Press briefing

by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai

Hello, friends and colleagues. Sorry I'm late. Shall we get going? I'm so pleased to see all of you here. I would love to think that it was because we have such good food up here at NATO Headquarters, but I'm guessing it has more to do with the visit of the UN Secretary General and other briefings—yes, my briefing, certainly—that are taking place.

Let me begin with the visit of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. As you know, he has been here before in another responsibility and that was as Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea. I think that was in December of last year. That was also the first time that we have had a visit at the political level from a Korean official, Korean politician, Korean Minister, so this is another demonstration of him breaking new ground in relations with NATO.

He will arrive at 15:00 and meet with the Secretary General and with NATO ambassadors. I expect that to be over around 3:30, at which point he will move towards the front entrance. His time is very short, so I don't know exactly what the timings will be, but that seems to be how it will go.

You will not be surprised to know the subjects of discussion. First and foremost, the many NATO operations and missions that are, or have been— certainly the ones that are will be the focus—under UN mandate. We have 45,000 or so troops in the field, most of which are, in a very real sense, carrying out the mandates of the United Nations. So this is a very real, very practical partnership between the two organizations, which reflects a really dramatic evolution from where the two organizations were 15 years ago to where they are now.

This is not the first visit of a UN Secretary General to this building. Certainly the current Secretary General, mine, I mean, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, met with Kofi Annan on the 18th of July here in Brussels, but not at this building.

Kofi Annan did, however, come and meet with the entire North America Council in October of 2000. He was also here in January of '99 and there was a previous visit in 1995.

So this is not new, but  certainly very important and not very frequent event, but something we certainly welcome.

Afghanistan, I am quite sure, will be the first order of business, with the UN Secretary General and all of his interlocutors here. We have a very profound partnership in Afghanistan, but it will not simply be to take stock of what we're doing, but to look forward.

The NATO Secretary General, one of the few times I'm happy to specify, the NATO Secretary General, has been very clear that our view in this building, and I think it's shared at the United Nations as well, is that the final solution for Afghanistan is not military, it is reconstruction and development; it is nation-building, improvements in governance; it is very fundamentally political as well.

In most of those areas the United Nations has a very important responsibility, and NATO is there, first and foremost, to help create the conditions for the reconstruction and development for the improvements in governments etcetera.

So, they will have a, I think, wide-ranging discussion on what Afghanistan needs in terms of further and broader and more coordinated international support on the whole range of areas that I mentioned. Not only military, but also political, economic, reconstruction and development and support in terms of governance.

Kosovo will also very much be on the agenda. You know that very soon President Ahtisaari, will present to a series of interlocutors, his conclusions on the way forward for the status process. That will, of course, soon make its way to the UN Security Council and the UN will have a very important role to play in shaping the way forward for Kosovo.

NATO is a very important player in all of this and we as an organization have a very keen interest in ensuring that the process which will be overseen and blessed, finally, by the UN Security Council, goes forward as quickly as possible and NATO will certainly play its role through and beyond the process. And they will be discussing that as well.

I think that's all I'll say on this subject, but happy to come back to that visit.

Let me turn now to the Foreign Ministers' Meeting, which will take place at the end of this week. It will begin, for your interest, at 8:30. The Secretary General  will make a very brief opening statement in front of the press, and then the meeting will become a private meeting amongst the 26 NATO nations, so the first stage of the meeting will be NATO-only.

It will focus primarily, again you will not be surprised, on Afghanistan and Kosovo. Let me stress that this is not force generation conference. The Foreign Ministers are here to discuss Foreign Ministers' business and that is to take a comprehensive look—you'll hear an echo here—of the overall political approach to supporting Afghanistan's development. And that means all of the relevant issues beyond the simple military contributions that NATO will make. That will be very much on the agenda in Seville on the 8th and 9th of February.

What issues will they discuss? Again, governance and how to support its development; reconstruction and development and how to contribute more to it. I'm sure you have read press reports that the United States is considering further funds, for example, for reconstruction and development. That is, of course, both a decision and an announcement to be made by the United States, but it gives an illustration of the kinds of issues that will very much be on the agenda.

The meeting will then be broadened and at 11:25 we will have a meeting that will include non-NATO ISAF-contributing nations; that is the 37 countries in total who contribute to this operation. It will also include representatives, high level representatives from other relevant bodies that are engaged in Afghanistan. That means the EU. For example, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner will be present, as well as Dr. Solana, of course.

The United Nations will be represented by Tom Koenigs, the UN's Senior Representative in Afghanistan. The World Bank will be represented by its Vice President, Mr. Patel.  

So you can see an illustration of the broad network that is at work together in Afghanistan, coming together to discuss the overall approach. Not just military, but economic and political, to support Afghanistan.

There will then be, at 12:50 the Secretary General's press conference. That may be moved up by five minutes, but anyway we'll let you know on the day. At that point, of course, the NATO events come to an end. You are aware, of course, that the Belgium government, Foreign Minister De Gucht, will be hosting a lunch, what we call the Transatlantic Lunch, at the Palais d'Egmont. I would, of course, encourage you to make contact with the Belgian authorities for the arrangements. I really don't know what press arrangements they have in place.

I do know that Kosovo will be one of the main issues to be discussed. Why? Because NATO, and this is, as I mentioned, it'll also be discussed in the morning in the NATO-only format, but it will be a major topic of discussion at the Transatlantic Lunch precisely because as we go forward in Kosovo the communication and coordination between NATO and the European Union will become ever more important.

NATO will be playing its role, as I said, through and beyond the status process, but the UN is drawing down, the EU is increasing its role and its capabilities and its responsibilities in Kosovo, at least this is what is foreseen, and I that context, working out who does what and how we support each other best, between the two organizations, will be absolutely vital.

So I can guarantee that this will be a significant topic of discussion at the Transatlantic Lunch.

Next Tuesday, on the 30th, the Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr. Aziz, will visit NATO Headquarters. This will undoubtedly be an important meeting. Why? It goes without saying that our partnership with Pakistan, our cooperation with Pakistan, and the cooperation between NATO, Pakistan and Afghanistan, is vitally important to the success of the overall international effort in Afghanistan.

As the Secretary General said at his press conference last week, we very much see Pakistan as part of the solution. The Pakistani government is making significant efforts to try to stem the flow of support across the border for the Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan.

We need to work together to step up the effectiveness of those measures, because we want... actually, I'll just step there. Step up the effectiveness of those measures.

We have a broader relationship with Pakistan than simply the border issue, or the issue of trans-border support for the insurgency. NATO, as you know, and this is something that the Secretary General of the UN may wish to mention, may discuss as well, NATO transported thousands of tonnes of UN aid to Pakistan right after the earthquake and from the latest results that I have seen, the overall international aid effort was successful to a degree that I think most people would not have predicted, in preventing a significant loss of life, in particular through the winter. I think most of the credit of that, of course, goes to the Pakistani authorities and to the United Nations and their various agencies.

But it certainly was a very successful overall effort, and showed, I think, that the relationship between NATO and Pakistan is not simply a military one, it is a broader political one. And we will wish, as we go forward into 2007 and beyond, to see how we can deepen that broader political relationship between NATO and Pakistan.

That's why this visit will be very welcome and one certainly to which the Secretary General is looking forward.

On the fourth of February, the Sunday, we will have a change of command ceremony in Afghanistan where the U.K. command, the arch command of ISAF will come to an end, and we will put in place what we call a composite headquarters. That is, a standing multinational headquarters through which, of course, forces from all the NATO nations will rotate through. So it is a change in character of the headquarters. It is moving to a different, more permanent, if you wish, or more long-standing model. Similar to what we have, for example, in Kosovo and have had for many years.

U.S. General McNeil will take the first command of this new composite headquarters, and he will, of course, be succeeded by other missions in future.

Finally, let me turn to the Defence Ministers' Meeting in Seville on the 8th and 9th of February, where of course, force generation will be one of the issues on the agenda.

The meeting will start at 15:00 on the 8th, there will be, of course, the usual brief opening statements, and the meeting will start at 15:15, excuse me, from 15:15 to 17:00, where the focus of the discussion will be not only, of course, Afghanistan, but also Kosovo and all the various operations in which NATO is engaged.

The piece of paper I've been given is profoundly confusions, so I will...

Okay, then at 17:00 there will be an informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers with the Afghan Defence Minister Wardak, who will be coming.

By the way, sorry let me spool back to this Friday where the Afghan Foreign Minister Spanta, will also be present. Excuse me. Indeed, as well as representatives from Japan and Korea. Thank you, Robert.

Then at 18:15 the Secretary General will have his press conference, and then we will have a superb press reception, I'm told, hosted by the Spanish government. At 8:30 we will begin the next working session from 8:30 to 11:00 where I expect Defence Ministers to focus on transformational issues, issue such as the NATO response force, defence capabilities etcetera.

At 11:30 there will be a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in Defence Ministers' Format, with Minister Sergey Ivanov. That will go till 12:35. Twelve-forty-five will be the Secretary General's press conference. And then we will have an informal working luncheon with Mediterranean Dialogue Defence Ministers.

So the Defence Ministers from the Mediterranean Dialogue countries will be present. I'm not quite sure about attendance, but I do know that the vast majority of the seven have indeed confirmed. There are still some outstanding confirmations. And that will go till 14:45.

So... and at 15:00 will be the Secretary General's press conference. I expect to see everybody at the airport on their way to Munich right after that, or at least many of you scrambling, as we are scrambling to get there in time.

So I do apologize for the late press conference. We were well aware of everybody's need to move after that and did it as quickly as we could.

That is everything I wanted to raise, and now I open the floor to any questions you may have on any issue. Please.

Q: (inaudible)... New Agency of Ukraine. James, are there any specific reason why during this meeting in Seville will not be held the NATO-Ukraine Commission? Nothing to discuss?

Appathurai:   It is not a given that it takes place each and every time and there was no request from the Ukrainian government to hold one. And so... There will be another, I have no doubt.

Please.

Q: James, the same day when Ministers are meeting here, Ahtisaari is going to propose his report topresent his proposal to the contact group countries. What are the Ministers, in particular, going to discuss on Friday about Kosovo? Because more or less what we know for now, NATO from its part is saying that there will be no surprises from Ahtisaari's proposal about NATO's role.

Are the ministers going to look at more from political perspective and how to overcome the situation if there is any blockage within the Security Council?

Appathurai: Again, I can't prejudge what they're going to say, but they are Foreign Ministers. As you quite rightly point out, the specific role that President Ahtisaari may propose for NATO I think will come as no surprise to the 26 around the table, and as you also quite rightly point out, he will only be, virtually at that moment presenting the paper itself elsewhere.

I expect that Foreign Ministers will indeed have a discussion of the various issues related to this process. That being, of course, the situation in Belgrade, the political situation in Belgrade, the various positions of the Security Council members, and the way in which the international community can best shepherd this process to, as I say, arrive at a conclusion as quickly as possible, and one that is politically acceptable to all relevant parties.

Q: (inaudible)...

Appathurai: Non, le Japon fait partie un peu exceptionnel parce que le Japon est déjà évidemment très présent sur le terrain en tant que pays—"lead nation"—du G8 qui gère le processus de désarmement.  Mais aussi, et ça c'est en particulier le cas, ce qui est important dans ce cas, le Japon considère—ils ont déjà annoncé ça—de contribuer des fonds assez importants aux PRTs de l'OTAN.  Et c'est dans ce cadre là qu'ils seront présents. 

Q: And the South Koreans too then, are they... they're not in ISAF, are they?

Appathurai: They are contributing.

Appathurai: Are you sure they're coming to the meeting?

We'll come back to the Korean issue. I'll check for you and come back.

Go ahead.

Q:  On Afghanistan, we all know the conclusions from Riga. What should be changed, what should be done. How would you describe the progress made since Riga, and what do you expect in terms of progress for this meeting on Friday?

Q: In what specific area? On.enforced coronation of international players, for instance? And as well as... you said it's not a force generation conference, but nevertheless you expect it and there was some hints in Riga that nations could provide more troops and equipment. So where do we stand?

Appathurai: Thank you for that question. In terms of coordination between international organizations Riga clearly set out the importance of doing it. I think this meeting demonstrates that we are doing it. Nothing is forced. Nothing is structural. I just yesterday had a long meeting with the Secretary General's Senior Civilian Representative, the NATO Senior Civilian Representative Daan Everts, who is here, and will, I think, be present on Friday, and asked him how well the international organizations coordinate on the ground, and you will not be surprised to know that it is good, it is very profound. It takes place in a variety of different structures, informal and Afghan-led in general, or formal and Afghan-led.

But at the international level, we haven't done as well. I think this meeting is an illustration that the Riga directive to try to do better in terms of a comprehensive approach, is actually being put into action, without, as I say, putting in place precedents or setting up new structures.

In terms of force generation, you and I have both seen the same press reports coming out of various nations of discussions within those countries to consider providing more forces. Whether those countries wish to discuss that around the Foreign Ministers' table is of course up to them, but certainly the more traditional place to have discussions of force contributions would be at the Defence Ministers' Meeting on the 8th and 9th.

So we will see where that goes. Yes.

Okay, let's go here, and then over there.

Q: James, just to follow up on Afghanistan, are we talking about any specific kind of figures that, you know, new figures of aid that the international community is perhaps discussing? Any special sectors here. I know we talk about education and health and fighting narcotics trade, but are you moving forward in your sort of assessment of what actually needs to be done to try and win the hearts and minds of Afghans, rather than just through military solutions?

And I have a second question on Pakistan. You said you want a deeper, broader political relationship and you're discussing. What are the options, given that here Pakistan is in South Asia, and there would be clash, potential clash with India if you were to work out some kind of a stronger relationship.

Thanks.

Appathurai: Let me take the second question first. I think NATO's view is that a stronger relationship with Pakistan is in no way... should in no way be seen as anything but a good thing by other governments, including the Indian government.

NATO has had, and continues to have, informal contacts with the Indian government. They are fully aware of what we do, and I have seen nothing but full support from the Indian government for what NATO has done.

There is only a logic, I think even for the Indian government, or for any other regional government, to more effect NATO-Pakistan relations and relations between the three, that is NATO, Pakistan and Afghanistan, if those lead to greater stability in Afghanistan itself.

I know that this is a clear policy priority... well, priority is a strong word, but let me put it another way. Clearly the Indian government also wants stability in Afghanistan. There is no doubt of that. As the Pakistani government does as well. So they have a shared interest and if we can work more closely as NATO with the Pakistani government to help that happen, in a broader political relationship, there is, I think, absolutely no contradiction in that.

 Indeed, Robert points out that the Indian government yesterday announced another $100 million in extra support for the Afghan government.

I brought a relevant document, or at least I thought I brought a relevant document, to give you an idea that we don't just do military operations, as was implied by your question. No, I didn't bring it. Okay. It'll come.

Q: (inaudible)...

Appathurai: Well, I'm going to give it to you on Friday, I hope. Laying out the package of overall reconstruction and development. I wish I had that at my hand.

Q: (inaudible)...

Appathurai: In Afghanistan, that we have done.  I'm really annoyed that I didn't bring it. But, okay, to put it in context. There are tens of millions of euros being spent by NATO nations, including through their Provincial Reconstruction Teams, to do reconstruction and development. Literally thousands of projects are underway right now around the country. And...

Now we're talking! Robert comes complete with files. Very good.

And I'll give you a little snapshot. In the south there are 215 ongoing PRT projects, and almost 2,000 other projects by international organizations, NGOs or the government of Afghanistan, including five major infrastructure projects.

Locals are being hired to build roads, supported by the World Bank and the USAID. Hospitals, a particular hospital is basically being totally reconstructed in... and I'm giving you just snapshots here.

In the west 402 ongoing PRT projects, over 2,000 other projects by other bodies, 22 ongoing strategic infrastructure projects, electricity lines are being reconstructive, vaccine storage facilities being rebuilt in hospitals to support a UNICEF immunization program.

In the north 152 ongoing PRT projects, almost 4,000 other projects. Of course, NATO helps to provide a security environment in which this can happen. I'll put all of this down on paper. In the East 7,000 projects of which 374 are PRT projects.

So you get an illustration. I use these numbers just to illustrate the fact that NATO and NATO nations are not simply engaged in kinetic operations. On the contrary those kinetic operations have paved the way for an enormous amount of and tens, if not hundreds of millions of euros being spent on reconstruction and development.

So that's the first point I would like to make.

Is a strategic assessment being done of what is necessary? Of course, absolutely. And the Afghans, first and foremost, are leading that process, about what is needed, in terms of immediate reconstruction, and then long-term needs-based development. Both of these are being done with all of the development agencies in our home countries.

Can more be pledged? Yes. Does the Bonn agreement lay out the priorities that the international community has already agreed yes? But we need to do more. And I think that will be one of the discussions by the Foreign Ministers. I know that within all of our governments they're looking to see what more than can do. I mentioned the U.S. example because it's public, that they are looking at providing further funds through a supplemental budget request for some of these kinds of initiatives.

Please.

Q: There are reports in the British press that the U.K. is planning on increasing its force in the south of Afghanistan by a battalion, around a 1,000 troops. Has the U.K. indicated that yet to NATO?

Appathurai: When the U.K. is ready to make that un-announcement, if they do make such an announcement, we'll leave it to the U.K. to do it. But I have seen the same reports. Not maybe up to a 1,000. I've seen a bit smaller, but we'll leave it to the U.K. to announce such things.

Q: But I mean, they would tell you first and then announce it (inaudible)...

Appathurai: They would certainly.let the NATO military authorities be aware before they made public announcements. There be no doubt. Please.

Q: Prodi's cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss renewed funding for Italy's Afghan contingent, and just generally, what concerns are there in this building about Italy getting the wobbles, given noises coming from various parts of his nine-party coalition? Is there any discussion of Italy sort of changing the role of its troops in order to get the funding through, and if so, what... would that leave any sort of hole in the Afghan mission?

Appathurai: The Italian contribution to this mission has been very important. There's no doubt about that. With 2,000-odd troops in the west, a very important leadership role. And when Foreign Minister D'Alema was here just a few days ago he said to the Secretary General very clearly that Italy, this government, fully intends to continue to make that contribution at current levels. Italy is very comfortable with the mission that it has been given, but I... would not find that surprising because Italy helped craft that mission. This was an operational plan and a political mission agreed by 26 nations under UN mandate. Italy was fully part of that discussion and gave its full support to it, as did all the 26 allies.

So will the mission change? No, the mission will not change. It is, as I say, a UN-mandated mission, with an agreed-by-consensus operational plan which we consider to be fully appropriate. If the operational plan is changed it will be, again, by consensus, by all 26.

I think that was all I had to say on that subject. Please.

Q: James, I'm looking for concrete deliverables. You mentioned it's not going to be a force generation conference, is it going to be a donors' conference, or if not, what are we going to get out of this conference beyond a reaffirmation of what was said in Riga about the need for military and civilian cooperation, international organizations to talk more together? I mean, is there something concrete going to come out of this about what they're going to do? Like give more money, more policemen, or anything like this?

Appathurai: Well, this is the question. It is not a donors' conference because NATO is not a donor organization. It is not a force generation conference, because we do that in different places. It is a meeting of Foreign Ministers.

Not all foreign ministerial meetings result in money or boots on the ground. They are for political discussion and a  fresh look at the overall political approach on Afghanistan. And that is what you can expect from the meeting at 26.

Q: (inaudible)...

Appathurai: Mm?  And then you will see, of course, a much broader meeting, focused specifically on Afghanistan.

Sorry, the meeting at 26 will also have a very significant aspect devoted to Kosovo and that, I think, is something of significance, because we're entering a very delicate and fast-moving period for Kosovo.

Will there be pledges of new money? I do not know. We'll have to see when we get to the meeting.

Q: James, what's your comment on Chinese missile, which shut down the satellite the other day?

Appathurai: NATO has no comment on that issue.

Q: (inaudible)... du Journal Expression Algérie. Il me semble que depuis un certain temps des pays contributeurs comme le Japon, la Corée, l'Australie sont de plus en plus présents aux réunions importantes de l'OTAN. Est-ce que vous ne pensez pas qu'on s'achemine vers l'intégration de ces pays au sein de l'organisation comme cela a été émis lors du dernier sommet de Riga.

Appathurai: Nous ne voyons aucun mouvement dans la direction de l'intégration de ces pays au sein de l'OTAN. Il n'y aucune discussion à cet égard, aucun intérêt de ces pays de se présenter comme membre de l'OTAN ni à une demande de cette organisation. Comme le Secrétaire Général a souvent dit, l'OTAN va rester que ce l'est en ce moment. C'est une organisation transatlantique avec une vocation transatlantique.

Mais dans un monde où il y a des menaces globales ou transnationales de travailler de plus près avec des pays qui sont un peu loin de nous ou loin d'eux, il y a une logique de le faire. Alors, ce n'est pas une question d'une OTAN global mais une OTAN avec des partenaires... partenaires globaux. Voila.

Q: James, about NATO-Russia Council in Spain. What exactly they will discuss?

Appathurai: They will discuss, I think, two things principally. One is where we can do more in terms of practical cooperation. Operation Active Endeavour, as you know, was a good example where the Russian Federation sent a ship to participate, or to support the operation. Could we do something like that again, in future, would it make sense? That kind of operational cooperation.

Another aspect is, of course, Afghanistan where Russia has a very profound interest in maintaining, or in a secure and stable environment. I know that the Russian Federation is investing more in terms of assistance for Afghanistan and I think Foreign Minister Lavrov would probably discuss that if he had been able to land in Afghanistan on his recent trip.

So that's one aspect, the operational cooperation and how we can do better in 2007.

There will, of course, be also, I think, a discussion of how we can, in a sense, commemorate or mark the five-year anniversary of the NATO-Russia Council, which will take place this year. It is...

Appathurai:  The anniversary's in May. It is easy to forget what an important strategic decision that was to create the NRC, where we have Russia sitting around the table, not on the other side of the table, but amongst the NATO allies in a new body where decisions are taken by consensus. I think in terms of big picture that's quite... that's quite new.

So we will want to, in some way, at some level, wish to look forward to how we commemorate that, and put more meat on the bones.

UNIDENTIFIED:  C'est plus simple.

Q: Il ne faut pas être compliqué quand on est des personnes

Appathurai: Mais tu as complètement détruit notre microphone.

(RIRES)

Q: Mais... Bon, alors, je voulais poser deux questions. Sur le Conseil OTAN-Russie, continuer la question de notre camarade, est-ce que tu t'attends ou est-ce que tu ne t'attends pas à ce le ministre russe de la Défense pose des questions ou discute avec ses collègues des plans qui certes ne concernent pas l'OTAN mais seulement trois pays membres de l'OTAN l'installation d'un système de défense anti-missile qui a été évoqué il y a deux jours par les États-Unis, confirmé aujourd'hui par le président tchèque qui a donné une réponse positive à la demande de négociation américaine. Je sais que ce n'est pas encore une fois l'OTAN. Mais rien ne peut empêcher le ministre russe d'évoquer les sujets qu'il souhaite. Donc, est-ce que tu penses qu'il va le faire? Et qu'est-ce que serait la réponse de l'OTAN selon toi?

Deuxième question, pour reprendre encore la question de Paul, sur cette réunion de vendredi, est-ce qu'on ne peut pas dire qu'il y a un sens quand même de l'urgence parce qu'effectivement on parle de "political approach", "comprehensive and global approach" etc. Mais est-ce qu'à l'origine cette réunion n'avait pas été décidée à cause de ... le sens de l'urgence à la fois côté afghan et côté du Kosovo?  On n'en parle plus. Est-ce que c'est réservé au ministre de la Défense pour parler des contremesures face aux Talibans ou face à l'agitation qui risque d'arriver au Kosovo? Ou est-ce que c'est... parce que ce sens de l'urgence n'existe plus?

Appathurai: Merci, ça ne serait aucune surprise si le ministre de Défense russe voudrait évoquer la question des systèmes anti-missile bilatéral entre les arrangements bilatéraux entre les États-Unis et certains alliés pour des ou un système de défense anti-missile. Je peux vous dire que la question de défense anti-missile a déjà été évoquée dans des réunions précédentes du NRC où le ministre russe a présenté la position russe à ces questions en profitant de la présence de 26 ministres au sein du NRC pour écouter évidemment leurs opinions aussi.

Il y aurait à cette tables les trois pays concernés qui pourraient répondre...  Mais une réponse de l'OTAN, ça ce n'est pas une question de réponse de l'OTAN parce qu'en fait, comme j'ai dit ce n'est pas une réunion OTAN-Russie. C'est une question NRC pour évoquer des questions stratégiques qui touchent tous les 27 autour de la table. S'il y aurait des ministres américains ou tchèques par exemple qui voudraient répondre aux inquiétudes du ministre Ivanov s'il les évoque, bon, ça reste à dire. Mais il n'y aura aucune réponse de l'OTAN en tant que tel, ce n'est pas le format et il n'y a pas de position de l'OTAN d'ailleurs à ce sujet.

L'OTAN, évidemment, on a des réunions régulieres pour discuter toutes les opérations et missions que nous gérons. Alors, ce n'est pas une question de sensation d'urgence mais de faire face à des événements qui changent, voilà. Au Kosovo, ça va bientôt changer. Il y a toute une logique de discuter maintenant entre ministres des Affaires étrangères et ministres de Défense comment l'OTAN va se conduire dans le futur, dans les deux missions. Évidemment, comme tu dis pour le Kosovo, il y a des "milestones", bon des "benchmarks" qui vont très, très vite se faire voir.  Et l'OTAN va devoir  réagir.  Voilà.

Q: Sorry, just to go over this one again, but just to clarify, will the discussion on Kosovo on Friday, will that take place in full knowledge of what Ahtisaari has almost simultaneously laid down in Vienna?

Appathurai: My sense, now I'm guessing at this point, but my sense is that the governments around the table will have a clear idea of what President Ahtisaari will be presenting.

That being said, the NATO  Council is not the place where decisions will be taken on the future of the status process. That is quite clear. The contact group is first and foremost the body, if you can call the contact group a body, in which these discussions will take place, and they'll move to the Security Council, you know that.

But of course, everybody's very well informed in the NATO Alliance. That goes without saying. We don't have secrets amongst each other. So will they have a new forum discussion? They will have a new forum discussion, I'm quite sure.

I'm guessing you want to follow up?

Q: Yes, just follow up. Is NATO representative from contact group plus going to be in Vienna in presentation of Ahtisaari's report?

Appathurai: there will be a NATO representative in Vienna. Who it will be, we will see.

Go ahead, and then I'll come back...

Q: Oops. My question is about Kosovo also. Can position of Russia influence... about Kosovo, influence the relationship between the NATO and Russia. And the second question, last week when we were on New Year’s reception Secretary General said that NATO will train some kind of force in Kosovo after... in post-status period.

This force will be much close to army or some kind of Carabinieri, for example, in Italy.

Appathurai: The relationship between NATO and Russia, I think, exists sui generis. It has its own inherent value, and its own inherent importance. So... and I think one of the great strengths of the new NATO-Russia relationship that we built is precisely that it is invulnerable to the ebbs and... what's the other...

Q: Flows.

Appathurai: Flows, thank you. Yes, I have a newborn. The ebbs and flows of day-to-day international politics. That being said, Kosovo will be an important issue. It will... and Russia's viewpoint on this will certainly be important, first and foremost in the Security Council.

So I expect that all the NATO allies will be in close discussion and also in close discussion as much as possible with the Russian Federation and other relevant bodies, to find a way together to, as I say, come to a resolution as quickly as possible, and that includes, of course, having the imprimatur of the Security Council.

The Secretary General did, indeed, make reference to a training role for NATO in anticipation of a possible proposal by President Ahtisaari for a role for NATO in supporting the development of some kind of security force or security structure in a post-status Kosovo. The outlines of that will have to be defined by, of course, President Ahtisaari. But the Secretary General was leaning forward to say that, of course, if that proposal were to be made, without NATO offering a viewpoint on what kind of force or capability that would be, NATO will play its part.

I have time for one more, and that's it, and I think it was you.

Q: Again, Kosovo. If I understood you correctly, Kosovo will be discussed mainly over this Transatlantic Lunch. Not in the morning.

Appathurai: Both. Both in the morning session at 26...

Q: At the...

Appathurai: ...and then at the lunch.

Q: At the press conference or the Secretary General he will give us some leads.

Appathurai: Absolutely. I expect the Secretary General to go into that subject in some substance actually, at his press conference. Excuse me, but the Secretaries General are here.