Press Conference (Q&A)

by Jonas Gahr Støre, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

Informal meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Foreign Ministers

MODERATOR: I have the gentleman on the first row here.

Q: (inaudible)... Russia. Speaking about movement in a positive direction, President Putin just announced that he's suspending Russian obligations on CFE Treaty because NATO partners in their turn do not fulfil those obligations, and Russia even looking into withdrawing from this treaty altogether. What is your first reaction?

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER (Secretary General of NATO): Well, let me start by saying that the NATO allies, as you know, attach great importance to the CFE treaty and they are of the opinion, as we have discussed many times, also in the NATO-Russia Council, that it is important that the CFE Treaty will be ratified.

We also know that there are still a number of hurdles in the way here, called the Istanbul Commitments. I have been informed, not literally, about what President Putin has said in his State of the Union Address. I say, in the sphere of the NATO-Russia Council, where we do not only, of course, only discuss subjects on which we agree, this is a subject which without any doubt will be discussed. I expect Minister Sergey Lavrov later this afternoon to explain the words of his President, so CFE without any doubt will be on the agenda of the NATO-Russia Council as well.

But I end where I started—NATO allies attach great importance to the Adaptive Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and its ratification.

Q: It's a question for the Secretary General and it's about Afghanistan. If NATO is looking to complement its military approach with a political one I Afghanistan, now do you see a need to negotiate with the Taliban directly?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: No, I do not. I do not think so. Do not forget, first of all, that NATO doesn't own Afghanistan. The Afghanistan people own their own nation. And your question should... I say it in all due respect not be directed to a NATO Secretary General, but to the Afghan government. So there is no NATO position to negotiate, quote/unquote, with anybody.

Why are we there? We are there to help reconstruct and build that nation. United Nations mandated. Supported by the Afghan government. And we should do a good job there, combining, as well as we can, the civilian with the military. Unfortunately, as you know, we are in combat from time to time as well, but we are not there to kill as many Taliban as possible. We are there to assist in reconstruction and development.
But NATO is not there to negotiate with anybody. NATO is there to respect Afghan ownership.

Q: A question for the Secretary General. David Brunnstrom from Reuters. You spoke last week, Secretary General, about unity in NATO as regard the missile shield. It seems that since then that several countries have come out, including Norway here, rather less than enthusiastic about the idea.
Could you comment on those reservations, please?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Well, this is not the way I have interpreted Minister Støre's remarks, but he's master of his own remarks, of course.
No, I think I can stick to what I said. Why is Oslo important, this informal meeting, because, as I said in my introductory words, the 19th of April meeting was a technical meeting, in Brussels the ambassadors, reinforced by experts from capitals.
What we were seeking now, of course, from the NATO Foreign Ministers is political guidance, how to move forward, given the fact that when the Heads of State and Government in Riga instructed us, the North Atlantic Council and myself, to continue discussions on missile defence, we already having, since 2002 by the way, there in Riga was not yet speak of the so-called United States third site discussion.
So what we now are going to achieve, and we will achieve, is to get political guidance, how to move on and how to move forward, linking what should be, you know my opinion, a NATO discussion on preventing A and B category allies and on the basis of the indivisibility of security, what the consequences for NATO as a whole are, as an Alliance, of the U.S. third site discussion taking place with our Polish and Czech allies.
That is what is on the agenda here in Oslo.

MODERATOR: As for now we only have time for one more question—but I'm sure there will be more possibilities all through the day for the two of them.
Q: You were saying that there is risk that the missile defence could create A and B parts in NATO, was that how I should interpret your comment? And do you share the concern that the discussions around missile defence could, in fact, divide NATO states. And the U.S. has got involved in bipolar discussions in this. Do you share Norway's view that this should be a NATO... should be discussed on a NATO level with all countries together?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Well that is exactly what's happening. That's one of the reasons we are in Oslo and that what happened in Brussels a few weeks ago. And it is, in fact, the same answer, on the first part of your question. When I say no A and B category and indivisibility of security it is the notion that we are a 26 nation NATO Alliance and if we talk missile defence, and if we talk about protecting ourselves, or protection against a missile threat, the same should apply for everybody.
That is a basis. You know, by the way, that the consequences of the U.S. so-called third site, and the protection against ballistic missile defence, covers the larger part of continental Europe, but from a NATO solidarity point of view I am also interested, as NATO Secretary General, in the part that is not covered, which are nations which face more risks from a short and medium-range threat, than from the longer-range threat.
But in other words, as we will prove today, the 26 Ministers will prove, this is a discussion which, as I've said from the beginning, should take place in NATO. That's what we're in an Alliance for. To have a political debate on this issue.

JONAS GAHR STØRE (Norwegian Foreign Affairs Minister): Can I just elaborate on that to say that that's precisely what an informal meeting... why it is so useful. And we agreed in Riga, the Heads of State and Government, that there should be continued discussions on the threat issue, what are the threats, how should they be assessed and this is what we should stick to.
What we are dealing with now is an American project which is engaging, for the time, two allies, and I appreciate that the Secretary General is doing exactly what a Secretary General should do, is to think about the indivisibility of the security of the Alliance.
And those discussions belong in the Alliance. We are a well-tested democratic forum for discussions, and I would add that no country outside the Alliance, should be able to drive a wedge between  allies in the way they discuss this issue. So that's why I look forward to that opportunity and I think it's very timely for that reason, to meet in Oslo.

MODERATOR: That's all for now. Thank you very much for coming.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Thank you.