Seville, Spain

8 Feb. 2007

Press briefing

by James Appathurai, NATO Spokesman
at the informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers

JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): Yeah, it's just started. Thank you for coming. Excuse me for my total lack of Spanish language capabilities. I'm a Canadian and not an American, so I cannot speak Spanish. I will speak in English, but happy to take questions in French as well, and I'll make this very brief, not least because the meeting is continuing and I'd like to get back to it.

Let me first, on behalf of the Secretary General, he will do this himself very soon, thank the Spanish authorities and the people of Seville for hosting us. We know, because we regularly do this, to hosting cities, we know that this causes some inconvenience and we are grateful for the patience and hospitality that is being shown to us.

There are many of you who have come from Brussels, so you have been perhaps following the agenda of this meeting more carefully than others, but in very short form let me outline for you what is being addressed.

This afternoon's deliberations have begun with Kosovo. There was a long discussion, and very in-depth discussion that has just completed and they've just turned to Afghanistan. Began with briefings by the Chairman of the Military Committee and the Supreme Allied Commander on NATO's capability in Kosovo, it's preparations for any possible disturbances. The military briefing was focused, as I say, on preparations and capabilities. Then Ministers of Defence discussed the current political situation and the future of the status process.

The messages were very clear. The unity around the table in support of President Ahtisaari and the way forward that he wishes to forward, that was the first strong message around the table.

Second, was the shared view that this process should move forward as quickly as possible; that delays were not wise, that they would potentially lead to raised tensions in Kosovo. As I say a shared view around the table that the status process should move forward carefully, and of course, I started a bit too quickly... of course... In short form, for those who've just arrived, I was discussing Kosovo. Two messages clearly heard around the table at the discussion that it just completed from Ministers by Ministers on Kosovo. First, total unity in support of President Ahtisaari and the process that he has laid forward. And second, a shared view that the status process should move forward as quickly as possible.

They have now turned their discussions to Afghanistan. Again, both the Chairman of the Military Committee and then General Craddock, the Supreme Allied Commander, laid out the military perspective on what 2007 will bring, what 2007 should bring in terms of the environment on the ground. But also in terms of our own preparations and capabilities for carrying out this mission.

Ministers had just begun, as I left the room, deliberating on that. As you know, this is not a force generation conference. I should stress that again. Our force generation conferences take place in Mons at our military headquarters. This was a political discussion amongst Ministers of Defence about what would be required in 2007 to reinforce the success of the NATO mission.

And clearly as the discussion began there was a shared sentiment that this was an opportunity, as I say, to reinforce success for NATO ISAF, but the purpose of which is not simply to carry out military operations, but to better create the space for reconstruction and development to go forward.

You have heard in the past few weeks offers from, indeed, announcements from NATO member states, and from the European Union, all to step up their efforts in civilian reconstruction and development. For example, the EU decision to go forward with providing police training in Afghanistan, the United States announcement of significant amounts of money to devote to reconstruction and development.

All this to say, this is a, as we now say, a comprehensive approach. That is the only way to achieve success in Afghanistan. We have to move forward on all fronts, civilian and military. There will certainly be now, as we speak, a discussion of how to do better in terms of concerting our efforts. In other words, how to do better in terms of cooperation between the various parties that are there in support of the Afghan government.

Sorry, there's one thing I missed on Kosovo and I think it's important. There was also a lot of discussion of the importance of a stronger NATO-EU cooperation as we go forward through and beyond the status process in Kosovo. I think every Minister who intervened on this subject said that this was necessary and a good idea. Something we heard relatively recently as well in Brussels.

These discussions on Afghanistan I do not know how long they will go. If they spill over into tomorrow, they may, not least because as you know, Defence Minister Wardak will be joining his defence ministerial colleagues in the main conference room, so that we can ensure that our views, that the NATO views on how to go forward, are fully in line with the priorities and desires of the Afghan government. It is an Afghan lead, as you all know, and we want to ensure that what we do is fully in support of them. That is the only way for it to be successful.

Finally, turning to tomorrow, there will be a discussion of NATO's own transformation; for example, the NATO Response Force. It is NATO's transformational tool par excellence, but we have to continue to ensure that it is viable and effective for the long term. That means in terms of the way in which it is funded, the way in which it is structured, the missions for which it is to be used. That will certainly be a theme tomorrow morning I'm quite sure.

Then there will be two more meetings. One of the NATO-Russia Council. That means the NATO Defence Ministers with Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov, sitting together as 27 nations around the table to discuss NATO-Russia military-to-military cooperation, which has gone well, which we hope to deepen, for example, potentially with further Russian participation in our anti-terror naval operation in the Mediterranean.

They will also want to discuss regional security issues and I'm sure you can guess which ones may come up.

And finally, there will be the second ever meeting at Defence Ministers' level with our colleagues from the Mediterranean Dialogue, seven countries from North Africa, Israel, coming together as they have done recently once before, to discuss cooperation across the Atlantic. Let me stop there. I'm happy to take any questions you might have. Please.

Q: (inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: Stop. Microphone. And I'll just open my book for the questions.

Q:On Kosovo, has anybody around the table raised a concern that this, what Mr. Ahtisaari is proposing, is basically tinkering with international boundaries for the first time, I think, since Second World War? Has anybody raised concern about that? And secondly, about tomorrow, what do you... how do you expect the meeting with the seven Mediterranean countries to push forward the cooperation, specifically with Israel? This is where I come from. Thank you.

APPATHURAI: Ah... in terms of Kosovo there is a process which has been mandated by the United Nations and I think by definition therefore everyone recognizes that it is a fully legitimate process. It has the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council and I think the entire international community is therefore standing fully behind it, and NATO, therefore, stands fully behind it as well. How it will finish, in other words, whatever status is finally put in place, will again be a decision by the UN Security Council. So I think no one can doubt the legitimacy of this process.

Second, in terms of the Mediterranean Dialogue, they will be, I believe, we will of course have to see how it goes, focussed very much on practical areas of cooperation in the Mediterranean Dialogue format. Now the Mediterranean Dialogue format is flexible enough to allow for NATO plus one, that is directly with Israel or any other country, NATO plus, as we say, and in other words, any grouping or the full body. But this is not a NATO-Israel meeting. It's a NATO-Mediterranean Dialogue meeting.

One of the issues that may come up, for example, is how we can enhance training opportunities between NATO countries and countries of the Mediterranean Dialogue. I know there is a will on the part of NATO to do that. Where there might be an opportunity to provide expertise in a number of areas. NATO has done this, of course, for 15 years with countries of Central and Eastern Europe; made available our expertise in a whole range of areas. So there may be an opportunity to offer that as well. But we will see. I think that will be one of the themes of the discussion.

Q:Hi James. Another follow-up on the Med Dialogue agenda. Does the Secretary General tend to raise some issues on his agenda as he goes there? Because obviously there are issues of concern, not only to Israel and Jordan and Egypt and some of these other countries there, beyond the Med, you know, Iran and the Hezbollah-Fatah violence and what not. Does the Secretary General intend to raise those issues, or do you anticipate that being discussed at the meeting?

APPATHURAI: I don't think the Secretary General intends to raise those issues. The... NATO does not intend to play... does not seek to play a role in the international community's efforts to engage with Iran and all the issues that you know, nor the situation in Lebanon. So it is not, I think, likely that the Secretary General is going to bring it onto the table.

We do have a relationship of trust and practical cooperation with the countries of the Mediterranean Dialogue, not least because we have, in essence, focused on what we can do together and ensure that other issues have not come to the table and prevented, in one way or another, our cooperation and relationship. So I do not expect the Secretary General to bring them up. If they are brought up, of course there'll be a discussion around the table. We'll go here, and then...

Q:(inaudible)... German Television. One question to Afghanistan please. Our Defence Minister just said that NATO expects up to 2,000 Taliban to commit suicidal attacks in spring now. And if my memory serves me right, I think up to 2,000 soldiers are wanted in additional to the current number we have to react to this offences of the Taliban in spring. But do you really think this is an appropriate reaction to suicidal attacks, because are there any strategies against things like these?

APPATHURAI: I would caution against making that kind of connection. First, I'm not the spokesman of the Taliban. I have seen in the press Taliban spokesman talk about 2,000 spokesman... 2,000 suicide bombers. I've seen them say many things that did or did not come to fruition. So I don't know what they have in mind. But I do know that there was a significant increase last year in suicide attacks and in the attacks using improvised explosive devices, roadside bombs. We have daily 24 hour 7... 7 days a week efforts amongst NATO nations and in our strategic commands, to improve the defences of NATO forces, to prevent those kind of attacks, or at least to minimize their effects.

And those efforts, including better training, better equipment, more effective jamming, all of these things have proven very effective. We will continue and step up those efforts. There's no doubt. The effort to adjust, modify, and where appropriate, increase the numbers... well, to modify the force posture for 2007, and where necessary, increase the number of soldiers on the ground, is designed to better... to be better able to create the conditions for reconstruction and development. And that is NATO's mission. We, as an Alliance, are determined to take the initiative. NATO is already conducting operations throughout Afghanistan, precisely for that purpose; Operation Eagle, I believe it's called, Oqab in many of the regional languages. There are operations right now going on all around Afghanistan. They will transition to an even larger operation to create secure zones, in essence, amongst other things, but focused at least in part on secure zones where development and reconstruction can take place. So NATO's initiative, NATO's adjustment of force posturing where appropriate, increase in the number of troops is because we are on the offensive.

Q:James, par rapport au renfort demandé pendant très longtemps par le général Jones, et finalement cet appel a été entendu essentiellement par les Américains qui ont annoncé il y a une huitaine de jours qu'ils allaient mettre davantage d'hommes sur le terrain. Est-ce que le général Craddock est maintenant satisfait? Est-ce que la question des renforts est dorénavant épuisée? Ou est-ce qu'il renouvelle cet appel en dépit du fait que les Alliés notamment européens ne répondent pas?

Deuxièmement, est-ce que la personnalité du général Craddock, c'est-à-dire le fait qu'il soit l'ancien commandant de Guantanamo a évoqué un débat quelconque parmi les Alliés?

Et enfin troisième question: est-ce que la question du bouclier anti-missile que les Américains s'apprêtent à élargir à la Pologone et à la République tchèque... est-ce que ça provoque également un débat au sein de l'OTAN? Est-ce que ça va être évoqué à Séville?

APPATHURAI: Merci pour la question. Pour répondre à la dernière question en premier. J'ai lu dans la presse, par exemple, que la ministre tchèque de défense allait elle-même évoquer ce sujet demain matin. Mais c'est pour demain matin qu'on va discuter la transformation. Alors, ça ne m'étonnerait pas du tout que la question de la défense anti-missile soit évoquée demain.

En tant que le général Craddock, je peux vous dire qu'il y a un soutien unanime pour le général de tous les Alliés. Et bon, c'est un officier de premier grade et c'est reconnu par tous les Alliés, voilà.

Cette discussion de génération de force, évidemment c'est quelque chose qui est soulevée à chaque réunion de ministres. On a vu depuis quelques semaines que le nombre de troupes disponibles aux commandos de l'ISAF sera accru... accru de façon significative avec quelques milliers d'hommes de plus, non seulement des Américains, les Britanniques vont aussi offrir quelques centaines de plus. Et on va voir d'autres... d'autres offres.

Il y a une discussion évidemment en Allemagne pour des avions de reconnaissance alors on... on fait des pas en avant assez importants. Le résultat, c'est qu'en 2007, l'ISAF sera le plus grand et le plus efficace que ça n'a jamais été. Le général Craddock va toujours en chercher plus. C'est le job de n'importe quel commandant suprême. Mais on est déjà bien en avant de où on était.

Q:Simplement quand tu dis, effectivement, que l'ISAF sera importante en 2007 qu'il ne l'était dans le passé, certes, parce qu'il y a beaucoup plus d'Américains au sein de l'ISAF. Il n'y a pas plus de contributions européennes ou d'autres pays alliés. Le renforcement de l'ISAF il est dû essentiellement aux Américains.

APPATHURAI: Déjà, il faut mentionner que les Américains font partie de l'OTAN. Alors, si les Américains contribuent plus, c'est une contribution de l'OTAN.

Deuxièmement, je ne veux pas.... Je vais mentionner les Polonais qui déploient à peu près 1,000 soldats. Et ce déploiement est en train d'avoir lieu. Alors, on peut dire que les Européens ont aussi offert plus. Comme j'ai dit, il y a deux pays qui discutent d'une contribution. Alors, on ne peut pas nier que les Européens non seulement sont sur le terrain de façon importante, mais qu'ils contribuent plus en 2007 aussi. Bon.

Q:James, a couple of questions. You said there was general agreement around the table on the need for closer cooperation on Kosovo between the European Union and NATO. Does that mean there are signs of movement on the position of Turkey, which has blocked that cooperation or hindered that operation for the past few years.

And second, on the Mediterranean Dialogue, there's been some comment in the Israeli press over the past few weeks about the old idea of Israel applying for membership of NATO. Does the Alliance have a position on an eventual application from a country in that region for full membership?

APPATHURAI: Thank you. You'll have to ask the Turkish Defence Minister who's here if there's any change in his position on any such issues, but I know, as I say, the way in which NATO... the ways in which NATO and the EU could work more closely together are certainly to be discussed and to be determined. But it was a shared sentiment around the table, that that cooperation should grow closer, not least in context of Kosovo, where it has very important and immediate practical implications.

In terms of the Mediterranean Dialogue, the Israeli government certainly has never formally, to my knowledge, informally, indicated any interest in actually joining NATO. There has never been any discussion either formal or informal, to my knowledge, of any country from the Mediterranean Dialogue region joining the Alliance. My understanding, and I will speak on a personal basis, but I think it's accurate, is that for the moment NATO's Charter restricts membership to countries of Europe or the OSCE. I would have to check that, but I think that's the case. De toutes façons it has never really been brought up in any formal, to my knowledge, even in an informal way.

Q:James, sorry if I've misunderstood, you said the Ministers had just begun deliberations on Afghanistan. Does that mean that General Craddock made some sort of speech, observation, remarks to the Ministers beforehand? And if there was anything on specific troop numbers could you tell me what he said?

APPATHURAI: (Laughs). Well, it's a closed door meeting for a reason, but General Craddock and General Henault, I might add, our Chairman of the Military Committee, the top military officer at NATO, both have spoken twice before I left the room once to present the military views on Kosovo and once to present on Afghanistan. So yes, they have both, but no, it is not for me to discuss exactly what General Craddock said in the meeting. I think we're up there. No, okay. C'est bon. We'll go here and then there, and then I'll be done.

Q:James, thank you. We've seen certainly noises from the U.S. over the last few weeks about the numbers in Afghanistan, including an advert in the Italian newspaper three days ago. It seems to me, and to others, that there's a growing frustration from the Americans, that the European allies in NATO are not matching their commitment in Afghanistan. Would that be a fair assessment? Is that the sort of music you're picking up? The Americans believe that as far as boots on the ground, it doesn't matter about reconnaissance aircraft or helicopters, boots on the ground, soldiers doing the job, the Americans want something more from their European NATO allies.

APPATHURAI: Well, again, I don't speak for the Taliban, and I also don't speak for the U.S. government. Please don't mix those two in any way, so please don't write that. I didn't mean it like that. I really am not the U.S. government spokesman, so you have to ask the U.S. government. I can... I do speak for NATO, but also for the Secretary General. I can tell you the Secretary General would like to see more contributions, not only from... well, it would be hard to point the finger at the United States now, but from all allies. The U.S. has certainly made a good cases for itself, but you will hear the Secretary General call on all allies, that includes the Europeans, to do what they can, and do more where possible. So certainly that's all I could say on that subject.

Q:Merci, nous croyons savoir... Enfin, l'OTAN invite demain pour une réunion informelle les pays du Dialogue méditerranéen. Et en principe, ce sont les ministres de la Défense qui doivent être là. Or, nous croyons savoir ce sont les diplomates, les ambassadeurs qui viennent du moins pour les pays présents. Est-ce que cela voudrait dire que c'est une manière de ne pas trop s'impliquer pour les pays du Dialogue méditerranéen dans la politique de l'OTAN ou alors c'est une des phases du dialogue. Merci.

APPATHURAI: Merci pour la question. Si moi, j'ai bien compris, il y aura quelques ministres ici, alors déjà ce n'est pas la question - si j'ai bien compris - qu'ils ne viennent pas du tout. Il y en a quelques-uns qui viennent. Je ne suis pas sûr lesquels. Mais c'est ça qu'on vient de me dire.

De plus, et là on pourrait peut-être mieux m'expliquer, mais si je comprends bien dans certains cas, la position de ministre de Défense n'est pas exactement parallèle de ce que nous avons ici. Alors, il y a des questions de niveau, des gens qui ont un niveau politique mais qui ne sont pas exactement ministres de Défense. Ça, ce n'était pas trop clair franchement pour moi.

Ce que je peux dire et ça c'est très clair, c'est qu'on a déjà eu des réunions au niveau ministériel avec ces pays où d'ailleurs ils étaient représentés au niveau ministériel ou politique. Alors, on ne voit aucun manque de volonté de...de s'impliquer avec l'OTAN. En fait, le fait que cette réunion a lieu. Et c'est le deuxième assez vite dans ce cadre pour nous démontre que la relation, en fait, s'approfondie et qu'il démontre un intérêt des deux côtés. Alors, franchement, pour nous, c'est un très bon signe qu'ils soient là.

Folks, I have to get back to the meeting. Thank you very much. The Secretary General will be here at quarter to seven.