from the meeting with the Afghanistan (inaudible)...? COLSTON: I’m sure that Defence Ministers will want to offer Minister Wardak their support, to reiterate their commitment and their determination to see the job done in Afghanistan. I think the meeting will also be important to ensure that Minister Wardak and the allied ministers stand together and are seen to stand together in terms of demonstrating that there is a common purpose between the Afghan government and NATO allies in terms of what we're trying to achieve in Afghanistan. So I think it's the sending of a powerful political signal that our aims are actually one and the same. APPATHURAI: (inaudible)...have you got a follow-up? Q: Yeah, sorry, a follow-up on this political guidance. I'm trying to get, for my own political guidance, more of a sense of what this actually means politically? You know, this message that you're going from three big operations to potentially six smaller ones. What exactly are you saying? I'm trying... because I don't understand exactly where this is going and where this is coming from? Are you saying that you don't have the means... you're sort of drawing back from what NATO can potentially do? Or try to give us some more political sense as to what the message is. COLSTON: The message is that there is a willingness and there is a willingness and there is a preparedness to undertake a wider range of smaller operations. If you go back to before the Balkans NATO was planning for one war and only one war. If you go back to before the end of the nineties. Progressively over the last 10 years NATO has assumed a wider range of missions, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, the training mission in Iraq, the support to the African Union in Darfur, the Maritime Surveillance Operation in the Mediterranean, assistance to disaster relief following Katrina and following the Pakistan earthquake. So what we have actually seen is a willingness and an interest from allies to use the military capabilities of the Alliance to undertake a much wider and much more diverse range of operations than was ever envisaged in the past. The significance of the new Ministerial Guidance is we're now saying, okay, we're not just going to do this out of the capabilities that we've established against the, we hope, very remote threat of an attack on the Alliance. We are actually going to plan deliberately to be able to undertake such missions in the future. APPATHURAI: I'm afraid that is all we have time for. John, thank you. If you have any other questions on non-Defence Ministers' issues I'm happy to take them. Q: (inaudible)... It's a very brief one. APPATHURAI: Okay, a quick one. Q: (inaudible)... The meeting with the ISAF-contributing nations, would that include Australia given that they're about to become an ISAF? APPATHURAI: It will include Australia, but not necessarily the ministerial level. They'll probably be represented by an ambassador. Q: But they have been invited. APPATHURAI: Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, John. |
|||||||||
 |
||||||||||
