Press briefing

by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai following the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Foreign Ministers

I just popped by to give you a quick update on the meeting until now and then I will head back in. They are running a little bit behind, but I hope they will be able to catch up in time for the Secretary General's press conference at the foreseen time.

As you all know this is not a pledging conference; it is not a force generation conference. The issues of financial contribution and force level caveats has all come up and I will come to that, but the two main topics have been until now Kosovo and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now at the present meeting the only topic of discussion. I would say on Afghanistan what we heard this morning was a clear sense of unity, very strong sense of unity and a clear intention on the part of NATO Allies to seize the initiative in Afghanistan going into 2007, to seize the initiative in a variety of ways.

First, all of the Allies stressed the need for what you heard the Secretary General refer to and that is for a comprehensive approach. What does that mean? It means a more coordinated approach between the military and civilian elements of support for Afghanistan and several Allies mentioned improved coordination between the civilian elements themselves. Clearly there are many legs to the stool. All of them are important and we need to do better and Allies intend to do better in terms of coordination, as I say this comprehensive approach.

In that regard, there were many calls for very strong and effective UN leadership, the UN being the umbrella under which this takes place in Afghanistan in support of course of the Karzai government. So a strong call for strong and effective UN leadership to improve coordination and the comprehensive approach.

There was of course the announcement by the U.S. Secretary of State that the United States intends to quite significantly enhance both its financial and its technical and its military effort in Afghanistan. Much of that of course in the NATO context. As I say, this was not a pledging conference, but I can tell you that many Allies around the table also - and I cannot go into specifics - discussed increased that they are planning for this year as well in all three elements. Increased technical assistance, particularly in the areas of the Afghan National Police, Afghan National Army training and to help build institutions for example within the Afghan government self, the civil service. So there will be increased efforts when it comes to governance. Other Allies discussed increases in force levels, force contributions that they intend to make in the coming year.

So this was I think a demonstration, as I say, the Allies intent together to seize the initiative in Afghanistan as we go into 2007. There was of course discussion of Pakistan. All of the Allies believe that we need to work even more closely with Pakistan to do what we can on both sides of that border to prevent trans-border support for the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have good co-operation with Pakistan, NATO does, and with the Afghans, particularly in the Tri-Partheid Commission, which has just again recently met. General David Richards was there for NATO, amongst others.

But we can do better and there's a clear will amongst the NATO Allies to do better and work in closer co-operation with Pakistan as well.

Turning to Kosovo. I think the messages were quite clear and that was of course an enduring, an unflagging NATO commitment to play its part now through the political process related to status and beyond it as that role may or may not change, but the role will change eventually, but NATO's commitment absolutely will not. There was full unity amongst Allies in support of President Ahtisaari and the approach that he today is laying out. So a very strong sense of unity in support of President Ahtisaari.

There was strong sentiment around the table that there is a need for a resolution as quickly as possible; that long delays risk, or lack of clarity, risk fostering instability. So NATO Allies certainly wish to see this process work as quickly as possible to resolution. Finally, many calls around the table and I think a shared sense that stronger NATO-EU co-operation at the political level with regards to Kosovo is imperative and that it should go forward.

That is what I wish to say. I'm happy to take your questions before heading back to hear to what's being discussed right now. Please.

Q: Lorne Cook, AFP.

This idea that NATO might launch its own spring offensive - how did that play out around the table? Was everyone happy with it? It seems to be a U.S. suggestion.

Appathurai: Well I can't say I'm a big fan of the expression "spring offensive" for a variety of reasons, but one is that NATO right now has operations which are quite actively going out to interdict possible future operations by opposing militant forces. In other words, our military is already on the front foot, is very active, including for example in Operation Baaz Tsuka in the South, but also in the East as well. So we have not stopped our efforts and indeed they have been stepped up in the past months. That is going to continue.

But if you're saying that overall there will be a stepping-up of the effort, I think that was clearly what I would get out of that this meeting. Allies are going to step-up their civilian military and economic efforts with increased pledges for funding; with more personnel on the ground, civilian and military, to assist in training, both military and civilian training, and with more forces on the ground. The idea being more forces with the necessary flexibility; I think there was certainly a sense of that around the table. This will I think be discussed in a much more substantive sense because it was not discussed substantively here in Seville and nations are looking forward to Seville to have that discussion.

Q: I'm from Danish Broadcasting.

I would like to ask in relation to Kosovo, the closer co-operation EU-NATO, will that not be difficult given, in my understanding at least, that there are some difficulties in this co-operation? Could you give us status of the co-operation? What it looks like now? Are you actually able to have meetings together EU-NATO et cetera?

Appathurai: At the practical working level and that means here in Brussels, as well of course on the ground, there is very good co-operation. No secrets between the organizations and good discussions as we go forward towards an increased… I think a likely increased EU role in Kosovo which will, in a sense, replace the UN role. So at the working level, there has been, both in Brussels and continues to be both in Brussels and in the field, good co-operation.

However, you are quite right that at the political level there is a blockage of which you are all aware which prevents the kind of regular political discussion and agreement in a formal sense on Kosovo, or has prevented until now, which was precisely why this issue has bee raised amongst Ministers - to express their desire to see more high level political contacts between the two organizations precisely on this issue.

So I hope that this sentiment expressed around this table will lead to exactly what they want, which is the political level discussions to match what has been very good and remains very good relations at the working level.

Q: Marc John from Reuters.

Simultaneously President Ahtisaari is outlining his proposals on Kosovo in Vienna today. Were those proposals fed into the meeting on Kosovo, and if so, do they include a request for NATO to do security training in Kosovo after the status has been settled?

Appathurai: Ministers did not discuss the specifics of the Ahtisaari proposal; just expressed a general and I would say unanimous support for what is in the report. They are all of course aware of what's in the report, but there were no discussions of specifics.

Q: James there seems to be some confusion about troop numbers or at least I'm confused. Perhaps you can help a little bit to clarify. General Richards gave an interview a few days ago where he announced that a new combat brigade will be arriving in Kabul and then the Americans announced that they will extend the stay of 3,200 soldiers for another four months I think. Are we talking about new troops or is this within the required… the famous op- plan requirements which we have been talking before Riga a number of times?

Appathurai: I don't blame you for being confused because it can be a bit confusing. In essence, here's where we are. The Supreme Allied Commander, as he always does, continues to look at what the overall requirements are. But within that ongoing examination of what the requirements are the U.S., as you know, has announced the extension of around 3,000 troops to remain in Afghanistan beyond the tour where they had been expected to return. That was not foreseen in the military planning of force levels that we had, which makes them a contribution above and beyond the levels which we had currently had or would have had had that contribution not been made. So these are extra troops.

Q: Are they under ISAF?

Appathurai: And they are under ISAF that is clear. Now other nations are also considering further contributions. Those contributions have not yet been made public or at least confirmed and then made public, so I'm not at liberty to go into those details. But certainly you can take as fact that the 3,000 plus U.S. troops are above and beyond what we had previously expected to have.

Q: Jim Neiger from Bloomberg.

On that point can you give us a rough estimate of what the numbers would be like or how high the troop levels could be say by mid-year based on the U.S. extension and other promises today? And if you could also say a bit more about what else was promised today in terms of technical support and money? You said various countries made various offers. If you could give us a bit more detail.

Appathurai: In terms of how we're going to look by the summer in terms of force levels, I think the place to have this discussion is going to be Seville. It is simply too early now for me to know and I think for the nations because they have not yet all gone through their own internal processes. But in Seville we will have I think a clearer idea of what, if anything, will be beyond the current U.S. offer which, I might add, is very welcome indeed.

In terms of other kinds of support, many nations were very clear. For example, that it is vitally important to have an effective National Police Force. So there will be many countries this year, and they made this very clear, they will step up their efforts to train and equip and fund the Afghan National Police. And funding is very much part of this; it is important to ensure that the Afghan National institutions cannot be outspent by, for example, the Taliban. So funding will go up.

Other countries talked about assisting in the development of Afghan government departments. For example, providing technical experts who can assist them in building more effective governance. More effective governance is critical in Afghanistan. And so ANA, ANP, Afghan government institutions - very clear commitments were made by many countries that they will this year step up their efforts in that regard.

Q: (Inaudible) from the Spanish paper El Periodico.

James, about the troops, how many additional troops would like to have High Command in Afghanistan in this year? How many troops additional will be the best for many (inaudible) timed operations?

Appathurai: NATO operational plans and then the force structure that goes with that are not based on numbers. They are based on capabilities. So that's the first point to make. Second, there is, as I say, an ongoing discussion now about what might be necessary for 2007. That discussion has not yet concluded. SO until it is concluded, I certainly couldn't give you an answer. I'm sorry. No estimation until the Supreme Allied Commander, the 26 military representatives, then the 26 nations at the political level, have had that discussion. It is simply not over and so I will leave it to them.

Q: (Inaudible) and Mark took both questions I was planning to ask, so I'm going to have to improvise here. So I'll go back to that old chestnut- the caveats - was there any discussion of that today and any progress spotted on that? And I know you can't give specific details of contributions, but were there specifics given in the meeting and did it involve aircraft for example, as well as troops and (inaudible)?

Appathurai: The question of caveats did certainly come up. A number of nations raised what you can understand to be the traditional concerns about caveats. I can tell you a number of nations also announced their continuing efforts either to reduce them or that they had been eliminated altogether. At least one country mentioned it. So it is an issue. I think we saw today that it is an issue of what now all the Allies are perfectly aware. Many are making efforts… I think all of them are making efforts to reduce them. Some of them are having progress in reducing them. So I think we have moved the yardsticks on caveats since last year.

In terms of specifics, I really can't give them. I'm sorry.

Q: (Inaudible), Associated Press, German Service.

I know you don't want to talk about specifics. I will still try and ask whether the question of German reconnaissance planes came up at all. And secondly, on Kosovo, I'd like to know whether there was agreement on the timetable. I guess there's some disagreement on whether the Ahtisaari plan should be presented before or after the formation of the Serbian government.

Appathurai: I would ask you to ask the question on the Tornado to the Secretary General when he comes out here a little bit later and I'll be happy to give you the floor.

There was no specific discussion or exchange on the timing of when President Ahtisaari should release his report. That is, I think, up to President Ahtisaari to determine. What I mentioned before was a clear sense around the table that this should go forward as quickly as possible. Certainly from the NATO point of view you can see our interest as an Alliance in getting resolution and getting clarity as quickly as possible. So no, no real discussion on that.

Q: It's follow-up on Kosovo. Ahtisaari is presenting his proposal today to the contact group and I suppose that Ministers from NATO countries must have it already. So what was the discussion on Kosovo then, if not about timetable, if not about the proposal, if not about the political status? What they are discussing then?

Appathurai: There was discussion on many issues, but the first place that discussion has to take place is of course in the contact group; then it has to go forward, you know as well as I do, to the United Nations. So the specifics on the Ahtisaari proposals - they are all aware of them, but it was not at this forum that they were going to discuss them.

Q: Follow-up. (Inaudible)… Belgrade. Follow-up Kosovo issues. Did Ministers give support to Ahtisaari just generally or because they already know what is inside of his proposal for final status of Kosovo?

Appathurai: I presume that they know what's in his conclusions. I would be surprised if they didn't and certainly what they gave was a very strong sense… or a very strong commitment of support to him and to the process that he will lay out.

Last question.

Q: (Inaudible)… Radio. Back to Afghanistan. What you announced about co-operation with the civilians sounds very, very similar to what we have heard in Riga and what we have heard in Slovenia. DO you see any progress on the ground on this issue since the last years?

Appathurai: Yes. I see two or three areas of progress. One is… well it's called the Policy Action Group that was set up I believe in the middle or late last year by the Afghan government which brings together the relevant policy actors in Afghanistan. Second is the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board which has a similar role to try to coordinate with different players, including very much in particular the international actors, the overall civilian and military efforts.

The German government is hosting soon, I believe early next week, a high level meeting at political director level of this JCMB. It's the first time that's happened and a clear demonstration they they're taking it more to the political level and that's very important.

The final illustration I would use is what's happening down the hall here. This is the first time we've ever had a meeting. In fact I think it's the first time there has ever been a meeting at the political level of the 37 troop contributing nations, the EU (including the Commission), as well as Dr. Solana, the UN, the World Bank and major donors, all together, all concerting to see how they can coordinate better their overall efforts.

So I'd say in fact, again to use an North American expression, we have quite significantly moved the yardsticks in terms of international civ-mil coordination, both on the ground and at the political level. But there was definitely a sentiment in the room that we can do, and we have to do, much, much better. As you have heard my boss say many times, there can be no development without security, but no lasting security without development. And that sentiment, indeed that phrase, was shared by many Ministers.

I have to run.