Résidence Palace, Brussels 7Sept. 2006

Press briefing by NATO Spokesman James Appathurai Multimedia Audio file (.MP3/50535kb) Biography James Appathurai JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman):  Ladies and gentlemen thank you for coming. I welcome you back if you had holidays; unfortunately I am now back from my holidays as well and had to hit the ground running because I was with the Secretary General and the North Atlantic Council, the Supreme Allied Commander and the Chairman of the Military Committee in Afghanistan . We just back last night at around 10:00 . So I thought I would begin by giving you a little read-out of... and it's a personal read-out I have to say, of what we saw there and I'm sure you have questions about Afghanistan on your agenda as well. But what I'll do is quickly touch on Afghanistan and what is going on now and then give you a quick look forward to the other issues that are on the agenda and then I'll be happy to take your questions. This is, at least for the moment, all on the record for those of you who don't regularly attend. As I say, pretty much the entire top brass of NATO was in Afghanistan over the past three days to do three things. One: to demonstrate NATO's unity and full commitment when it comes to supporting the Afghan government with military forces with the NATO ISAF mission and that was done. Second: to assess for themselves the security situation in the country, and in particularly in the south of the country where there is quite a lot of combat going on and I certainly wouldn't hide that. Third: to look forward to stage four and in other words when NATO should expand the mission to cover the entire country. Sorry... and to add fourth: to have a conversation both with the new Afghan Parliament, but also of course very much with President Karzai about the issues that NATO countries wish the Afghan government to tackle and of course for President Karzai to make clear what he would like us to do as well. So it was a good overall mission. Let me tackle each of those last three in order. In terms of the security situation in the south I know what's on all of your minds - what General Jones has said this morning. I think certainly the Ambassadors that went south and the military personnel went south, along with the Secretary General, had a very first hand view of the high tempo of operations in the south. The forces that are there, in particular in Kandahar and those that are engaged in Operation Medusa, are, as I say, operating at a very high tempo pushing into the heart of opposition to the democratic process in Afghanistan . And that is an area that has largely been ungoverned and therefore a private hunting ground for the Taliban, for drug lords, and for, as I say, those who wish to oppose the extension of government influence, therefore they are opposing NATO's expanded mission. The assessment of General Jones you have seen the morning which he made to the press was that he believes that we need to look at our force levels. The Secretary General shares that view that NATO does need to look at its force levels. That is no surprise. Every military operation in the history of military operations has made adjustments as you go. That is absolutely necessary now that our top brass have seen for themselves, heard briefings from the full chain of command in Afghanistan , right down to the guys fighting. They are now coming back with the impressions that they have and NATO's normal processes will continue. The next step in that is a meeting of Chiefs of Defence; on Friday and Saturday the 26 NATO nations will meet at the level of Chiefs of Defence. It was a previously and regularly scheduled meeting, but of course they will devote much of their time to discussing Afghanistan and the capabilities and force posture necessary there. After that of course NATO has processes with military committee recommendations that come up from Operational Commander. If and when through that process a recommendation comes for changes to force levels or force posture, it will be discusses then at the political level. But as I say, the Secretary General shares the Supreme Allied Commander's view that NATO needs to look at its force levels and that will be done beginning at the Chiefs of Defence Staff meeting. Starting tomorrow we have Colonel Boudreau here who works for... at the back of the room. He'll come up in a few minutes to brief you on the Chiefs of Defence Staff meeting so you can get a little bit more detail on that. Aside from that, and now I really am giving you personal impressions, the moral of the troops is very high. That's point one. And we discussed... the Secretary General met and the Ambassadors met, as I say, at all levels with the forces, and even the ones that are injured want to get out of bed and go back and carry on that mission. So that is a point I think that is worth making. The morale is high. The Afghan people continue to welcome the presence of international forces. That point was made very forcefully by President Karzai, but it was also made right down at the local level. Like everybody else, they would like peace and a better life for their kids and if we can as an international community help the Afghan government to provide that, they will embrace that. So I think we should dispel any myths about growing popular resistance to international forces. The Afghans were very clear to us at all levels that that is simply not the case. I think that's all I wish to say on Afghanistan and I'm sure you have some questions, which we'll get to in a moment. But let me just quickly look forward to some of the things that are coming up in the coming days. On September 11th there will be a commemorative ceremony at NATO. We will send out a proper media advisory on this tomorrow when all the details are clear, but it will be open to the press around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon I believe... in which the Secretary General, the NATO Ambassadors and the NATO staff will all participate, but we will certainly open it to you and will send out details on that tomorrow. Next Wednesday... oh yes... I love having... normally Carmen just sends me these little text messages from NATO headquarters, but now she's decided that that's not good enough so she has to tap me on the arm from next to me. On Monday, the Lithuanian Prime Minister... tomorrow the Lithuanian Prime Minister indeed...sorry, I just came back... Tomorrow the Lithuanian Prime Minister will be at NATO headquarters. I understand there is no press opportunity... that he will be meeting with the Secretary General tomorrow. On Wednesday Lieutenant General Giuseppe Valotto, who is the outgoing KFOR Commander, will be at NATO headquarters to brief the North Atlantic Council on the situation in Kosovo. For the moment no media activity is planned, but we will look into whether something is possible. On Thursday Prime Minister Yanukovych of Ukraine will also be in NATO for a meeting of the NATO Ukraine Commission, in other words the body that brings together the NATO countries and Ukraine . I think this will be of interest... I don't know if we have a media opportunity. UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah, yeah. We do have. APPATHURAI: We do have it? UNIDENTIFIED: Yes, at 11:30 . APPATHURAI: Okay. Excellent. Thank you. You have a more updated schedule. Yes. So at 11:30 we will have a point de presse with the Secretary General and Prime Minister Yanukovych. 21 to 23 September we will have a NATO-Afghan Student Forum which will be open to the press from beginning to end. This is an attempt to engage young political leaders from Afghanistan . It will be a two day forum taking place in NATO, in NATO headquarters, with briefings to them, but also briefings from them. For example, a discussion with these young leaders about what life is like for them in Afghanistan . The Deputy Secretary General will also be briefing them and there will a cultural event. But we will open it to any one of you who is interested in listening to or interviewing, because they have agreed to be interview, on the first day. So on the 21st... excuse me; on the 21st around 17:30 ... around 16:30 , they have agreed that if anyone wants to interview them, they're welcome to come. But we will send out a media advisory on that as well. 21st of September in New York there will be a North Atlantic Council meeting at the level of Foreign Minister. In other words, a NATO Foreign Ministers meeting will take place in New York . It will take place at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel at 10:40 in the morning, from 10:40 to 12:30 , followed by a press conference on the 18th floor of the Waldorf Astoria. We will again send out a media advisory on this. The purpose of the meeting is principally to look forward to the Riga Summit. This will be the last opportunity for Foreign Ministers to set priorities for the Riga Summit on all the political issues with which you are very familiar, from issues like how the Alliance wishes to send a signal on enlargement at the summit, how the Alliance wishes to take forward its partnerships, and all the other issues with which you're familiar. This will be followed up very quickly by a... you missed all the good stuff. This will be followed up very quickly by a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Slovenia Portorož on the 28th, 29th and 30th of September. You will not be surprised that the meeting will concentrate very heavily on Afghanistan . But there will also be a meeting of the NATO Russia Council with Minister Ivanov I presume. I think that's all that I have to... that's all that I've been given by Carmen to tell you .So I'm very happy to open the floor to the Financial Times. UNIDENTIFIED: An easy question. Q: James - APPATHURAI: Sorry. I think we're here and then we'll come back. Q: James at the briefing this morning General Jones said that there had been a force generation meeting held... conference held in August that hadn't actually produced the troops that it wanted. To what extent did this crisis come up when NATO's military and political leaders were at the beach? APPATHURAI: Were at the beach? Q: At the beach. APPATHURAI: (Laughs) There are regularly scheduled force generation conferences. They take place all the time. Some of them are more successful than others in terms of meeting overall requirements. What you should know about the overall requirements - we have something called a Combined Joint Statement of Requirements for those of you who follow. IN essence, the military advisors to the North Atlantic Council recommend a level of forces and a package of capabilities that will be required to successfully carry out the mission and then they go to nations, once nations have agreed this and this is agreed by all the 26 Chiefs of Defence, to generate the forces. As I say this goes on all the time. That being said, the Supreme Allied Commander will not agree for example, to the expansion to stage three, unless he believes and the Operational Commander believe that they have sufficient forces to carry out the operation. That judgement was made by the Supreme Allied Commander and by the Operational Commander General Richards that they had the forces they needed to carry out the expansion. Now, as I mentioned, NATO is pushing in what I believe to be the biggest offensive land operation in NATO's history, into this territory at Kandahar and as you might expect the military leaders are looking at how to adapt the military capabilities that we have in place. That includes, and General Jones was quite clear about that, that includes a call on nations to fully meet at 100 percent the Statement of Requirements and I'm quite sure that that call will be made again and the Secretary General will be the first to stand beside him and make it. I think we had one here. Q: It's only just a technical question. James where and when this... will be this NATO-Russia meeting with Ivanov and what issues will be discussed? I imagine it will be all range of issues, but from the NATO side what are the priorities? APPATHURAI: The meeting will take place on Friday the 29th of September in Portorož , Slovenia . And don't worry; you'll get all of this in a proper media advisory. There are a host of issues to discuss, many of them relating to practical cooperation carrying forward a number of issues. You know that we are now very... I believe right now at an important stage in Russian participation in, or support for, Active Endeavour, where I believe a Russian frigate is now paying an initial visit to the fleet, the Active Endeavour fleet, to prepare the ground for the full participation of it. So I think that that will certainly be one of the many areas of discussion. But I think in essence it will focus on practical cooperation. Q: Yes, back to Afghanistan . My question is about all of the conflicting... miscellanea of rules of engagement, the different restrictions on the national troops et cetera. It won't matter how many reinforcements are sent into Afghanistan unless there is more unity of the way that all of the different national troops can move and be commanded et cetera in Afghanistan . Did the military leaders look at that and how are they considering to rationalize all of this? Thank you. APPATHURAI: There is one set of rules of engagement for the NATO forces in Afghanistan and I can tell you because I read them myself on the plane. So there is one set of agreed rules of engagement for NATO forces in Afghanistan . Are there other restrictions? National restrictions or caveats as we call them, on national forces in Afghanistan ? Yes there are. Should they be diminished? Yes they should. Are they posing an immediate problem now in the context of Operation Medusa in terms of the immediate reinforcements that are being discussed? My understanding is that they are not a problem. These reinforcements that General Jones is considering in the immediate context are not being restricted by caveats. But there is a larger issue of maximizing the flexibility that an Operational Commander has to move his troops around where he needs them and when he needs them and that is certainly something that both the Secretary General the Supreme Allied Commander would wish to reduce and diminish those restrictions to the absolute maximum. I should finally point out two things. One is each and every nation in the end has the ultimate responsibility for their own forces and the way that they behave. That includes of course the rules of engagement. So Canada will have its own take. There is a NATO set of rules of engagement. Of course Canada has a very direct interest in making sure that its soldiers behave in a way that it wants it do. SO that's an important thing to remember. The final point I would say is that restrictions on the movement of forces or the use of forces is not always simply a political decision based on risk. Sometimes it is simply on the capability. In other words, if you don't have the capability to fly at night, then you don't fly at night. It might also be constitutional. Some countries for example, have a constitutional restriction against crowd and riot control; therefore it is very difficult for them to lift that. Or, for the protection of patrimonial sites; again, if you have a constitutional restriction on that then it's tough. So I would not portray this as always being simply a question of political discussions in Parliaments or willingness or a desire to avoid risk, just to put that in context. Q: Just wanted to clarify does the Secretary General think it's preferable for these reinforcements to come from troops redeployed, that are already in Afghanistan , for them to come from the existing pool of ISAF troops? Or will it be more sensible if any reinforcements were to come from outside so as not to put at risk this ability of the other regions that's going on at the moment? And is there a broader concern that other conflicts - Lebanon for example and the commitments that's brought forth in Europe - would affect the ability of nations to respond to these kind of appeals? APPATHURAI: In terms of what the Secretary General believes, what the Secretary General believes is that the military advice that comes from the Operational Commander through the Chiefs of Defence as to how to reinforce the mission is what should be done. These are experts and he's not going to prejudge where these forces should come from. There is a process that NATO has followed for 55 years. It's going to follow it now as well. Is there concern? I have heard no concern that commitments made elsewhere would undermine the capability of NATO nations to provide what they need to provide here. This is a priority for all 26 NATO nations and by the way for the 11 who are also there alongside NATO. So I do not believe and have not heard that this should in any way impinge on their ability to provide more if the decision is taken that they do need to provide more. I think we were here. Q: Was NATO taken by surprise from the upsurge in fighting in southern Afghanistan and do you see more upsurge coming in the next days? And my second question is Pakistani President Mr. Musharraf will be in Brussels next wee - is there any meeting foreseen between him and NATO Chief? APPATHURAI: Was NATO surprised? I would look at it this way: NATO initiated this contact in Kandahar by this offensive operation, but the level of resistance to the NATO operation was perhaps higher than we had planned for. That being said, as I say once again, it is very normal to adjust as you go to the situation at hand and that is what is being done. I am aware that President Musharraf is coming to Brussels . I cannot confirm one way or the other whether a meeting will take place between the Secretary General and the President. Q: Would you rule it out? APPATHURAI: I don't rule it out no. Q: James, ça marche là. Je voulais savoir exactement le chiffre. Vous réclamez des renforts. Combien d'hommes? Est-ce qu'on parle de centaines? Alors, ce n'est pas très précis parce qu'entre 100 et 900 ça fait quand même une différence. Il y a 36,000 troupes étrangères en Afghanistan, soldat étrangers en Afghanistan. Est-ce que c'est un problème juste militaire pour l'OTAN ou est-ce que c'est plus un problème politique parce qu'il y a des... Ça commence à râler dans certains États membres de l'OTAN sur les violences et les risques de cet engagement dans le sud. Donc, combien d'hommes pour quelle mission? Est-ce que tu peux être plus précis? APPATHURAI: En tant que chiffres pas encore, malheureusement pour les mêmes raisons que j'ai déjà données. Il faut attendre les recommandations militaires. Ce n'est absolument pas à moi de décider si c'est 100 ou 900 ou 1,500. Il y a un processus. C'est un processus qu'on va suivre. Et puis si les militaires décident que... donnent une recommandation évidemment il y aura un montant là-dedans. Il faut l'attendre. Nous sommes... moi, ce n'est moi l'expert. Est-ce que c'est un problème juste militaire? Tu as bien raison qu'évidemment la discussion politique dans nos États membres et dans certains États membres est très sensible. Je peux dire dans mon pays y compris d'autres. Je suis Canadien pour les gens qui ne me connaissent pas. Je suis absolument, absolument d'accord. Et le SEC.-GEN. évidemment est d'accord que c'est très important de continuer d'expliquer à nos opinions publiques, nos opinions politiques et parlementaires pourquoi nous sommes là. Parce que c'est assez facile de l'oublier, finalement, cinq ans après. Mais on approche quand même le 11 septembre, l'anniversaire du 11 septembre, cinquième anniversaire. Et il faut se rappeler que l'Afghanistan était le berceau du 11 septembre. On peut pas l'oublier. Il y a des nationaux de tous les pays représentés ici qui étaient tués ce jour-là. Il faut se rappeler les attaques terroristes en Afrique. Il faut se rappeler maintenant que les Talibans "est inbed with" (SIC)... associés avec les narcotrafiquants aussi. Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire? Ça veut dire que comme n'importe quelle mafia, ils protègent la "poppy"... le "poppy" (SIC)... l'opium, oui merci. Ils protègent l'opium et ils utilisent l'argent qu'ils gagnent pour la protection, pour leur insurrection. Alors, on peut remercier de plus en plus les Talibans pour les ruines qui se trouvent dans nos écoles et nos allées. Alors, c'est une menace évidente. Il faut se rappeler... C'est mon obligation. L'obligation de notre alliance et de nos gouvernements de rappeler à nos populations bien que c'est sensible et bien que c'est difficile et bien que nous perdons des gens que c'est essentiel. C'est comme ça. APPATHURAI: I think we'll go back over there. Q: James if you say you were surprised, or NATO was surprised by the level of resistance, did you get any explanations when you were in Afghanistan how it could come to this underestimation and to this obviously high level of resistance? And how would describe the... if we talk of stages, not of NATO expansion, ISAF expansion, but of the fight against terror and the Taliban in Afghanistan , where would you describe where we stand now? And what for the future is... how can you deal with it for example without closing the border to Pakistan ? Would you (inaudible) of it? APPATHURAI: That's a good question. Why were they surprised? Again, where... this region, southern region, was a region in which there has never been in the history of Afghanistan central government control. And the coalition had been there with about half the number of troops, but in a very different context, moving around at all times. But not doing what NATO has been assigned to do, which is to push in and remain and lay the ground work for a permanent Afghanistan government presence. So this is in many ways moving into territory with which we were not familiar. No international forces had been there in a sustained way. And of course the Taliban has, this year, substantially it seems, upgraded its capability to resist in terms of its tactics and in terms of the numbers that it is massing. There are many theories about where this capability comes from and I think you are as familiar with them as I am. But for whatever reasons, they are resisting more capably than we had expected and that is why we as an alliance have to make adjustments to carry out the mission successfully and that is what is being done. I might add that there are 10,000 or so troops in the south fighting now. They have pushed quite significantly into this ungoverned territory and having quite a lot of success. So we should not see this... we should see this in the context of a successfully expanding military operation that is meeting a lot of resistance and needs to reinforce that success. That is the way we should look at it. Pakistan . You're are absolutely right that Pakistan is essential to a solution to this problem and the Pakistanis and the Afghans are in constant and very profound discussion on how to improve their cooperation when it comes to the border region. NATO of course is also part of this discussion in the Tri-Partheid Commission, I believe it's called, and General Richards participate quite regularly in that. The Secretary General of course also has his contact, may well have his contact with President Musharraf next week. But certainly the Deputy Secretary General has met with the President. General Jones has just also returned from Pakistan where he met with the top level of the military brass in Pakistan and as you know they're very influential. So we have our contacts directly with the country as well, but in essence this has to be something solved between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the first order and they are very much engaged in that and that's exactly what President Musharraf has been discussing over the last couple of days with President Karzai. I believe he spent the night there last night, which is something somewhat unusual I think in the history of their relations. Q: (Inaudible)... APPATHURAI: In terms of what's going on it's an important moment. I think it is safe to say it is an important moment. This region is the heart of opposition to the extension of Afghan authority. This operation is directed at the heart of that opposition. I think the Afghan population, from what we heard, want to see the Afghan government's authority extended and they will of course wish to see the success of this operation and so it is important to carry it through. So now that it has been started and is being conducted successfully it is absolutely important to carry it out. Q: Some time ago Ukraine declared its readiness to send to Afghanistan civilian personnel for PRTs. After Mr. Yanukovych took office, have you received some kind of signal concerning these intentions? And in general terms, what do you expect from Mr. Yanukovych visiting headquarters? Thank you. APPATHURAI: Thank you. I am not aware of any new signals on the PRT from the Ukrainian government. That being said, it may well be raised in Mr. Yanukovych's discussions with the Secretary General. I anticipate (now I'm speaking on a personal basis), but I anticipate that the Secretary General will be interested to hear from Mr. Yanukovych the intentions of the Ukrainian government, the new Ukrainian government, when it comes to NATO; potentially where it comes to NATO membership, but certainly where it comes to intensifying cooperation between NATO and Ukraine. It is important I think for us to hear directly from the new Ukrainian government exactly what their priorities are and that's I think what the Secretary General will wish to hear. And of course I think he will reiterate, if I can anticipate his discussions, NATO's strong commitment to deeper cooperation with Ukraine , whatever Ukraine 's choices are. Q: James would you describe the situation in Kandahar as close to an open war situation because this is a big problem for many countries, that is the mission of NATO might turn into a real war operation on the ground. APPATHURAI: I would certainly describe it as combat. I can tell you, having now been there, it is certainly - not in Kandahar itself, but in the region where combat is taking place - it is certainly combat at a reasonably high level of intensity for the soldiers that are there. That being said, the mission's mandate is quite clear and that is to help the Afghan government extend its authority and to lay the foundations for reconstruction and development. As the Secretary General has said many times, you can't have development without security. The problem is you also cannot have long term security without development. So in different parts of the country different things are required. The conditions are much more appropriate for development to take place in the north and the west, but in the south basically we have to clear the ground to allow development to take place in any significant way and that is what's happening there. But the mission remains what it always was. It is not for example, a counter-terror mission. That is OEF's mission. NATO's mission is to extend the authority of the Afghan government, to lay the conditions for reconstruction and development. Unfortunately in the south that is requiring, at the present time, combat. Q: Can you tell us what the casualties are on the NATO side? I saw some figures this morning - 21 deaths in combat and same figure for accidents. APPATHURAI: I'm afraid that I cannot. I mean I'm not trying to obfuscate, I just actually don't know the latest casualty figures. I mean you can... you know that in the past week the United Kingdom has lost I think five... four, five (not counting the plane crash of 14). Canada has lost four... four and then... well, plenty. So I can give you the numbers, but I can't give them to you now. Brett may have something to offer on that subject, but I'll have to come back to it. Sorry I'm just not clear. Wait, I think we're here. Q: You have just said that Afghanistan was the cradle(?) of September 11th and yesterday the (inaudible) published this report about the (inaudible) trends in which they showed that the support of NATO is going down and exactly from 2002 is when they started to do it. So just after September 11th there was a published report in all of like... on European countries for NATO, but the trend is going down. What is your assessment of this? Is this something that worries you, the Alliance , that you are losing the battle or the war of hearts and minds of the public opinion? APPATHURAI: I wouldn't (A) call it a battle or (B) that we're losing it. Of course as the marketing department, which is what I am, you would always like to see those numbers go up. But I think it is fair to say that first those numbers show still very, very strong support for NATO across the board in many countries, in fact in all the countries that were reviewed. So I think that that actually was quite a positive signal. I think we need to do... I think I need to do more in terms of explaining what the new NATO is. If I talk to my mother, she still thinks of NATO in Cold War terms. That's the way it is and I think many people in many of our countries simply are unaware of what NATO is doing and therefore in too many minds, and that's my fault as much as it is anybody', NATO can be seen in terms of the past and not of the future. It is our job as NATO nations and as myself, this postman, to do a better job of explaining why NATO is relevant to the security of all of our populations. And Afghanistan , as we were discussing before, it's an interesting example of what the challenge is because it's very far away; nobody I know has been there; and it is hard over time to keep reminding people that this country very far away has a direct effect on our security. So it is a... NATO has, since the end of the Cold War, to put it in very simple terms, a much greater public diplomacy challenge than we ever had before because we are dealing with security issues that can seem abstract or geographically distance. And it is our job to do more, to explain better, why NATO is still and it is still keeping people safe. I think it was here. Q: James you just mentioned the drug trafficking problem and drug cultivation in Afghanistan . But is NATO... NATO troops... are NATO troops anyhow involved in combating this issue, this problem? APPATHURAI: NATO, and this will come as no surprise to many of you, NATO has no mandate - I want to be clear about this - no mandate to take a lead role in counter-narcotics. It has not been given that mandate and it does not execute that mandate. It can play a supporting role and it does. That support can include, and that is in the operational plan, providing intelligence to Afghan counter-narcotics authorities providing logistical support to them, providing in extremis support to them (in other words if they get shot or hurt in some way, we can provide medical assistance to them) and providing training. NATO is also providing, with the Russian Federation as you know, training to counter-narcotics officials in Afghanistan, but also in neighbouring countries. So NATO is playing a supporting role in the effort to combat counter-narcotics, but I think we have to look at this very comprehensively and it is a very... it's a piece with many puzzles and if you don't use all the pieces, it doesn't work. In other words you cannot take away somebody's livelihood without giving them an alternative. You cannot prosecute effectively a counter-narcotics regime without a police force that works, without a prison system into which to put those who have been arrested for breaking the law, without a judicial system that is (A) robust enough to handle the volume of people and (B) that is not corrupt and corruption is certainly one of the issues that was discussed with President Karzai. Justice officials, including judges, in Afghanistan are paid salaries that are extremely low and as a result it exposes them to the possibility of corruption. That is the way it is. The same is true of other officials and I can give you an example -that the average Afghan soldier is being paid $4 dollars a day; the average Taliban fighter is being paid $10 dollars a day by the Taliban. So that's a challenge. I might add that in a country with no banking system, it is difficult for soldiers who are deployed far away from home for six months, eight months, ten months, to get money home to their families and so it is a challenge for these soldiers. I'm straying away from the counter-narcotics question. Sorry. But what it does illustrate is the great challenge when it comes to corruption in the country as well. So all this to say the counter-narcotics effort - NATO can play a supporting role, but we cannot provide alternative livelihoods. We cannot provide an effective justice system. We cannot provide a functioning Afghan National Police Force and we cannot combat corruption. These are the jobs for the European Union, for the international donor community, for the Afghan government to combat corruption. All of these pieces of the puzzle have to be there for an effective counter-narcotics strategy. And so these are all very good reasons why it is not working very well and much more high level political attention needs to be given to this issue because it will have and is having a corrosive effect on the development of Afghanistan . Q: I haven't seen any references to the following subject but I'm just curious. Are the Taliban extensively using anti-personnel and anti-tank mines? Is there any risk that they're doing that and to what extent is that hampering movements? APPATHURAI: I know that there is a mine threat to our forces. U.K. nationals have died as a result of that yesterday. Whether or not these are old mines leftover from a long time ago or whether new ones are being planted I have to say I'm unaware. Maybe Brett has more information on the subject and he'll brief to that when he comes up. UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible)... APPATHURAI: He's talking about mines. Yeah exactly. And I don't know whether new ones are being planted or whether it's just the old ones which are still causing a risk. Q: Are you sure that all the resistance is coming from Taliban forces? And if you're sure, how can you be sure? APPATHURAI: I'm not sure. In fact I'm quite sure that all the resistance is not coming from Taliban forces. There are Taliban forces, there are narco-traffickers, there are warlords; all of those who do not wish to see the, as I say, their private hunting ground, being opened up to effective Afghan national government influence and control. So it is not... you're absolutely right. It is not only Taliban. It would be a mistake to ascribe all of this violence to the Taliban. Q: I can change the subject, but then I will have to go with several questions. (LAUGHTER) Q: As usual. APPATHURAI: Apparently he's not interested in... Go ahead. Q: Kosovo , Macedonia and then Balkans and Riga related. APPATHURAI: Mmmhmm. Q: What is... what is the latest about the NATO build-up in the north of Kosovo? There have been reports in July about increased numbers in their soldiers and what's the latest debrief on that? And speaking about the north, Admiral Ulrich has been quoted by local media that in a way he confirmed the existence of Serb paramilitary forces in the north. Is it as... who is wrong and who is right in this case? Then related to Admiral Ulrich. He was a day before in Macedonia ... day before he visited Kosovo, he was in Macedonia visiting Mr. Ahmeti, the leader of the new opposition now in Macedonia . Is NATO closely following the warning of Mr. Ahmeti that he might try to bring down the Macedonian government and break up the institutions? On Riga . What kind of language the Ministers... is going to be used in Riga Summit for the three Balkan candidates (inaudible)? And then Mladic. What can Serbia expect from... in relation to PFP from the Summit ? Can Serbia get the PFP program with the arrest of Mladic... or only with the cooperation, without actual arrest? APPATHURAI: Thank you for all those questions. (LAUGHTER) APPATHURAI: I'll be brief. In terms of the build-up of forces in the north, a German battalion, and you (inaudible) well aware of this, was deployed a few months ago into Kosovo. Some of those forces indeed went to the north of Afghanistan . I believe that that situation has not changed. The situation has not changed since then. Admiral Ulrich was misquoted by the Balkan press. He said that he was not aware of any paramilitary forces in the north of Kosovo, but that he would keep the situation under constant review; not the opposite, which was what was reported in the Balkan press. In terms of Mr. Ahmeti, NATO is watching closely the situation. In the country, NATO expects all politicians to respect the democratic process and to work within the existing constitutional framework and that is a message that is delivered to all politicians in the country. Riga and what language can be expected. Obviously I cannot prejudge that because... and I can tell you I used to draft the communiqués that NATO Ministers agreed... negotiated and then agreed and I can tell you it went right up to the last minute every time. But in principal, and this actually addresses your second question as well, the meeting in New York later this month will definitely focus... the meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers will focus on these two questions I think right at the top of the agenda. In other words what kind of signal should be sent to the three? Now we're moving to the stage where language will become clearer and also how does the Alliance wish to carry forward its relations in particular with Serbia in the context of cooperation with the international tribunal. I cannot be any more clear than that. Come to New York . (LAUGHTER) APPATHURAI: Because to be honest there will be no clarity I think before New York . Go ahead follow-up. Q: But the fact that he has not said that... in fact still you don't have the answer whether there are these paramilitary forces operating or not and do consider this as serious or you're just going to forget it? APPATHURAI: Well when I said he will keep this situation under close review, I mean he'll keep the situation under close review. He was quite clear about that. So he... it is his job to monitor carefully the security situation in Kosovo and he does it well. He is very well aware of the issue of paramilitary forces in the north. He has looked; he has not found any; and he will keep looking. Go ahead. Q: The German battalion that went up north - was that part of the splitting of the Italian-German task force into two or in what context was that? APPATHURAI: Well come back to you. Nick always asks me questions I can't answer. You're the toughest person in the room. Q: Relating Afghanistan warlords, narco-traffickers... it is notorious that one important part of (inaudible) comes to Europe through Balkans and through Kosovo and in Kosovo (inaudible) are present. Why not cut that channel? APPATHURAI: I have to say I'm unaware of this notorious channel. But no... I really am unaware of this notorious channel and I just couldn't comment on it. (LAUGHTER) Q: (Inaudible) APPATHURAI: I really can't comment. I cannot comment. Anyone else? Brett please come and join us and Brett will brief you on the CHOD's meeting that will take place in the coming days. COLONEL BRETT BOUDREAU (Spokesman for the Chairman of the Military Committee): ... just in the event that you were confused. Do I need to press a... I am on. Good afternoon. For those of you who I have not had a chance to meet I'm Colonel Brett Boudreau. I'm the spokesperson for the Chairman of the Military Committee, General Ray Henault, and I'd like to advise you that this weekend, in fact tomorrow, Saturday and Sunday, the 26 NATO Chiefs of Defence will meet in Warsaw , Poland . This is a regularly scheduled meeting. Three times a year the NATO Chiefs of Defence convene in formal session. Twice they do that in Brussels and once a year they convene outside of Brussels . This year it's Poland . It's the first time that the group has been to Poland in this setting. They will over the course of the weekend discuss a number of activities, with a particular focus on our operations, of which Afghanistan is the number one operational priority. But I remind you that we do have other, in fact five, operations underway that NATO is providing support to. Afghanistan of course features highly on the agenda. It is the one item that has the most time available for discussion for the Chiefs of Defence. But there are also a number of other issues that will be put on the table as we are barely three months away from Riga . So in addition to operations, the Chiefs of Defence will be discussing the NATO Response Force, both in terms of capability, sustainability in a number of other transformation initiatives that we had been asked to work on and shape in the time up to the Riga Summit. On Saturday from 12:15 to 12:45 in Warsaw , General Henault and the Polish Chief of Defence will have a news conference. In fact if you look to the NATO website there's a media advisory to that effect. So I encourage you to either come down to Warsaw or at the conclusion of the meetings on Saturday. The formal meeting ends on Saturday; although there will be some other bilateral discussions on Sunday, we will be issuing a news release probably late afternoon/early evening on Saturday once those meetings are concluded. That's all I have. Maybe I can speak to... I was asked if I had information about a couple of other points during the Q&A session. APPATHURAI: Sorry. BOUDREAU: No, that's fine, that's fine. With respect to the mine situation in Afghanistan , I mean certainly I would say it is a combination of mines, both anti-personnel and anti-tank that have been leftover over the course of the Soviet occupation through to 1989, and as you know, the improvised explosive devices with which we have to deal. In fact, in a lot of these cases, by definition is a mine, be it anti-personnel or anti-tank, they are simply buried on the road or constructed in such a way to detonate. Suicide bombers use mines, as well as other explosives. So really it is a combination of the two. I was asked a question... or James was asked a question about... yes? Q: (Inaudible)... larding down the countryside with anti-personnel mines because that would nail down all of your troops immediately. Your 24 hour infrared, over the skies detection equipment is not telling you that they are doing this? I don't know, but it just seems logical as an insurgency group to do that. BOUDREAU: Well mines certainly are a threat. They always have been since... Q: (Inaudible) (SPEAKERS OVERLAP) BOUDREAU: Let me just give you an answer if I can. Mines have been a threat since we've been there. It is why we put in the Statements of Requirements a very significant emphasis on combat engineers, both in terms of personnel and equipment. It's why we have invested an awful lot of effort into counter-IED approaches and technologies. This is the number one priority for the other strategic command that we have - Allied Command Transformation - and their experimentation work. And certainly the Americas and other countries continue to progress work on counter-IED strategies. A number of nations provide engineering support and that obviously is one of the key obstacles to moving in and around Afghanistan because you continually need to be aware of that threat and deal with it ahead of time. APPATHURAI: Let me add: "Larding the countryside with mines" is going to blow up a lot of Afghans, so it's not - Q: (Inaudible)... APPATHURAI: Well it doesn't, does it? This is very much a discussion of popular support. The hearts and minds issue is relevant there too. Q: Change that (inaudible) to Cambodia , or the Balkans or any of the other countries that are afflicted by - APPATHURAI: We can have that philosophical discussion another time. Q: (Inaudible) BOUDREAU: I was just going to speak to the issue of casualties in that... at this point I can't give you a precise number of NATO casualties because in fact we're in the process now of... it is a real challenge and we are trying to... we are going to distinguish.... we need to distinguish between casualties both killed and wounded that are accredited under a NATO Command, under coalition and under national command. And to a certain extent that is a public information challenge if you will when we are asked the question how many people were killed here or there. Well in fact we can speak to (inaudible) command and what I would need to do is, in accordance with James, give you... probably get back to you about the latest figures... if you will. UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible) APPATHURAI: No. Well one Brit died of earlier wounds. There was a mine attack where either one or two U.K. nationals died, a mine strike of one kind or another. If I may - one small point - this is a bit piecemeal, so sorry to be unprofessional. But before I left it was around 25 was the casualty figures. So before August there were about 25 ISAF total casualties, but I just haven't done the math since then. Q: That's only dead? APPATHURAI: That's only dead yes. That's only dead. BOUDREAU: That's all I have to say about the Chiefs of Defence Staff session and certainly open to questions if you like. Q: Just on that last thing you just mentioned James. That's 25 ISAF casualties since the beginning of the operation or since the beginning of the year. APPATHURAI: Since the beginning of the operation. Q: Okay. And just on the modalities in Warsaw . There's going to be this press conference; is the press conference going to be where there's going to be an announcement about what sort of commitments people have made to reinforce ISAF or is that going to come out later. BOUDREAU: I wouldn't of course prejudge the meeting, but that may be a bit premature in that the discussions in Warsaw will form one piece of a number of pieces of military advice that will be brought forward to the North Atlantic Council. Obviously we have our own experiences in Afghanistan since 2003; those are further informed by the last 30 plus days of the transfer of authority of stage three to us. We'll have fresh views if you will from the recent NAC trip and those senior generals who were just in Afghanistan . It will be reinforced by the views of the Chiefs of Defence. And when all of those are taken together, we will go back to Brussels and the international military staff and the strategic commanders will then look to assess what they've heard and bring forward to the North Atlantic Council and the Secretary General, advice on whether or not there are requirements to change troop manning levels or strategies or et cetera. But that will not come out on Saturday morning that.... you know, we won't have an announcement suggest that here is the way ahead. This will be part of a number of discussions that we can bring forward consensus military advice to the section on what and how we need to do in Afghanistan . Q: General Jones sort of gave the impression this morning that he was expecting that there is a shortfall in the commitment and he was expecting that to be fulfilled in the next couple of days in Warsaw . BOUDREAU: I don't - Q: He said that several times. BOUDREAU: Well I wasn't there this morning. I don't know if he expects that the whole combined Joint Statement of Requirement would be filled in the next couple of days. Certainly what I have heard him say and what the Chairman of the Military Committee has said, both publicly and in closed session, is that nations signed up to providing a certain number of forces, both personnel and equipment. They have not filled that minimum manning requirement to 100 percent. An appeal certainly will be... was made by the SACEUR and the SecGen today, it will be reinforced again over the course of the discussions, to both provide the forces that were committed and to reduce to a minimum the number of caveats that nations have on moving their forces in and around the country. Q: Sorry. Can I just clarify that one then? (Inaudible) stupidity. Excuse me. This is more about getting countries to come up with what they've already promised, rather than calling for fresh troops? Thank you. BOUDREAU: There are... there are really two elements to the discussion and the first and most important is to fill that list of capability requirements that the nations signed up to and then reinforced through the revised operational plan in which we said here is what NATO is going to do in terms to tasks; here's what NATO needs in order to fulfill those tasks; and here's the kind of people and the kind of capabilities we need - strategic lift, helicopters, people, et cetera. And to this point, as the SACEUR has mentioned this morning, we're about 85 percent. So if you were to fill that to 100 percent and remove those caveats, in fact you would have a greater range of flexibility, the ability to conduct your mission. So it's really... I've seen some of the reporting today of this call for reinforcements. In fact what it really is is a call for nations to provide on the ground what it is they have committed to provide. Q: I'm essentially asking a similar question, which was how long will it take in an optimum scenario to deliver (inaudible)... to suggest a follow-up on that. He was (inaudible) very, very clearly that although these people who would be required, they would be (inaudible) troops who were (inaudible)... If it's not doable in Warsaw and (inaudible) SACEUR repeatedly said, (inaudible)... when is the earliest you could commit to that... APPATHURAI: Let me put it this way. As Brett said, there is a process that has to be followed. In will be followed in an expedited manner I can tell you. The entire North Atlantic Council, SACEUR, Secretary General and the Chairman all saw with their own eyes the urgency of the security situation and how important it is to move forward. So yes the processes will be followed. Yes they will be followed in absolutely an expedited manner, but beyond that I can't give timelines. Let's give three. One, two, three. Q: (Inaudible)... we know there is normally a long process in force generation, but if these are troops which have already been ear-marked, have already been designated that this is a requirement and countries have said they will fulfill the requirement, why is there a need to go back through the military committee and the NAC and all that sort of thing to get those troops. Surely it's just a question of... you know the people who have said they were going to provide troops providing those troops. Isn't it a decision for capitals to provide those troops? APPATHURAI: Indeed. And the Chiefs of Defence represent their capitals when they come to these meetings and so does the Military Committee at NATO and so do all the Ambassadors. But this requirement has already... this extra 15 percent is well known in capitals. Now nations have to meet once again and discuss how they're going to provide it. Q: (Inaudible) APPATHURAI: As I say, they are... well as Brett said, I anticipate that in Warsaw they're going to have what you would call a global discussion of the overall serious situation in Afghanistan , but it is not for the CHOD's meeting. Our processes are not such that the CHOD's meeting in Warsaw is a force generation conference. It is not. So it has to come back through the Operational Command. This discussion has to take place; SHAPE has to make its new analysis or its ongoing analysis of the security situation based on what they have seen, what we have seen, and the reports coming up from the military commanders in the field and in the process has to work up from SHAPE to the Military Committee back to the Ambassadors. That's simply the way it has to work. BOUDREAU: I think we've... I think NATO officials, both political and military, have said that intensity of the operations in the southern area since we took over some 30 plus days ago has been perhaps more intensive than we anticipated and the operational plan does call for NATO to provide more of a... more stability operations as opposed to security operations. Now in light of... so the plan was developed in that vein. In light of the developments in the south, in light of the fact that opposition has perhaps been stronger than we anticipated, now is the time for the Chiefs of Defence to review the situation. In light of what's going on, in light of what capabilities we have and what is the commanders on the ground have said they need, pull all that together and allow them to have free-form discussion. Okay, we're going to take stock here. We've had 30 plus days since having stage three. We also have to look ahead to stage four, i.e. taking over if you will or assuming responsibility for the further 13 percent of the land mass that is Afghanistan. So all of these discussions will gel over the course of the weekend for them to really reflect on what it is they need to do to bring forward the consensus military advice. Q: (Inaudible)... question is a very good. Is the challenge for them to say okay push and we get the remaining 15 percent and that's enough or are we talking about additional capability beyond that? I mean that's what I'm finding a bit confusing here. APPATHURAI: Well it's not that confusing. They're going to take a big picture look at the situation. Certainly a priority will be to full resource the existing Statement of Requirements. I am not going to prejudge and we are not going to prejudge - Q: As a minimum? APPATHURAI: As a minimum. I mean I think the Secretary General and SACEUR will agree 100 percent with the Chiefs of Defence that this should be met as a minimum requirement. That is what they have... the nations have agreed is the military requirement - Q: (Inaudible) APPATHURAI: The political leaders have to come to... the North Atlantic Council is the final decision making body in the Alliance . Not the Chiefs of Defence, not the Military Committee. So that's where that final decision will be taken. But you're absolutely right that they are talking about meeting that and they are going to take a global view overall fresh with 30 days experience and (inaudible) what is necessary. Q: (Inaudible)... at one point the Brits decided they needed more troops in Helmand , they just sent more troops. They didn't ask the NAC if they could send those troops as far as I'm aware, they just sent them. So what's to stop country X on Saturday in Warsaw saying okay you need these troops that we said we were going to give you - here they are. APPATHURAI: Nothing is to stop them. Q: Are you going to say we're not going to take them. We're going to wait until we have some more meetings in Brussels or - (LAUGHTER) APPATHURAI: Nothing is stopping any nation from sending troops. That's quite clear. But what all 26 nations will want to do is after 30 days take a big picture look at what's going on and what (inaudible) and that's really what this CHOD's meeting is to do. We have sent our top brass there. They've seen for themselves. Next step is... and as we have said, the situation is probably at a level of intensity that was not anticipated five/six months ago. Now that they've had their look, the Chiefs of Defence are going to have to take that assessments, have a global picture of what's required. Very much part of that is filling the Statement of Requirements, but that's not going to be the only thing that they discuss; they are going to take a big picture look at the security situation. After their discussion the Military Committee in Brussels will have to build on what they discussed in the next day because we're talking about days here and then come up with an assessment building on what General Jones and SHAPE provide to the political leadership, which will have to make the decision on how to go forward. That's as clear as I can be. I think Nick was next and then we'll come over here. Q: This morning Jones was saying in fact that the initial reinforcements would come internally within Afghanistan . But I mean one thing... he did say that the Strategic Over-the-Horizon reserve would not be needed, but given... he's always talking about the need to deal a decisive blow on the Taliban by winter and winter is only a couple months away I think in Afghanistan. Would there be any point where maybe the strategic Over-the-Horizon reserve might be thrown into the fray? APPATHURAI: Exactly something that may or may not be raised by the CHODs. It is certainly not for me. But that is exactly the kind of issue - reinforcements, reserves, et cetera, that is the purview of the CHODs discussion. Again, let's leave them to their discussions and we'll see what comes out of it on Sunday. Q: ... an appeal was made today by SACEUR and SecGen already to the Allies. APPATHURAI: SecGen in a press conference today supported... shared... made public the fact that he shares SACEUR's view that reinforcements should be provided and reinforcements by which he meant fully filling the CJSOR first and foremost. Q: James should PRTs be also... must be reviewed in the new situation? APPATHURAI: Well the provincial reconstruction - Q: The strategy - APPATHURAI: The strategy is working for the PRTs and I've been now... not me personally, but the Secretary General with me in tow, has been to certainly all the PRTs in the south and most of them in the west and the north as well. The PRTs are working. They are working very well in most cases. The population supports them; they are providing reconstruction and development and I think the model is not only one that is working, but that is being replicated. More countries are talking about providing support to the provincial reconstruction teams. I can tell you that the Slovak government also is discussing that this morning. As the Slovak Prime Minister said, providing more support in Afghanistan , as he said in his press conference. So the model works. I understand that it is considering being replicated in places like Iraq . So, no. That being said - does -