Press briefing

by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai

JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): Friends, thank you for coming, because it's a beautiful day. As usual, I will try to be as brief as possible and for those of you who aren't already here, we'll do it all on the record unless we say it's off the record. There's three or four issues I wanted to raise with you and then I'm happy to take your questions.

First, just to give a brief recap of the Secretary General's visit to the ranch. I had the privilege of accompanying him to President Bush's ranch. I can tell you if you have allergies don't go to President Bush's ranch. It's 1,600 kilometres of acres of wildflowers and I was tortured the entire time I was there.

(LAUGHTER)

APPATHURAI: But it was obviously very pleasant—you have seen the media reports—it was a very pleasant visit for the Secretary General. Of course, it was a working meeting, aside from the social aspects and I think in the press conference they did cover many of the issues, but let me run through them.

The first and main subject during the working meeting was, of course, Afghanistan. The United States has stepped up in significantly in recent months its investment in the ISAF mission and so this was clearly a priority for discussion between the Secretary General and the President.

They did discuss a number of things. One is maintaining the ISAF mission at appropriate strength in the long-term. In other words, the importance of continuing investment in the ISAF mission to  build on the success that we have had until now in supporting the Afghan people. As a second element of that, of course, they discussed the issue of civilian casualties. Clearly that is of concern to both leaders, as well as the United States and NATO more broadly.

They, both behind closed doors and in public expressed their concerns about this for two reasons. One is no one wants to cause civilian casualties, no one wants to take innocent life and NATO certainly makes every effort to avoid that, and second, because of course we know that the support of the Afghan people for international forces must be maintained.

Right now, from all the polling data that I have seen, over 80 percent of the Afghan population supports the presence of international forces. I think that is no surprise considering that their memories are long enough to remember living under the Taliban, but we do meet with the Afghan authorities to make every effort to continue to avoid civilian casualties. There are efforts under way now and you'll have seen General Craddock's comments in that regard to see what we can do to improve our procedures. That must include a look at how we coordinate between ISAF, the Coalition and the Afghans. And so there's certainly a look being made into that.

Second issue, Kosovo. Clear unanimity between the President and the Secretary General that there should be, as soon as possible, a Security Council resolution based on the Ahtisaari proposals which lay out for Kosovo and for the region a resolution to what has been a long-standing open issue.

Frankly, that's all I think I need to say on that subject.

There was discussion of the missile defence system that the United States is discussing with Poland and the Czech Republic, and if I understand correctly it will be tomorrow that the first formal discussions take place between the United States and Poland on this issue.

In essence, you know the NATO position and that is that the Secretary General believes that there should be no A or B grade allies. He expressed this to the President, who of course shares that. That is why they both agree that there should be discussions within the Alliance on how to complement a  possible U.S. system to ensure that there is courage, A, for all allies, and B against high, medium and low-range threats, missile threats to NATO. So there will be, I am quite sure, a discussion in that regard.

Second thing, the Secretary General has just released, I think in the last half hour, a statement on the terrorist attack in Ankara. I will read it to you.

“On behalf of NATO I strongly condemn Tuesday's terrorist attack in Ankara, which killed and injured so many innocent people. The Allies stand in solidarity with Turkey and the Turkish people in the face of terrorism. I express my profound condolences to the Turkish people, particularly the families of those who lost their lives, and wish speedy recovery to the injured. NATO remains united and determined in the fight against terrorism.”

That is on the website in English and French.

There other things. One is right now the North Atlantic Council, led by the Secretary General, are onboard a variety of ships, but principally the USS Roosevelt, a carrier in the Gulf of Taranto. That's not Toronto, which is my home town, but Taranto, Southern Italy, for what we call Sea Days. It is a demonstration of the capabilities of Operation Active Endeavour, bringing together ships from the United States, from Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the U.K. and as of today, a Ukrainian ship is there as part of its final preparations to participate in Active Endeavour.

Most of the North Atlantic Council members are there as well.

Operation Active Endeavour, just to give you a little snapshot, more than... since 2001, when it was put in place, more than 85,000 vessels have been monitored or challenged. About 100 boarded. Close to 500 civilian ships have taken advantage of NATO's escorts. So it has, we believe made a difference in detecting, interception and reporting possible terrorism, drug trafficking and movements of explosives and movements of large number of illegal immigrants.

Next point. Tomorrow the Prime Minister of Albania, Dr. Berisha, will visit NATO Headquarters. He will meet with the Secretary General and address the North Atlantic Council. This is obviously in the context principally of their Membership Action Plan preparations for future membership in the Alliance.

The bilateral meeting with the Secretary General will begin with the signature of an exchange of letters on the Albanian contribution to operation Active Endeavour. Also during this visit a Memorandum of Understanding on, and I quote, the facilitation of vital civil cross-border transport. I can say it again, vital... I don't know what it means, but I'll say it again, vital civil cross-border transport, will be signed by the Albanian Minister of Defence and the NATO Assistant Secretary General for Operations Adam Kobieracki.

There will be no media opportunity.

And finally, just to remind you, something I mentioned, I think it was last week or the week before, today in the... on the coast of Croatia, the EADRCC, this is the Euro Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre, is conducting our annual crisis disaster response exercise, called IDASSA, I-D-A-S-S-A, 2007. It will have 21 countries participating, each deploying some 40 national expert teams. To deal with a fictitious emergency situation. There'll be about 1,000 participants and more than 120 observers from 35 countries.

Basically the NATO and partner countries will practice disaster response mechanisms and capabilities to test best practice on how to respond at the same time to a natural disaster, which is an earthquake and a terrorist threat, providing an opportunity for civilian responders and military units to work together.

So it will begin with a command post exercise... it began with a command post exercise and had there days of field activities.

That's all I will say on that and that is all that I have to say as introductory points, and I'm happy to take your questions.

Please.

Q: James, we heard now that the President Bush and SecGen again stressed that the resolution on Kosovo is needed as soon as possible. We heard this word in last November, December as well. What do they understand with as soon as possible? Did they had in mind any date when there might be a resolution voted in the Security Council?

And is there any... is NATO preparing, since it considers the situation very... depending on the political circumstances, any plan how to act if there is veto by the Russians in Security Council. Americans apparently stress that they are ready to recognize independence, even if there is no veto. Did they spoke about this and those scenarios?

APPATHURAI: In terms of the date, what as soon as possible means, this is obviously a process that has moved to the Security Council and it is up to the Security Council to determine when it will consider a draft resolution and when it would wish to take a vote on it.

Our interest as NATO is to ensure, or is to support a process that A, moves quickly, avoiding unnecessary delays, and B, arrives at a resolution, rather than leaving this long open-ended question, open-ended even longer.

But it is not up to NATO to decide how quickly. The United States clearly has their own ideas as Security Council members, as to how they wish to help move the process forward, but it is obviously up to them to make those ideas public.

Does NATO have plans? NATO is very good at planning and NATO is prepared, let me assure you, for every eventuality. We are presuming, as an Alliance, that there will be a Security Council resolution. There are preparations under way for a transition to a post status Kosovo based on the Ahtisaari proposals, but of course NATO is prepared and has planning and contingency in place for every possible scenario.

Q: Two questions. NATO's good at planning, so how is NATO-Russia planning coming on missile defence exercises? That's one. And two, has the NAC never been down to Active Endeavour before? Why did they go down? Just to see a Ukrainian vessel?  

APPATHURAI: Two reasons. Well, let me answer the second question first. Yes, they have indeed seen Active Endeavour before. They have been on these, what we call Sea Days. Aside from crippling hay fever I'm also profoundly seasick which is why you see me here today and not... and not there.

Yes, they go, but there's two reasons why they go. One is to see for themselves on an annual basis, and I don't think that's too frequently, one of NATO's major military operations taking place in theatre very close to home. But second, it's also as a demonstration of their political level commitment to the soldiers and sailors and airmen and women who contribute to this operation, and I think that's an important symbol.

In terms of NATO-Russia planning on theatre... or on missile defence, for those of you who don't follow missile defence issues as carefully as Brooks does, there is, of course, long-standing cooperation between NATO and Russia, many years of cooperation on theatre missile defence, and that has included, for example, a joint threat assessment that has been completed, of the missile threat, and I think that's an important statement in the context of the larger discussions on missile defence that have been taking place between Russia and the West. We have agreed a joint threat assessment.

Second, we have held technical discussions on interoperability and third, either have held or are about to hold a command post exercise on theatre missile defence.

So there has been progress. I would say that the assessment of our experts within NATO is that it is not moving as quickly as it could, that more cooperation could have been achieved until now. We hope that more will be achieved, specifically in the context of NATO-Russia theatre missile defence cooperation. That's what I would have to say on that.

Q: James going back to Augustin's question.

APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: And if I can quote you correctly, NATO is prepared for any eventuality. Then you follow up, we are presuming that there will be a UN Security resolution. Does this mean that you are prepared also for the second alternative or second eventuality when there will be no UN Security resolution, but yes, you will (inaudible)... the nation of Kosovo (inaudible)...

Does this mean that NATO planning in terms of legal advice you have found the way out how to remain in Kosovo is there no UN Security resolution, and in that case, which is that legal base? Will that be Kosovo invites NATO?

APPATHURAI: My understanding, now I'm not a legal expert, but my understanding, and I think this seems to be the view within NATO Headquarters, so don't put me in jail if I get this wrong, but my understanding is that if there's no UN Security Council resolution, based on the Ahtisaari proposals, then UN Security Council Resolution 1244 remains in force, and that remains the legal basis for the presence of NATO KFOR in Kosovo.

Q: James, on Mr. Scheffer's visit to United States, there have been announcements in Macedonia in press saying that Bush will come to Tirana and invite Macedonia under its constitutional name. What do you know about this?

And secondly what have the Secretary General and the President Bush discussed concerning Macedonia.

APPATHURAI: Well good question, sorry, and I should have mentioned this, because there was a discussion about the upcoming summit in Bucharest and in that context the enlargement process.

I have no knowledge of what President Bush intends to do when he comes to Tirana and that was not discussed, I might add. He mentioned that he was going, but not what he was going to say.

They did, however, the two did discuss the enlargement process with an eye to the summit and they both stressed that the aspirant countries need to continue to work to meet the standards. And I can tell you that wasn't just the Secretary General, but also President Bush, both stressing that no tickets have been punched, there is no decision on invitations yet, and that more work needs to be done. And that was the message, quite clearly, from both leaders.

Q: For Macedonia, what does it mean, clearly? These conditions? So what are the clear conditions?

APPATHURAI:  Well, they certainly did not go into detail as to what each individual country needs to do and I will not do that. That is a process that's being done behind closed doors, between NATO and the aspirant countries. You know this in the context of the Membership Action Plan. A new Membership Action Plan cycle has now started for... soon for all three. As they make their visits through NATO they hand over their annual plans and they will begin a new one, an abbreviated one, a shorter one, because the summit is relatively early next year.

But this will lay out, this process will lay out, specifically where each country needs to make progress, and I believe you heard one of the areas where your country will be in a sense under observation, will be the political process. And the way in which that goes forward NATO wants to have as a. very important standard, a well-functioning political process where government and opposition work well together.

And so with an eye to the electoral process that's an area where I think a lot of attention will be paid.

Q: Okay, regarding Macedonia again, very quickly, is it going that political dialogue, is it going to make some big obstacle and damage the process of the membership in NATO. Thank you.

APPATHURAI: This issue of political dialogue is one that has certainly come up when the political leaders from your country came to the NATO Headquarters, and it was heard not just from NATO, the NATO Secretary General, but also from the Ambassadors.

There has been progress in the past few months, you know this as well as I do, but it is clearly still a very difficult process. There are other areas where improvements need to be made, and those improvements need also to be made, for example, as an issue, which will be looked at. Need to be made in such a way that they are systemic and sustainable and not just one-off changes, but they are systemic changes that allow for continued transformation.

That is another area which was noted by Ambassadors and by the Secretary General as one where all three countries need to continue to make changes.

But is it an important issue? Yes, it's an important issue. And it's an important issue not just for the government, but also for the opposition.  I think that's all I need to say on the subject.

We'll come forward. It's a follow-up? Okay, go ahead, go ahead. It's Macedonia day.

Q: James, to the Macedonia and the political dialogue, NATO is the signature organization together with EU on the Ohrid Agreement which happened before you came in Brussels.

APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: Does all NATO allies have a common assessment? Has there been backslide, or setback since the new government came in power, into the implementation of the Ohrid Agreement?

APPATHURAI: I have not heard, I will say it that way, because I don't think I can speak authoritatively on the subject, but I have not heard of a consensus view of backsliding on the Ohrid Agreement. What I have heard is a consensus view that the Ohrid Agreement needs to be implemented fully and NATO certainly has not diminished its support for the agreement. Of that I can be very sure.

Q: On Afghanistan, today a Finnish ISAF soldier was killed and four Norwegians injured in Maymana and this comes just a few days after the German casualties in Kunduz. I was wondering if there is any new risk assessment of the situation in the North and is it getting any worse, and what you know about the perpetrators, the people who are behind?

APPATHURAI: For the moment I don't know any more than you do about the perpetrators. I have seen the first incident report, but the first incident reports generally need to be followed up by second and third incident reports, so I certainly can't... I don't think everybody knows the facts right yet.

Is a new threat assessment required? I don't think so. We have regular threat assessments of all five regions of the country, North, West, South, East and the capital, each and every week in the council. The latest intelligence is briefed to the Ambassadors.

What these incidents demonstrate is, and what I think all the NATO governments have been saying is no region is shielded from these kinds of, what amount of terrorist guerrilla attacks. You have seen that as in the incidents in the past few days, Afghan civilians bear the brunt of these attacks, as well as, of course, international forces.

ISAF will continue to make ongoing threat assessments. It will make adjustments where it must. Ah, but it will certainly, these attacks will certainly not diminish in any way NATO's commitment to the Afghan people in all regions of the country.

Q: About Afghanistan and about action(?), there is an NRC again to morrow. On Afghanistan I just wanted to make a point and see if you agree. If the Talibans are now committing terrorist attacks in the North, in the West and the East and everywhere, don't you think that it will make even more complicated discussions with NATO on the need to support people that are now in the south with a burden of military action?

And second on NRC, the prospect that we have now of Russian-NATO, or Russian western countries in general deteriorating, don't you think that NRC meeting tomorrow might be a vain exercise. Why should we continue? What is on the agenda tomorrow?

APPATHURAI: To answer the first question: The countries in this... Let me start again. At the last summit meeting the Secretary General asked for and got confirmation of, from all of the 26 heads of state and commitment,  that they will go anywhere in an emergency situation. Their troops can go anywhere in the country in an emergency situation to support the troops of any other country.

This was seen at the time, I think, in the context of operations then, very much in the context of the South where things were very hot. Things are still hot in the south, but what is clear from the events of the past few days is that the security environment is not stable and totally secure anywhere in the country, and that that commitment is important. Not just for the countries... the eight or nine  countries in the South. It is important for everybody.

So I think it's all the more important now, and we have seen that commitment demonstrated in practice and it is an important demonstration of solidarity, all the more important, I think, now.

The NRC, I would use exactly the opposite word of vain, though I can't think of what it is, very useful, in that we do need as a Euro Atlantic community, precisely this and that is a forum, a structured forum, not an ad hoc forum, not a grouping put together in extremis. A regular forum for discussion on issues where we agree and where we disagree. That's exactly what the NRC is for. I would not be surprised based on the experience of the past few NRC meetings to see such issues as CFE or missile defence brought up once again. I do not know. But it would not at all be a surprise because that has been the practice until now and I think that's... instead of being vain, a very important opportunity to talk.

Q: This time about Estonia and the cyber attacks. In the past days and weeks has been some speculation, writing and stories in the papers about this issue. Has this matter been discussed officially in NATO or are there any plans to discuss it?

And is there any possibility of considering any... an attack, cyber attack to a country as an attack to everybody. The Estonians were sorry about (inaudible)... of Article 5 talking only about armed attacks and they felt that probably these things should be at least discussed and... Thank you.

APPATHURAI: Has the matter been discussed officially? Yes. The Minister of Defence of Estonia came to NATO Headquarters, discussed this with the Secretary General, showed him a chart outlining the level and breadth of cyber attacks against Estonian institutions, both private and public. Those attacks... I have obviously seen this graph. Those attacks continue. They go up and down, but they have not stopped.

These attacks show that defence has to be understood in a 21st Century context as well. It is not any more just about artillery and tanks. It is about modern defence capabilities. That is why at the Riga summit NATO established a cyber defence capability as NATO.

Of course, you know that the military has had, in terms of information operations, a cyber defence capability for quite a long time to protect military information capabilities. So there is a lot in terms of resources available to the Alliance in terms of modern cyber defence, and NATO has created a collective capability.

The Estonians asked from NATO for two things. One was political solidarity, and they got it. And second, technical assistance. They got that too. We sent an expert. I know the European Command of the United States send experts and many other nations have sent experts from their ministries of defence.

So the Estonians got a lot of support. I can tell you the Estonians, while they are perhaps potentially more vulnerable to cyber attack because they are so cyber dependent. I think people call... they call themselves E-stonia. They are also extremely capable, so the report we got was they're quite good at defending themselves and continue to be very good at defending themselves. But they have received support from NATO as well.

So I think leaving aside the discussions of Article 5, I think you're quite right, it is a question of solidarity, which they got. It is a question of having a modern interpretation of defence, which they have, which NATO is acquiring as well, in terms of capabilities. And it's a matter of providing support and NATO has done that too.

I think you've been waiting very patiently.

Q: I'm (inaudible)... from Jyllands Posten in Denmark. Back to missile defence. There was another sharp message from Moscow today. The Russian government said they would no way cooperate with the Americans about the new missile defence system in Eastern Europe. What is NATO's comment to this sharp tone from Moscow and can you explain what NATO is doing to cool down this situation?

APPATHURAI: I think certainly the Secretary General's belief is that the American offer for cooperation to the Russian Federation on missile defence was forward-learning and demonstrated transparency and a true willingness to cooperation. It's obviously the Russian Federation's decision to engage or not, and it is a bilateral issue between Russia and the United States as to how they cooperate or do not cooperate. But certainly the offer was made in... clearly in a spirit of transparency and with an open hand when it came to cooperation. And I can say I certainly agree with the Secretary General, it was a very forward-learning offer.

We need as a Euro-Atlantic community, to depoliticize this issue of missile defence, to work to see that it is discussed on its own merits and not artificially linked to other issues, and to cooperate where we can and I think where we should, on, on for example, common threat assessments of the missile threat.

NATO is a platform for A, political discussions and B, I think for threat assessments. Clearly there is a difference of threat assessment, in threat assessment between the Russian Federation and the West. When it comes, for example, to the Iranian missile capability, from public statements alone you can see a difference of point of view. And an essential foundation for moving past the tension that we have now, I think, must be a... an effort to have a discussion about threat assessment, of strategic missile threats. We are doing that within NATO, we have done it more than once. I am reasonably sure we'll move to a new threat assessment relatively soon, but to have one with the Russian Federation I think would be a good step in the right direction.

Mark.

Q: Yes, President Bush and the Secretary General were quoted, I think, in the United States, as saying that efforts will be made to try and reduce the amount of civilian casualties. Can you give us some insight as to what follows on from that commitment? Are they now going to talk to the commanders on the ground and see what can be done on a tactical level to reduce civilian casualties? What happens next?

APPATHURAI: Well, in fact, it's already happening. It wasn't that as a result of this discussion work will happen. General Craddock and General McNeill have already been working for several weeks on looking at procedures to see how they can be improved. When I mentioned communications, or coordination, I'll give you an example from last year.

During Operation Medusa you might remember there was an incident, civilian casualties where a number of nomads had moved in... I'm sure that's not the right word, but it's the word I would use, the nomads had moved into the area a few days before and were in basically the tall grass outside the town that was attacked. The local Afghans knew that they were there. We did not know they were there. We, and I mean, international forces more broadly. And there was insufficient communication between the Afghans and international forces, and as a result there were civilian casualties.

That is one example of procedures that can and have, I think, been improved, and we need to see what else, and the operational and strategic commanders are looking at what else can be done to improve procedures and coordination, but I don't know any more details on that, I have to say.

Q: (inaudible)... change his mind (inaudible)... improvements in communications? Will it actually be effective on the ground?

APPATHURAI: Well, I know that there were changes made after that incident. I know that we're right there now in an examination of what else can be done to improve procedures and coordination, but they have not arrived at conclusions and until they do obviously I can't speak to them.

Q: Robert stole my question.

APPATHURAI: Did he?

Q: Yes.

APPATHURAI: Okay.

Q: But anyway, I've got another one.

APPATHURAI: (Laughs).

Q: No, I was going to ask, it's been a couple of weeks now that they have been discussing this. I (inaudible)...just ask if there are any conclusions or any indications as to which way this is going?

But I had a second question, which is about the exercise in Croatia at the moment which is...

APPATHURAI: Ah, how about that.

Q: Well, it's, as I said, it's about a coincidental terrorist attack and natural disaster and I just wanted... do you have indications that terrorists plan to take advantage of natural disasters to launch attacks or is this purely like a worst case scenario type...

APPATHURAI: It's a real worst case scenario. In fact, what happens is... there's a festival, then there's an earthquake. It results in heavy damage to housing, as well as critical infrastructure. They lose electricity, water, telephone lines and GSM. Railway. Due to the earthquake, the charity festival is cancelled, but also there is damage to commercial tankers, toxic liquid spills into the water. It starts spreading in the sea, hit railway carriages, so you get a toxic cloud.

(LAUGHTER)

APPATHURAI: Then an airplane is hijacked over Germany.

Q: It's a great movie.

APPATHURAI: Yes, it's a great movie. Not particularly believable.  And then they land, precisely at the airport and the terrorists inform police that the hijackers have acquired some aggressive biological material that they intend to release into the environment in case the police attempt to take control of the plane.

So all of this is happening at the same time. Obviously the idea is to pile on all of these various scenarios in order to stretch the teams to the limit. There are a lot of experts there and they will be divided up into their various expertises.

So yes, since they're all there, we practice everything at the same time. That's what it comes down to.

Q: On... well, two questions, one on Estonia and one on the missile defence. When was the Minister of Defence here? Did the Estonians actually ask for Article 5 to be invoked and these attacks, I mean I'm presuming they weren't, you know, government-sponsored. I mean, it was hackers, I suppose. Maybe you can tell me, I mean, what indications the Minister of Defence gave of the... where the attacks came from.

And then on missile defence, you mentioned earlier on theatre missile defence that there is a joint threat assessment. I mean, so there is agreement on the TMD missile threat, but I mean, it seems to me as if it's even less likely that NATO is going to be involved in a joint operation with Russia in which theatre missiles are a threat, then Iran would launch a missile, and I think those are both very unlikely possibilities, but in any case if you can comment about them.

APPATHURAI: The Estonian Defence Minister, it's on the web when he was here - It was Monday the 14th. Thank you. (Laughs). You're good.

Q: (inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: Yes, that saves me the text message from Carmen, which was she was just typing out right now. No, they did not ask for invoking Article 5. They asked, as I said, for solidarity and technical assistance. They got that.

As to the provenance of the attacks you have seen the public statements by the Estonian government and I don't need to repeat them. I think what is clear is that these kinds of attacks are very hard to trace in any sort of definitive way and that is one of the great challenges that one faces in terms of cyber defence.

So I cannot speak to the origins of these, but certainly the Estonians have spoken at some length about where they think these attacks are coming from.

Missile defence, yes, I would hope that both a deployed operation where our forces are threatened by tactical or theatre missiles, low level, short range threats and an Iranian attack are both unlikely. That being said, you have to prepare against it and we have had quite substantive cooperation with the Russian Federation precisely against this threat.

Theatre missile defence is non-controversial. It is non-controversial within NATO. It is non-controversial across the Euro-Atlantic community. It is only, of course, when we get to strategic missile defence that the controversy begins.

Q: So I mean, you mentioned Iran before...

APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: ...but I mean, so Russia agrees... does Russia agree that Iran poses a theatre missile defence threat?

APPATHURAI: Well, it depends where you sit? I don't want to speak for the Russian Federation, but the Russian government has been quite clear in public that they do not share the, for example, the American assessment, which I think is shared across Western Europe, that the Iranians are close to developing a military capability in terms of military capability, in terms of strategic missiles that pose a significant threat.

They don't see that. Or at least that's what they say in public.

Q: (inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: Well, yes. We can have this discussion later, but if you're in Turkey then it's a short-range threat. So it's a whole... it's a very complicated question.

Q: Two quick questions. Firstly, on Estonia, have the Estonians suggested though that Article 5 be modified to include threats like cyber attacks? And secondly, on Afghanistan, or rather on Pakistan, what's going on in Pakistan, does NATO see in that a threat for Afghanistan? I particularly have in mind the disturbances closer to the borders of ... in the tribal areas. And I'm thinking of also of the warning by President Musharraf when he was here in August that a Pashtun national war might be possible against the rest of the world. Thank you.

APPATHURAI: The Estonians... Estonia has not, as far as I know, formally or informally, raised in the context of NATO a modification to Article 5. I have not heard that.

In terms of Pakistan, clearly the tribal areas are of concern, both to Pakistan and to Afghanistan, and pose a threat both to Pakistan and to Afghanistan. NATO is working with both governments to try to stem cross-border support from not only, but from as well the tribal areas, and obviously we have to look at with concern at the disturbances that are taking place now in those areas.

In terms of the second issue, I think this is a long-standing Pakistani concern, but I certainly have no comment... no further comment on it.

 

Q: (inaudible) still think that this is a one-way issue, i.e. militants in Pakistan infiltrating into Afghanistan. Or is this now a two-way issue because I've seen locals in Pakistan saying they're inspired by the Taliban.

APPATHURAI: Well, I don't know if I can go off the record here, but I'm

Q: During your ongoing preparations about future mission in Kosovo, how are you coping with the Turkish refusal to cooperate further with EU about Kosovo and is there any breakthrough on that?

And second, technical question, why is not Mr. Scheffer talking to a journalist after meeting a Prime Minister of a candidate country, like the case of Albania?

APPATHURAI:  to answer the first question, there are discussions, or have been discussions between the two organizations, as you know, for many months, on technical arrangements between NATO and the EU for the transition period, after a UN Security Council resolution, to lay the foundations for cooperation between the two organizations, with the EU on the security side, in particular the police, and NATO on the military side.

Those technical discussions have, I believe, largely completed and they're perfectly good arrangements set out.

 There are perfectly good arrangements set out. If there is a UN Security Council resolution and the EU takes on a new role and NATO takes on an adapted role there will be, or should be no doubt that there will be NATO soldiers on the ground, there will be EU police on the ground. They will work together perfectly well, and the necessary arrangements will be in place to allow them to do their job.

In terms of Dr. Berisha, the Secretary General there will... let me put it this way, there will be, of course, a NAC meeting. The Secretary General did not hold a press conference when the representatives from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia came. I don't believe he's going to hold a press conference when Prime Minister Sanader comes as well. Sometimes he has them, sometimes he doesn't. This will be a time when he doesn't.  

Q: On KFOR mission in Kosovo, how damaging of the preparation for coping with any eventuality is the fact that the Serbian spies have infiltrated the international presence in Kosovo? Is NATO informed about that, and did you discuss the latest case when... and military official from the NATO contributing nation gave a confidential... NATO confidential documents to the person who was suspected to be a Serbian spy.

APPATHURAI: Yes, a Swedish officer you were mentioning. I obviously cannot comment extensively on anything to do with intelligence. I can tell you NATO has and is looking carefully into this incident, but there is certainly no compromising... there has been no compromising of NATO's effectiveness or KFOR's effectiveness. As a result of these incidents. That's the most I can say on this.

Last one and then I really have to run.

Q: Yes, if I can just follow-up on that question on the arrangements for EU-NATO cooperation in Kosovo. Does your answer mean effectively that the Secretary General has decided to do ahead and push through the technical arrangements by an exchange of letters with Javier Solana, which effectively bypasses the need to get a consensus among the allies on this? And if he does that, with this exchange of letters, is there not a risk then that Turkey could veto this transaction directive that will be needed for the post-resolution presence.

APPATHURAI: I certainly don't want to get into a discussion of procedures between the Secretary General and anyone else. What I can assure you is that there will be the necessary arrangements in place, that anything that needs to be worked out beyond what has already been discussed between the staffs, will be worked out on the ground, and that no one should doubt, as I said, that if and when a UN Security Council resolution is in place the transition will take place, as it should, seamlessly between NATO and the European Union. That's the most I'll say on that subject as well.

And now I am going to let you all go and I'm going to go back to my office. Thank you very much.