Press briefing

by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai and the NATO Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy, Martin Erdmann on the Informal meeting of NATO Foreign ministers in Oslo

JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): I thank you for that. But welcome. We have the privilege of Ambassador Martin Erdmann, who is our Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy, who will brief you on the Oslo Ministerial. This is on the record, except when Martin chooses to go off. And I open the floor to Martin. 

MARTIN ERDMANN (NATO Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy): Thank you very much.  Thank you very much, James. And thank you for your interest into the upcoming informal  Ministerial... Foreign Ministerial, which I believe has the potential to become quite an interesting meeting for reasons that I will elaborate on.

The meeting takes place on Thursday and Friday, as you know, in Oslo. It is the second Foreign Ministerial since the Riga Summit. Ministers have met in January here in Brussels at NATO Headquarters  to discuss Afghanistan, which is one issue that is in Oslo also at the top of the agenda, of course, because Afghanistan is NATO's most important operation, as you know.

The second main aspect of the meeting will be the Oslo deliverables, the Riga results, and the implementation of those results. And I will come to the individual issues in a moment.

Let me first of all set the scene for you, what is happening, who is meeting whom and in which framework.

First of all, we will have two meetings of the North Atlantic Council at 26 on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning. We will then have Thursday evening at the end of the day at 18:00, 6:00 p.m., a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council with the presence of Foreign Minister Lavrov, and on Friday, in addition to the NATO-Russia Council a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister.

On Thursday evening, just to complete the schedule of Ministers there will take place another Trans-Atlantic dinner, a tradition that has been established in 2005 in Vilnius now for the first time in Lithuania where the 26 allied Foreign Ministers meet with their colleagues from the European Union, including the Senior Representative Solana and Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner of the Commission.

So this is the framework, the schedule, of Ministers.

The first meeting of the North Atlantic Council at 26 on Thursday afternoon will focus on two issues. The first one is Afghanistan and the second is missile defence. You are aware of the fact that the North Atlantic Council, reinforced by political directors or security policy directors, met last Thursday in Brussels for a first tour of the Council for quite some time on this issue. And this will be the opportunity for Ministers to address this issue, including with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at 6:00 p.m. immediately after the Meeting at 26.

As I said, Afghanistan remains NATO's number one top priority. Only last week the North Atlantic Council at ambassadorial level, went to Afghanistan for a three-day visit. The Foreign Ministers will review the progress made and ways to sustain and reinforce the progress. The Alliance has already stepped up its contribution, extending training efforts for the Afghan National Army and building closer ties with Afghanistan's neighbours, including Pakistan, which plays a crucial role in the long-term security of Afghanistan.

Now, one of the issues that Ministers will discuss in the context of Afghanistan is what we call here a Comprehensive Concept. This goes back to a tasking of Heads of State at Riga where Heads of State said that NATO, as a political military institution, has to look into a broader concerted effort on the part of the international community to rebuild the country, to sustain the efforts. And we currently are in the political institutions here at NATO Headquarters engaged in developing such a concept for a comprehensive approach. I'm happy to respond to more detailed questions at a later stage during this press conference.

The next session at 6... the NRC session, the informal NRC, NATO-Russian Council session at 6:00 p.m. will mainly deal, besides missile defence, with the upcoming anniversaries. You are aware of the fact that in 2007 we are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the so-called NATO-Russia Founding Act, an institution that was created in 1997 in Paris, with the presence of all then Heads of State and Government, including then-President Yeltsin. And the fifth anniversary of the NATO-Russia Council, so to speak, the refurbishment of the NATO-Russia Founding Act that was done in Practica di Mare in 2002, the events will be celebrated this year in St. Petersburg and in Moscow at the end of June and the Ministers will discuss this issue as well.

The next day, on Friday morning, the Foreign Ministers at 26 will have another session of the North Atlantic Council focusing on Kosovo and on enlargement. The political debate on the future of Kosovo clearly now lies with the United Nations in New York and we expect Foreign Ministers to stress their support for the settlement and to discuss how NATO can help to ensure the success of that settlement through its presence currently and continously at a troop level of 17,000 troops.

As for enlargement, you might recall that Riga has made explicit reference to enlargement in November last year, saying literally, and I have it here with me just to recall it, that the Alliance intends to extend further invitations to those countries who meet NATO's performance-based standards.

Now Ministers will make an assessment of the progress made so far by the three so-called McCountries. These are the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania and Croatia, who are currently in their eighth cycle of the Membership Action Plan. And Ministers will also discuss the question, what NATO can do to help these countries in orders to foster their reform process, notably in the area of defence reform.

The door to NATO membership remains open. I just quoted Riga. And Ministers will want to support these aspirant countries in making the necessary progress in order to walk through that door.

And finally the NATO-Ukraine Commission is meeting where Ministers will have the opportunity to reiterate NATO's commitment to cooperation in the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Distinctive Partnership. Just to recall, this partnership is also celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, in 2007—it was founded in 1997—almost in parallel to the NATO-Russia Founding Act. And Ministers will have the opportunity, together with the Ukrainian interlocutor to discuss the current political situation in Ukraine and to priorities for NATO-Ukraine cooperation.

These are roughly the issues, the main issues that we are confronting Thursday and Friday and James, I'm happy to answer any further questions.

APPATHURAI: Let's start. Can I ask you to identify yourselves, just because Martin doesn't know all of you by name.

Q: Thank you. (inaudible)... Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. A question on Afghanistan. Building closer relations with neighbours, including Pakistan, I wonder if you can elucidate. I'm especially thinking of a report I saw this week... last week somewhere, suggested that since the Pakistani agreements with tribal elders in North and South Waziristan had gone into effect the influx of militants and weapons apparently has actually increased.

So how would you see this cooperation as panning out? Thank you.

ERDMANN: Yeah, clearly a sustainable solution and development for Afghanistan is only possible with neighbours, and here Pakistan is clearly a key and central country. We have established relations with that country. The Deputy Secretary General of NATO has travelled to Pakistan not too long ago. We had the Pakistani Prime Minister, I believe, here at NATO Headquarters recently in order to identify areas where we can, together with Pakistan, have joint endeavours in securing and stabilizing the situation in Pakistan.

So Pakistan clearly is a key factor in the region, and therefore we should... Ministers should have the opportunity to discuss how to involve Pakistan and possibly other counties of the region into the process, reconstruction process and stabilization process.

You may be aware that the Deputy Secretary General only last week visited India for bilateral discussions. There, again, Afghanistan was on the top of the agenda.

So these are all the efforts to bring neighbouring countries, countries of the region onboard with view to the efforts of NATO and the international community.

APPATHURAI: If I can just supplement with one, two points. One is, you may be aware of this, that the Secretary General will, in the coming weeks, go to Pakistan to meet with President Musharraf. Second point, that we have established in terms of military to military cooperation, precisely on the issue that you mentioned, in after, a joint intelligence centre with the Pakistanis and the Afghans in Kabul.

NATO and the Afghans and the Pakistanis are working together on joint border control, border patrols and finally, NATO countries are working with the Pakistanis precisely on improving their ability to control their own border.

So I think there are actually quite a lot of efforts which complement the political relationship that Martin quite rightly points out as being deepened.

I think you were next,  (inaudible).

Q: Yes, my name is (inaudible)... Ah, before I make a question on enlargement (inaudible)... enlargement as well. I need clarification. When you say that we expect Foreign Ministers to express their support to Kosovo...

ERDMANN: Status settlement.

Q: Status settlement.

ERDMANN: Yes. So Kosovo and the enlargement issues are two separate issues.

Q: Yes, yes. Will there be a declaration at this meeting on both issues?

ERDMANN: No. This is an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers, which means there will be no decisions taken, and there will be no communiqués or whatever. For good reasons allied Foreign Ministers have decided to have one informal meeting per year and one formal. The formal one will take place this December. It did not take place last year because it was coinciding with the summit at Riga. There will be another forma meeting at December, and this one is informal, so it should give Ministers the opportunity to discuss without any pressure to deliver at the end documents, decisions, what have you.

Q: And just to follow up on the three candidates countries...

ERDMANN: Yeah.

Q: ...will you agree that there is a feeling that perhaps there is a setback on mentioning that all three countries, or perhaps I put the question best way that there are countries inside the Alliance who agree that Croatia is far... has more... made more progress than the other two countries, Albania and Macedonia.

ERDMANN: There are different views, of course. That is natural in an Alliance. Certain countries have specific views differing from others. At the end of the day we have to come up with a consensus, as always, in order to merge these views. I quoted, for good reasons, the Riga Summit declaration, which says that the Alliance intends to extend further invitations to those countries who meet NATO's performance-based standards.

Now that means that first of all we have to look at the performance. This is something currently being done as in each and every MAP(?) cycle every year, where allies evaluate and assess the progress made. And now Ministers coming closer to the summit in 2008, have to deal with the issue based on the tasker from Riga and to see where these countries have made progress, and to develop a strategy in order to fulfil what was announced, mainly the intention to extend further invitations.

For we are, at the outset of the Riga Summit, after the Riga Summit, now in the practical process to assess which countries might be ripe for an invitation in 2008.

But his process is ongoing and it will continue throughout this year 2007 and of course, at the beginning of 2008.

APPATHURAI: (inaudible)...

Q: On Afghanistan I was wondering, are there any suggestions that as they're doing with Iraq, that you should actually have some kind of a forum with the neighbours, where instead of having a piecemeal dialogue with say Pakistan or India you could actually do something jointly?

And also, there are suggestions from the Americans that the Iranians are supplying arms to the Taliban. Is that something that the Ministers will discuss, do you think, in Oslo?

APPATHURAI: To answer the second question first, no. I don't expect that. I have not that issue of Iranian supply of weapons to... or potential Iranian supply of weapons to Afghanistan to be discussed.

Q: (inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: I think we've all seen reports in the press on this. And I know that it is discussed in various fora, but for the moment I think that it has certainly not reached the level of being a ministerial discussion.

Was there another?

Q: To have some kind of a joint forum (inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: Ah.

ERDMANN: I'm not aware of this currently. There were ideas ventilated in the context of the Riga Summit, but I have the impression that nations are not yet ready to embark on that.

APPATHURAI: I think you were next. No? Okay. Mark.

Q: Mark John from Reuters. On Afghanistan, is it your sense that the U.S. has essentially giving up with its calls for more troops and fewer caveats and has not shifted the tone to call for more help with training? Or do you think that we'll get a repeat of those well-known calls at this meeting in Oslo?

ERDMANN: I think the Riga Summit has provided additional forces. As I'm not the responsible ASG for Operations I cannot give you the exact figures, but the increase was quite considerable and many nations have removed what we call caveats, so the situation certainly has, after the Riga Summit, improved a lot, but of course there's always need for more, so I cannot predict which kind of appeals there will be launched on the occasion of the Foreign Ministerial, but certainly the fact that Afghanistan is and remains number one top priority and has to be fuelled accordingly, that I think will be certainly one of the issues.

APPATHURAI: Thank you. If I may supplement that, the person whose job it is to go to nations and address force generation and potential shortfalls is of course is the Supreme Allied commander and it is... he is the person who provides the overview and addresses these issues and he will, of course, be present in Oslo. I think you're quite right to say that training and providing trainers for... to assist the Afghan National Security Forces in their development will be one of his priority areas of focus.

Q: (inaudible)... Presse. Monsieur le Secrétaire Général, est-ce que vous n'avez pas oublié de travailler la sécurité énergétique? Pardon, est-ce que vous n'avez pas oublié de parler de la sécurité énergétique? Ou est-ce que je me suis trompé?

ERDMANN: Non, vous avez tout à fait raison. Je n'en ai pas parlé.

Q:  Je n'ai pas rêvé. C'est volontaire ou involontaire?

ERDMANN: C'était à volonté parce que ce sujet n'est pas sur l'agenda des ministres. Il y a comme vous savez un "tasker" du sommet de Riga de regarder dans la question de la sécurité énergétique. Mais dans les comités qui travaillent là-dessus on n'est pas encore arrivé à un moment où on pourrait produire... présenter un résultat aux ministres. Donc, ça l'aura peut-être lieu avec les ministres de la Défense au mois de juin dès que les travaux internes ici dans ce bâtiment se sont terminés.

APPATHURAI: Next one's here. Please.

Q: (inaudible)... Concerning (inaudible) missile self-defence could you elaborate what the Ministers will discuss?

ERDMANN: What was the first part...

APPATHURAI: Missile defence.

ERDMANN: Missile defence.

APPATHURAI: What will be the issue?

ERDMANN: I think we have two aspects of this one. First of all, we have, again, a tasker from Riga to continue to work on the issue in the context of the intra-Alliance decision and opinion-building process, and then we have clearly, based on the discussions last week here in Brussels, a willingness of Ministers to discuss this in the context of the NATO-Russia Council, with the Russian side. So there are two aspects to this.

It will be at 26, the first discussion of the missile defence issue, for quite some time. And I could imagine that the issue of the threat assessment is a very important one and then based on the Riga decisions that you can read here in the communiqué of the Riga Summit, the procedural question, how to continue inside this house with this issue.

And then as for secondly, of course, and probably also based on the visit of Defence Secretary Gates to Moscow, a discussion between the Foreign Ministers, which means on the Russian side and Minister Lavrov and his NATO counterparts.

So these are the two mainstreams I would currently discover. As on the substance I'm not able to give any forecasts on where things will go.

Q: (inaudible), Frankfurt Allgemeine. I have two questions, one on missile defence, and the other one on Afghanistan.

After the debates in the council last week one could get the impression that there's more or less consensus now how the debate will continue. I mean, everybody agrees that the American system will be built and whatever NATO can do is to... to cover those areas which are not covered by the American system, and there was a lot of talk about bolting on the NATO system to the American system.  Bolting on is a very technical term. Do you think really that this consensus is already there? That this will be the solution and that the political debate is more or less... has come to an end and now we are talking about the technical consequences of bolting on this NATO missile defence system to the system of the United States.

And the other question on Afghanistan, you said you would be prepared to talk a little bit more about the comprehensive approach and what has been done in the international staff(?). Could I just encourage you to tell us a little more about that?

ERDMANN: Yes. Um-hmm, I will. On missile defence first. I would not go as far as to say that there is a consensus. I would even go as far as to say that the discussion has just started. Last week at the level of political directors or security policy directors, so at senior official level, but this time we are embarking on a political debate among Foreign Ministers.

So I think we are, concerning the political debate, certainly not at the end. To the contrary, I think we are rather at the beginning, based on, that must be very clear, based on the internal findings that we agreed upon at 26, the feasibility study, for example, that we have achieved so far.

The technical question you raised is one that I see at a later stage, because the technical question is such a complicated one that needs to be addressed probably by political, military expert levels, high levels, but based on political guidance. And what I do foresee for Oslo clearly is that political guidance. How to translate the Riga remits through Foreign Ministers, and then in June through Defence Ministers into the future.

On Afghanistan, Comprehensive Concept. The Secretary General has repeatedly, over the past one or two years, hinted to the fact that a sustainable development and reconstruction for Afghanistan cannot be a military task. To the contrary, the military security side is the precondition for a civilian reconstruction.

Now the question that was raised at the Riga Summit, that we have dealt with here in this house, since then, is how can we better combine the security- related endeavours with the civilian endeavours of other institutions? And what can NATO do to improve its own, let's say, organizational and operational means in order to better fit together with the civilian activities.

And we are trying to develop a concept in this house. How that in practice and in abstract can work.

For example, how do we improve the strategic relationship between NATO and the European Union? There is a lot of work being done in theatre, between various institutions, but this work is not done sufficiently at strategic level, so we are looking into the question, how can we improve this kind of coordination.

And let me mention, as an example, what I mean by better coordination? You might recall that at the ministerial meeting in January we had organized, the Secretary General had organized a meeting of the NATO troop contributors together with non-Native troop contributors, including international organization and for the first time we have not only Mr. Solana of the Council Secretariat here at NATO Headquarters, but also from the Commission, Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner, the World Bank, the World Bank with a representative, high-ranking representative from Washington, and we had Mr. Koenigs, who is the UN Special Representative of the United Nations.

So this kind of joint comprehensive approach of NATO and other players, this is the kind of model that we have in mind at the strategic level, so that the strategic level can give better instructions and hints how to continue the practical work on the ground in the field.

That is what we understand by comprehensive approach. I mean, it's a very natural and logic approach, but for an organization that is playing mainly in the military security field this is an innovation. And as always when you come to innovations in this house you need agreement among 26 how this innovation looks like, if everybody is onboard, if everybody agrees and so on and so forth.

And this consensus-building  process is exactly what we are doing. Sounds a little bit boring, but this is the way this organization works.

APPATHURAI: Boring yes.

(LAUGHTER)

APPATHURAI: Follow-up?

Q: What happened to this concept of a contact group, which was, I think proposed by President Chirac in an article in our newspaper shortly... briefly before the Riga Summit and I think the General Secretary also talked about it in Riga?

ERDMANN: I think there were discussions as a follow-up to Riga on this issue, but no implementation so far has taken place. This is all I can say on this issue.

APPATHURAI: Yeah, I think the flavour that the Secretary General got from his discussions was more contact, no group.

(LAUGHTER)

Q: I'm Jim Neuger from Bloomberg. Back on missile defence, following last week's meeting, what is the view at NATO Headquarters of the offer of closer cooperation that the Americans made to the Russians? Did it go far enough, perhaps too far? Did it go far enough to both appease the Russians and I hope overcome the sort of negative views in European public opinion?

ERDMANN: My impression of the discussion last week was that overwhelmingly the offer to closer discuss the issue for the sake of transparency, and possibly cooperation in the future was welcomed by allies around the table. So there is, I think, appetite for more involvement of Russia rather than less.

Now, the news that I read today and yesterday about the visit of Secretary of Defence Gates were rather sobering concerning the Russian response to it, but maybe we get another or different information from the Foreign Ministerial side.

So this discussion, also with Russia, I believe, is a the outset, it's at the beginning of the offers on the table, based on last week's meeting and based on the meetings this week. We will see what the outcome will be. I think there is clear readiness on this side, on NATO's side, to involve Russia.

APPATHURAI: There's a follow-up and then we'll go to Paul.

Q: I just wanted to follow-up on what you say and... Mr. Lavrov said today in Luxembourg, one hour ago, that the main problem with the American proposal was no joint analysis of the threat. What they want is a joint and identical analyst... une analyse de la menace identique, qu'est-ce que vous en pensez?

ERDMANN: Je ne connais pas cette nouvelle donc je ne vais pas la commenter. Attendons jusqu'il arrive à Oslo pour savoir ce qu'il dit dans la séance elle-même.  Ils n'ont pas eu (inaudible)...  Je crois qu'il faut d'abord adresser cette question d'une façon interne à 26... à 27, pardon le 27. Et ensuite voir où il y a un terrain commun où on pourra adresser cette question.

Je crois qu'il ne faut pas prendre toutes les réactions que l'on reçoit à ce stage initial en tant que réponse finale déjà. On est en train d'aborder cette question qui est une question politiquement difficile et techniquement difficile. Alors prenons le temps pour vraiment aborder la question en toute responsabilité et tranquillité.

APPATHURAI: Paul.

Q: Paul Ames from the Associated Press. I have two questions as well. One on missile defence and the other on Kosovo. Just to follow-up on missile defence. You say we're at the beginning of the debate within NATO on this issue, but in fact, if I remember correctly, this debate was launched in Prague already and there was a 10,000-page report on it last year and once again political guidance from Riga.

Given the Americans, at least, think there's a certain degree of urgency in this question, when do you think you might get towards the end of the debate within NATO on the issue?

And secondly, on Kosovo, do you think it's prudent for NATO to start thinking about the political and perhaps military implications of Kosovo declaring independence unilaterally given the lack of progress for the talks at the United Nations?

ERDMANN: Yeah. Again on missile defence, in order not to be mistaken, when I say we are at the beginning of the debate, I mean, after the discussion's launched by the United States with two European allies the history of the missile defence debate here in NATO dates back into the latest nineties and not only at the Prague Summit, but also at Istanbul and in the time span between the year 2000 and 2002, the Prague Summit date.

There were discussions ongoing including at the technical level. So this is not a new question for NATO, but based on the U.S. decision to implement with two European allies the National Missile Defence Shield. Based on that new development we are at the beginning of discussions in NATO, so please don't understand me. There's a long history of missile defence debate in here and of course, there is a notion of urgency on the national side of the United States and allies will now have to follow a track in order not to lose, so to speak, the speed on that issue.

Kosovo. NATO has in its mid-term review decided to stay with some 17,000 troops on the ground, for the time being, until the settlement is finally reached. This now lies in the hands of the Security Council. I will not comment from NATO side anything that goes into political (inaudible). NATO has no political role to play in the settlement issue. That is being done by the Security Council now after President Ahtisaari has delivered his report. NATO's role is to be present on the ground, to make sure that the implementation of the settlement functions well and I will not elaborate here on possible other options like the one you have put forward unilateral independence or so. But that is nothing that NATO has to comment.

What I believe is important is that the process end at the meeting of the political directors here on Kosovo specifically a couple of weeks ago. The process and the package that President Ahtisaari has put forward got the support of NATO, as it got the support of the Secretary General of the United Nations, by the way, on the very day of that meeting here.

Q: I was going to follow-up too on Kosovo. Obviously the next step you said in your introductory remarks and there again...  Lorne Cook from AFP. The next steps in the United Nations, one of the question marks is what position is Russia going to take and here you have a NATO-Russia Council, is it likely to be brought up, the issue of Kosovo and Russia's position on it, even though you're saying the next steps are in the United Nations?

And you just said something about missile defence that intrigued me. Why do you think the United Nations is in a hurry and that the allies would want to follow for that plan to ahead?

ERDMANN: On Kosovo first. I think that issue goes to the heart of European security interests and it simply has to be addressed and it will be addressed, I'm a 100 percent sure, in the discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov. All the more as we have incoming the visit of the Security Council to Brussels and to Pristina. The Secretary General of NATO will address the Security Council, I think tomorrow if I'm not mistaken.

So there is some kind of, let's say, activities going on that simply require that not only at 26, but also with our Russian friends this issue is debated if the opportunity of political level occurs. So in other words, that issue will be on the agenda.

And on missile defence, perhaps I should be a little bit more prudent concerning the use of the term urgency. The United States have put forward timelines that they have in mind for the implementation of the radar site and the missile launcher site in two European NATO member states. The Secretary General repeatedly has said that NATO should not allow to have different areas of security and in that respect it is important that those allies, that the Alliance, and especially those allies who are not covered by the shield, move forward in making up their mind and ultimately taking decisions what their approach to this issue is.

I mean, we cannot simply let this pass and sit aside and say well, let's wait and see. That's not an option.

APPATHURAI: We've about five more minutes, folks and there's two back there.

Q: (inaudible)... About Kosovo, yesterday Russian Minister Lavrov in Luxembourg says that Russians want to see implementing(?) the Resolution  1244. So you said that NATO doesn't have a political role in Kosovo, but have to implementate(?)  (inaudible)... Resolution and also Resolution 1244. So what is your opinion of how much is implemented Resolution 1244, especially now when Russia (inaudible)... implementation of that Resolution and you can speak about it in (inaudible)... Russian (inaudible).

ERDMANN: Yeah. And I said that NATO has no role in the settlement process. No political role in the settlement process. I think that is a very informed differentiation.

Of course, there is a certain political role on the ground because NATO simply is there and this implies a sort of task to make sure, and that is also political task, that the security environment, the protection of minorities, and so on, is safeguarded and assured. So please don't misunderstand me on that aspect. 

Concerning the Resolution you just referred to, I don't want to go into an assessment of that, because in a press conference like that one would have to look really deeply into the issue and I'm not in a position to do that right now. Please understand that I don't want to cause confusion. To an assessment that would jeopardize the other processes that are going on.

Q: My question was what is your judgement about the implementation of... of Resolution 1244? It's not the next(?) resolution.

ERDMANN: No, I know. I know. And my comment referred to that.

Q: (inaudible)...

ERDMANN: I'm sorry. (Laughs).

APPATHURAI: And the last one will be it.

Q: (inaudible)... Two questions. The first one, missile defence, you said that you can't speak of consensus till discussions have started. From the Russian side last week the Russian ambassador, and yesterday the Foreign Minister Lavrov, both suggested that in European countries there was some element of sympathy for the Russian position, Russian concerns about the destabilizing effects of installing this missile defence system in Central Europe.

Is this a fair description of the situation?

And the second question on Afghanistan, you said(?) there won't be any discussion between Foreign Ministers about the idea of having some kind of rule... common... rule of combats when we have hostages, when we have foreign hostages (inaudible)... 

ERDMANN: On the first one I will try to give you an answer. On the second one James will do.

I'm speaking for NATO, so for the 26 allies, and therefore I have to put myself under certain restraint. I cannot comment on individual positions of nations here. But I believe it's a fair description to say that we are not yet there concerning a consensus how to move these things forward. And I think it is self explanatory when I say that the first ministerial discussions taking place after the U.S. decision to implement national missile defence with two European allies, is taking place Thursday and Friday.

So there is still some work to be done, but based on the findings of last Thursday, and I believe you briefed the press or did the Secretary General, please correct me if I'm wrong, there was an emerging consensus that the issue needs to be addressed in this house, in this house.

APPATHURAI: Indeed, if I can build on that. I think Martin's quite right that the discussions in NATO now need to take into account the new development. And the new development is the U.S. third site. That was not on the table in the same way certainly when Riga set out a tasking for the allies to look at the possibility and indeed the desirability of a European system. That is the new card on the table that has to be integrated into this new discussion.

On the other hand, two things. One is, of course, the NATO work on theatre missile defence, the NATO-Russia work on theatre missile defence. Both of these are agreed and moving forward.

Second, there is an agreed, in fact, two agreed, NATO threat assessments when it comes to missiles and we certainly heard about the table a consensus view that there is a threat from missiles. Many countries called it a growing threat from missiles.

So there was quite a lot of unanimity around the table on missile defence, and indeed, on the way in which the discussion now needs to go forward.

When it comes to hostages, you all heard that this was raised at the April 2nd meeting of political directors as an issue and the view coming out of that meeting was twofold. One, that all the nations around the table,  all 26, understood that any individual country faced with the situation that Italy faced and that other countries have now how are now facing, is in a very difficult position.

So there was a great understanding and sympathy for the difficulty in which any country finds itself when its nationals are taken hostage.

There was also a consensus view, including all of... I stress, all of the nations around the table, that the actions of each individual country has implications for all of the countries when it comes to this kind of situation.

Therefore, the Secretary General agreed, at the request of the nations, to take forward a discussion within NATO on hostage taking in Afghanistan. That discussion informally, I stress, informally, has already begun, but it has not yet come to the formal level where decisions would need to be taken.

So an informal discussion has simply now just begun on this issue.

Yeah.

Q: So that means it's... (BREAK IN AUDIO)...

APPATHURAI: (inaudible)... but we gotta make it quick.

Q: Okay. Concerning the Afghanistan. You mentioned the border country like India and Deputy Secretary General was there, so could you touch more upon that. What kind of achievement's reached on this visit on India and NATO? Thank you.

ERDMANN: This was the first visit of a senior NATO representative to India, so I would call this visit an exploratory visit, that paves the way for future and closer cooperation. And it was indeed agreed in Delhi that this closer cooperation would take place, although through visits of high-ranking representatives from Delhi. But it was, as I said, the first of that kind of contact and we have to elaborate on that. It needs a follow-up in other words. This was the beginning.

APPATHURAI: Brooks. Defense News.

Q: Yes, one last fly-swatting question on missile defence.

APPATHURAI: You have to press the button.

ERDMANN: There's a fly-swatting question.

Q: Here's missile defence. (Smacking noise).

(LAUGHTER)

ERDMANN: Ah, okay.

Q: The fly has been swatted. The first... we shouldn't be surprised that the first phase of NATO's TMD project is probably going to dovetail with the U.S. missile project in Eastern Europe. I don't think anyone in this room should be surprised. Thus enabling the Alliance to surprise, surprise, go ahead with missile defence in about four years from now. The technical work is already being discussed about how short and medium-range missile defence systems and their command and control systems will connect into long-term missile defence coverage provided by the U.S. base in Eastern Europe.

So isn't there... there's a bit of inevitabil... I won't call it inevitability, but some of the deck chairs have already been prearranged. So doesn't this debate really, right now... I mean, I disagree with you on the technical work that it's so complicated. They know what's out there. The NATO planners know what's out there and what needs to be connected. Does this debate really boil down to convincing the European public to accept missile defence and finding the money to pay for the integration work?

Thank you.

ERDMANN: Interesting question. I will not answer it. I will not even try to answer it because that goes far beyond my payroll. This is something...

(LAUGHTER)

ERDMANN: ...that has to take place...

APPATHURAI: I didn't know I was allowed to say that. That's very inspiring!

(LAUGHTER)

APPATHURAI: I won't answer that.

ERDMANN: Let me add on the technical aspects, I mean, my task here was to forecast... to shed some light on the discussion of Foreign Ministers. And I said, I don't expect Foreign Ministers to go into the technical side of the issue. In other words, you are right when you say that here at NATO Headquarters there's a lot of expertise, but the meeting in Oslo is not one of NATO's...