Weekly press briefing

by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai

Appathurai: Friends, thank you for coming. I'll try, as usual, to keep it short, so that my suffering at the Q&A session can begin as quickly as possible.

Just a few things to update you on. One is today the Council was visited by the Foreign and Defence Ministers of Moldova to present their annual plan in the context of the partnership with NATO on improving their own efforts to improve when it comes to defence and other reforms. This was discussed with the ambassadors and of course with the Secretary General. They also discussed with the Secretary General, certainly, the regional context, and that, of course, includes the situation in Transnistria and the discussions taking place in the context of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

They, of course, had the same position as their president, Mr. Voronin had had earlier and which was already made public to you and that is that they continued to believe that the current situation should not continue. And President Voronin had certainly said publicly that he would like to see a civilian group of some kind replace the current configuration of soldiers in that region.

Second issue I wish to raise with you, on Monday will be the 10th anniversary of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, which for us is a very important milestone. We will have a special meeting of the NATO and Ukrainian ambassadors to commemorate that and to look forward. I simply note that as an anniversary.

Third, let me update you on a little bit of travel. The Secretary General last Friday was in Kosovo. He met with the Unity Team. He met with Serb leaders, as well as with Mr. Rücker and of course COMKFOR to discuss the security situation and also the political environment. I will say this only briefly, but I'll certainly be happy to talk to you about it at more length if you're interested.

He reiterated, both in private and in public the messages which you will have already seen, and that is that NATO allies support the Ahtisaari proposals, wish to see a UN Security Council resolution as soon as possible, and that KFOR is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to maintain a secure environment in cooperation with Kosovo police and UN police.

He also, of course, reiterated to the minority communities that KFOR will carry out its mandate to protect minority communities and patrimonial sites through this relatively sensitive period.

Finally, he called on all parties to remain calm and not to resort to violence in an attempt, which would be unsuccessful, to influence the political process.

Next, two trips that are about to take place. Tomorrow, at around noon, the Secretary General will join the French Minister of Defence, Hervé Morin, at the "Citadelle" in Lille to do two things. One is to commemorate the official certification of the French High Readiness Force Headquarters, certification by NATO. I think this Headquarters will also be available to the European Union and to France, of course.

This is first and foremost the French Minister's event, but the Secretary General will accompany him and also offer words of congratulations on their certification. Secondly, it will be a transfer of command between Lieutenant General de Kermabon and the new commander Major General Damay, D-A-M-A-Y. And I believe this will be General de Kermabon's farewell to arms. As well, there will be a press conference for local... well, whoever happens to be there, I presume largely local press, at 12:50.

On Friday the Secretary General will visit Dubrovnik. There will be a summit, the Croatia Summit 2007. I believe there will be about 200 attendees, but 20 of which will be at the Foreign Minister or Head of Government level, including the Prime Minister, of course, of the country.

Dr. Sanader will open the session. The Secretary General will speak there as well.  

Let me discuss for a moment Rome, the Rome trip from yesterday. The Secretary General, of course, spoke at the Rome conference on the rule of law. He also met bilaterally with UN Secretary General Ban, with President Karzai and with Prime Minister Protti, as well as Defence Minister Parisi and the Foreign Minister of Italy. As well, he also had a conversation with Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner.

With the Secretary General a number of issues were discussed. Afghanistan, of course. Both the UN Secretary General and the NATO Secretary General discussed the security environment; the roles that both organizations are playing in the country; the need for solidarity between international actors in Afghanistan in support of the Afghanistan government.

They discussed, you will not be surprised, civilian casualties. Both Secretaries General expressed their concern over the level of civilian casualties.

The NATO Secretary General outlined the measures that NATO is looking at on a constant basis to diminish them. Both Secretaries General recognized that the Taliban strategy is to launch attacks from civilian areas, retreat to civilian areas, and to use civilians as human shields and that this strategy must be defeated. Which is why NATO, and of course, the coalition, OEF, keep our own procedures constantly under review; B, work very hard to coordinate with each other; and C, and this is absolutely primordial, of course, are working to coordinate more effectively, and I might add there is quite a lot of coordination already going on, but to coordinate even more effectively with the Afghans.

This issue of working more closely with the Afghans was also raised in the Secretary General's discussions with President Karzai, where they had a full tour d’horizon of the issues relating to support for Afghanistan. Those included, yes, of course, civilian casualties. I've addressed this issue, and I might add that President Karzai, not only discussed with the Secretary General steps that we can all take, to try to do better, but also recognized that NATO countries too have lost significant numbers of their own young men and women in this UN mandated operation in support of the Afghan people. So certainly this was an important point that the President raised with the Secretary General.

They discussed the need to step up training and equipping of the Afghan National Security Forces. NATO countries recently offered 10 to 12 more embedded training teams, what we call OMLTs, Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams, which takes us to 30-plus Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams. We will continue to need more of those, because of course the Afghan armed forces continue to grow, and as they bring more Kandaks or Afghan battalions on line we will need to continue to train, help train and equip those Kandaks.

You will have seen recently an AP story, I believe, from yesterday, brilliantly written as usual, AP story, about Afghan National Army operations that are increasingly being conducted, being planned, led and conducted by the Afghans, with, of course, support from international forces, but I think this was yesterday and today, this has been carried relatively widely. That is certainly our experience in NATO, as well, that there is greater and greater traction with the Afghan National Army and we want to continue to support that.

And that was discussed with President Karzai as well. Building Afghan capacity.

Finally, the Secretary General met, as I mentioned, with the Italian Prime Minister, Defence Minister, and Foreign Minister and they discussed a whole host of issues, and I skipped one thing with Mr. Ban Ki Moon as well. Kosovo was a prominent subject of discussion. You will have heard Prime Minister Prodi at his press conference stress Italy's position, and that is that Kosovo, when the political process has run its course, will need some form of independence. That is the Italian position as I heard it at that press conference.

They certainly discussed the political situation in the UN Security Council, the need for a Security Council resolution, the importance of having a unified common approach as a Euro Atlantic community to this critical European security issue, and the need to maintain, as I say, a common approach on it, and of course, as Italy as a very important contribution to make in the Balkans with 2,200, I think, troops as they also have about 2,500 in Afghanistan. Italy has a very... and as a member of the Quint, Italy has a direct interest in ensuring that this process goes forward in a way that brings us to a resolution to a long outstanding issues, and that is, of course, Kosovo.

Finally, both the Secretary General and the Prime Minister agreed that the long-term solution for peace and stability in the Balkans must be Euro Atlantic integration.

That is all I wanted to say. Happy to take your questions. Oh, sorry, let me say one thing. The Secretary General did also discuss with Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, of course, Kosovo and what's going on in the Security Council etcetera, etcetera. So I just wanted to mention that too.

Please.  

Q:  Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. Are you in a position to elaborate on what the Moldovans mean by wanting to replace the Russian soldiers in Tranistria, with a civilian contingent and whether that will, in any way, involve NATO.

And secondly, how many OMLTs do you think you'll need to adequately cover the existing Afghan forces? Thank you.

Appathurai: Thank you. I, of course, am not the Moldovan spokesman and I really was just repeating what President Voronin had said, but I think it is no secret that Moldova, the government of Moldova, has consistently publicly said they would like to see a change in the current situation which has, I believe, predominantly Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria and they have now come out and publicly said they would like to see a civilian force of one kind or another there without in any way that I've seen elaborating on that.

NATO, of course, doesn't do civilian peacekeeping, or whatever you would call that, so I don't necessarily see a role for NATO and I don't know that this discussion has gone very far.

In terms of OMLTs, this number will keep changing, which is what I tried to address beforehand, but certainly at a minimum I believe we will be looking at another 15. We have a shortfall of at least 15 now, maybe even more, to meet with the current requirement an that requirement will keep going up.

So we have between 26 and 30 as we speak. There is at least a requirement for 40 plus and as I say, that number will keep going up, so will continue to solicit offers from NATO nations. As I mentioned just a few weeks ago, 10 to 12 new OMLTs were offered to the Alliance, and they will come on stream as time goes on.

So we're doing better than we were, but the yardsticks will keep move.

Q: Mark John from Reuters. You highlighted specifically the need for greater coordination with Afghan security forces. I just wondered, what was the thinking behind that? Is that this idea of greater intelligence, to find out where nomads are, I think was the one episode mentioned, or does it go beyond that now and if so what kind of measures would actually address that?

I think the Secretary General also had a bilateral with U.S. Secretary Boucher (inaudible)... No. No.

Appathurai: No, unless...

Q: Were there any bilaterals with U.S. officials or...?

Appathurai: Not that I saw.

Q: Okay, well that (inaudible)... then.

Appathurai: I was generally around, I mean, unless I went to get a sandwich. I don't think he had any.

There is an enormous amount of coordination going on now. I think that's important to mention. There are shuras, meetings with local governors, local officials taking place on a regular basis. There is pre-mission planning take place with the Afghans almost always. And of course, on many of our operations the Afghan National Security Forces are integrated into the operation.

All of that takes place. Where appropriate it should be stepped up and that will be looked at. I think the basis of it all is ground knowledge. The Afghans know their own country. They know who is who, and they will always know who is who, better than we do. And for example, as was discussed in the council today, I don't normally talk about what was discussed in the council, but during the operational briefing the briefer, who has very profound experience in Afghanistan, noted what is obvious to anyone and that is, if an Afghan national security force member is integrated or is patrolling in a town he will be much more like to be able to distinguish a Taliban from a civilian than a western soldier will be.

This is obvious. Part of it is simply capacity building. We need to help the Afghans develop the soldiers and the police officers, who can be part of this operation. Right now there is a lack of them because we are aiming for 80,000 Afghan National Security Forces. We're about halfway there. So there is a shortfall. That is quite clear. And we need to help them get there.

But it is worth remembering that this armed force and the ANA is a legitimately developing and positively developing institution. It was built from nothing six years ago in a country that had virtually nothing but 25 years of devastating behind it.

So the fact that we have tens of thousands of Afghan National Army soldiers out there with us is, I think, frankly something to be proud of. The next step, of course, is getting up to the 80,000.

I think there'll go back there because there was some patient people come back, please.

Q: This thing from (inaudible)... I need just a clarification or if you can add to that, the NATO Military Committee Chairman has told Chief of Military Staff of Turkey that they can use fifth article. Do you have a clarification?

Appathurai: Yes, I certainly have a clarification. I have seen these press reports. I have looked quite carefully at what he actually said, which was not that. And he is disappointed at the interpretation that some members of the, I think predominantly the Turkish press have made of his comments.

He talked about Article 5 in the context of NATO's operations in the Mediterranean. This was somehow extended by the press to an interpretation which he never meant, nor if you look at the quote, even implied. So he is very disappointed at this interpretation of his comments. He certainly did not say, mean or imply what the Turkish press is saying.  

Please.

Q: Can we have his actual quote?

Appathurai: Well, I don't actually have it with me, but... but maybe somebody's sending it to me.  Hang on a second. You know, I might actually... give me 30 seconds and I might actually have it for you. Because we are a modern, modern organization.

At no time did he suggest there was any link between OAE and the PKK. In fact, when asked if NATO intended to expand OAE into the Black Sea the general said there were no plans to expand OAE beyond its current mandate, and operational parameters, but in fact, I think I have it.

Sorry to be delaying everybody, but I might be able to track it down. Okay, I'll come back to it, because I know it's in here somewhere. Oh yes. Turkey as a member of NATO is actively involved in the fight against terror. It's certain that Turkey faces some difficulty in its fight against various terrorist organizations. NATO, too, will continue its fight against terror, including the operations based on Article 5 of NATO.

That was the quote, which, of course, does not link the Turkish terrorist problem to Article 5. I got it.

Q: (inaudible)... Belgrade. James, Christina Gallach said Friday to the International Herald Tribune and also to me, that if Russia continues to say no no no that European Union can take decision about Kosovo. Will NATO share this point of view, and will you give support if European Union takes such a decision?

And second question is about ideas of partition of Kosovo. From point of view not NATO, eventually partition of Kosovo can influence the ulterior instability in region or it could be good solution maybe for final status of Kosovo.

Thank you.

Appathurai: Thank you. On Christina's comments, I've only seen them in the press. Let me say two things about NATO. First, the NATO position on the Ahtisaari plan is already clear and it disagreed. So there is no requirement for NATO to look back again on its own position.

Second, our presence in Kosovo is governed by a U.S. Security Council resolution already, and that is 1244. The situation, of course, for the European Union is slightly different in that if it were to replace UNMIK then there is a question as to what the legal basis for that would be, and that, of course, does, in the minds of some, involve the UN Security Council.

So I don't want to speak for the EU, but the EU situation is a little bit different than NATO's. And we can, if there is no UN Security Council resolution, continue on the basis of 1244 and that is exactly what we'll do.

Partition. The guiding principles for the status process, as set out, as you know, by the international community, explicitly say that partition is not an option. NATO, of course, fully subscribes to this point of view. The Secretary General has been very public on this. And that is where we stand. We support the position set out in the guiding principles, which President Ahtisaari has followed, set out by the UN process, and that is no partition.

Q: James, the status issue was postponed several times, despite the calls made to... the resolution of the status as soon as possible. The situation on the ground seems to be quite, but the very force that Secretary General receive the letter from had a UNMIK warning that the situation might go out of the control soon, if the status is not resolved.

What was your sense, the Secretary General's, after the visit to Kosovo and talks with the Kosovo leader, whose credibility is at stake also because the expectations are not met? So how long can Kosovo remain stable unless there is a clear solution of the status?

Appathurai: The Secretary General's visit... when the Secretary General visited, and I have to tell you I wasn't with him, but obviously I've spoken to him since, he had the same sense that you did, and that is that the situation now is stable. It is tense, of course. There are many concerns on many fronts but up until now the political leadership on all sides in Kosovo has taken a responsible position and that is to keep the situation calm, to let the political process, which is taking place elsewhere, and that is in the UN, run its course, and of course, the security services, Kosovar, UN and NATO, are all there to backstop the stable environment that the political process requires.

The Secretary General called on all parties publicly and privately to continue to play this responsible role, to continue to maintain a calm environment. There will be no advantage on any side to violence. There'll be no political advantage, let me put it that way, for any side, to resort to violence. A, because it will be met with a very stiff response, B, because it will add no credibility to the position which they purport to be promoting.

How long can it last? Of course I'm not tea leaf reader, but we have done, I think, as an international community, and as Kosovo has done well, to maintain stability through what has been a tense period. I think there were many who wouldn't have predicted stability even this far, but it has been maintained, and I think it can be maintained, as long as the political leadership continues to play a responsible role.

Q: A couple of reasonably fresh ones, James. Lavrov's comments on Kaliningrad, the possibility of putting missiles there in response to the U.S. shield, just wanted to...

Appathurai: Ivanov... was it Lavrov or Ivanov. I thought I saw...

Q: I mix my Sergeys all the time, eh?

(LAUGHTER)

Q: And the other one is the German hostage in Afghanistan. Any NATO ISAF role understanding which is come on our wire recently.

Appathurai: To answer the second question first, I frankly have only seen the same wire story you did about the German hostage. I don't know. I understand this was not a German government employee. I don't... an aid worker. I don't know any more than you do. I have not seen or heard and I spoke to ISAF this morning about any requests from the German government for ISAF support. That doesn't mean it's not there. But certainly I don't know anything more about that.

For the moment no comment on the Ivanov.  I think it is Ivanov. No comments.

Q: Three old questions. The Sec Gen's visit to Croatia. You said that's a summit with several Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers. Can you tell us who he's meeting and what he's going to be talking about down there?

Secondly, the 10 to 15 OMLTs you mentioned had recently been put forward. Is this since the Defence Ministers' meeting last month or are the same ones that were put forward there?

And just thirdly, there have been some reports about Sweden and Finland taking a renewed interest in NATO membership. Have there been any moves at Headquarters along that direction?

Appathurai: Sure, Croatia, I have limited knowledge of this event, but I can tell you, as I mentioned, there are, if I understand correctly, about 20 Foreign Ministers and/or Heads of Government attending. The Secretary General will be meeting with a number of Ministers. There will be an introductory address by the Prime Minister of Croatia, a welcome address by the President of Croatia, and also by the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament, Mr. Šeks.

There will then be... then there'll be a dinner and he will leave town. He has a number of private bilaterals, which obviously I won't go into.

His speech, I am quite sure, will focus on the security situation in the region and that will have a number of elements. Absolutely Kosovo will be one of the first issues that he will wish to address, which will be of primary interest, I think, to almost everybody there.

Second will be the process of Euro Atlantic integration,  Croatia like two other countries of the region are moving as hard as they can closer to Euro Atlantic structures, looking forward to the summit next spring, and working towards creating the conditions for an invitation from NATO nations to joins the Alliance, and of course Croatia has been doing very well in that regard.

So to my mind those will be two, at least two of the essential elements of his speech.

OMLTs, no, there's nothing new since the Defence Ministers' meeting of which I'm aware. I was just referring to those 10 to 12 from that meeting.

Sweden and Finland, well, you won't be surprised to hear me say this, certainly on the record, if they choose to apply for NATO membership I'm quite sure that the accession process would not take very long. But their choice is entirely theirs to make.

Let me finally say, however, that both countries play a very, very important role in NATO operations. Of course, as partners, but they are partners who bear a very heavy burden, take a very heavy share of the load in dangerous operations.

I have myself flown on Swedish and Finnish aircraft in Afghanistan, seen the efforts that their soldiers make and they do not shy away from, so certainly whether or not they ever choose to become members they are extremely valuable partners.

Q: If I remember you quoted the statistics in February of Taliban and NATO about civilian losses as seven... five, sorry, civilian killed by Taliban against one by NATO. That was a few weeks ago.

Though according to statistics recently delivered in Kabul the score is rather in favour of NATO on 600 people killed, more than half of them were killed by NATO or OEF, I don't know, nobody knows by the way.

Do you have to say something about that? I mean, because it seems slightly, I mean, repetitive to have decorations from NATO councils or from Mr. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer that we should do our utmost not to kill civilians, but those discussions, those conversations, those declarations would last until the last Afghan is killed or should we wait for something more concrete?

Appathurai: To address the first issue, that balance of responsibility for civilian deaths was a figure for last year. The figure this year is, indeed, different, although I must say, and I hope not to sound defensive, that we, within NATO, have difficulty counting exactly how many civilian casualties have been inflicted by our own operations, let along by others, in an environment like this, where not least the Taliban do not wear uniforms.

It is sometimes, I think, rather difficult to make that calculation and certainly we do not find it easy. That being said, no one trying to make excuses . The Secretary General had said one civilian casualty is one too many. That's true, and there have been more than one. So certainly we take this issue very, very seriously.

There are concrete steps being taken, constantly being taken, to look at and improve procedures, look at and improve coordination. We also have to recognize that the Taliban, increasingly, according to the information I have, attempts to draw civilians into the fighting.

I think it's also worth... now I'm probably getting onto thin ice, but it's also worth keeping in mind what the alternatives are. This battle in Chora, which is the incident where who knows how many civilians were killed. Our numbers are lower than the ones that have been in the press, but okay. What happened, 500 Taliban, or so, attacked the Dutch, who had limited numbers of troops, to protect themselves and to defend the territory. Close air support was called in and a number of civilians, as well as a significant number of Taliban were killed.

We, I think, of course have to, and I say this and we mean it, regret each and every civilian casualty. I think it's also worth noting two things; how the Taliban was fighting, which was forcing people to fight with them. They were executing people as they went.

If the Dutch had not fought the Taliban would have overrun that district and they would have carried out, because they were doing it as we fought them, a number of executions and who knows what would have happened to the local population, but it would have been bad, because what was happening to the population where the Taliban was during that fighting was very bad.

Children, women, and I don't normally engage in this, but I think since we're having this discussion it's worth saying. I think when we have this discussion let us remember A, NATO soldiers also are sacrificing their lives and certainly their safety for this. B, they are fighting to defend the Afghan people and B, if they were not there even as we have to make every effort to avoid civilian casualties, things let's face it, would be far, far worse for them. And that's something we shouldn't forget.

Which is, by the way, the UN mandate of this operation in the first place.

Q: Just as a follow-up to that actually, you mentioned, and I think military analysts have always mentioned this as a fact, and that is the personnel levels of NATO on the ground analysts have said there's potentially too few there to fight in some situations. In this Chora incident you say that the Dutch were there in limited number. You mentioned that as a factor in what happened there. To what extent is that in the thinking now of NATO that this... that the limited number of NATO personnel in some of these situations is actually leading to a situation where you have to call in air support in extremis to get them out?

Appathurai: I think... my understanding is we shouldn't take that argument too far. This is an enormous country. And no matter how many troops we could realistically put into the country, air power would still be absolutely essential to provide close air support in extremis situations where troops suddenly come under sustained attack from, in this case, 500-plus Taliban who have massed.

We should never think that close air support in Afghanistan will not be necessary, because it will always be necessary. It has to be done in a proportional way, following rules of engagement, using precision weapons. That is done. Always done. And we need to continue to do that.

That being said, there are shortfalls in the NATO statement of requirements, and those need to be met. The Secretary General has been very clear and he's been very clear again today, that those shortfalls need to be met, and those involve everything from transport aircraft to helicopters to some ground troops, to in particular trainings. That, I think, is a very important point.

The final point is, this statement of requirements that I mentioned is the military assessment of what is required, and we are well above 90 percent of what the military believes is necessary for ISAF to do the job that it has been mandated to do.

So it's not that far off to what the military assessment is. The final piece of the puzzle has to be Afghan National Security Forces. Those 80,000 and potentially more in future, Afghan National Security Forces, are an essential piece of the puzzle. NATO forces clear the ground, but we need the Afghan National Security Forces to hold it. And it has happened that we have had to clear areas twice because the Afghans were not in the position, did not have sufficient forces to hold it. And that is why this training and equipping effort is so important.

Q: Another follow-up. After December NATO and ISAF officials were saying the Taliban no longer represented a conventional threat in terms of numbers and sustained presence. I'm wondering in the light of what you just said about... I'm not sure if the name of the (inaudible)... Chora...

Appathurai: Chora, yeah.  

Q: ...where you had 500 people, you said, attacking those troops, that do you feel you might need to reconsider that assessment?

Appathurai: No, we don't. And the reason is simple, that that attempt at a more traditional mass attack was roundly and soundly defeated. They simply cannot stand toe-to-toe with NATO ISAF forces which is why suicide attacks and attacks using improvised explosive devices are on the upswing, because they cannot this year certainly, and I don't think last year, in any way sustain a conventional attack against NATO forces.

Q: Yeah, just shifting to a longer term policy issues, at the meeting in Macedonia, the Secretary General went into more detail than before about the role he'd like to see NATO play in energy security and is this a sign that he's putting it one the front burner or no a hotter burner than it had been on?

Appathurai: I think the Secretary General has always had it on his front burner. He certainly believes that this is an issue where NATO should at least be having a structured discussion on what roles NATO might have to add value to national efforts and to the efforts of other international organizations.

And we remain, as you have now come to hear me say more than once, in a discussion within, our amongst allies, simply to define the parameters of what that discussion might be, and Ohrid the Secretary General made public what are his... what had been until then his more private professional beliefs of what role or where NATO might potentially add value.

So it's always been on his front burner and he has just sort of showed you what the front burner is.

Q: James, I came a few minutes later, so apologies if you said this before, but did you comment on the meeting in Maine between President Bush and President Putin and the proposals made on the missile defence system and creating a new base in Brussels?

Appathurai: I didn't comment on it, so thank you for asking. I think there are two points to make here. One is of course if there are issues which President Putin has said publicly that should be addressed in the NATO-Russia Council it is the privilege of every member of the 27 participants in the NATO-Russia Council to bring that up. So if he wishes, or if Russia wishes, to involve NATO in a discussion of one kind or another on missile defence within the NRC well, that's a good thing, and I might add, that we have already had a number of discussion on the NRC.

So if he wishes to bring some of his proposals to the table certainly they will be discussed.

The United States also, I'm quite sure, is looking now carefully at what President Putin has put forward.

What I wouldn't want, however, would be to suggest that the NRC will tomorrow be taking a directing role on all missile defence efforts in Europe. That seems to me to be extremely unlikely. But that there should be a continuation of the discussion in the NRC that has already taken place. Taking into account some of the ideas President Putin has put forward that seems to me quite plausible.

Q: So are you saying you don't... that NATO hasn't seen anything concrete or detailed from the Russians about this?

Appathurai: As far as I'm aware nothing in writing has come since the "lobster summit".

Q: Okay.

Appathurai: We'll go here, and then here? Just 'cause the microphone's there.

Q:  It's just a follow-up to this Taliban. I'm listening, and NATO must be feeling the heat or observing what's going on in Pakistan for the last 48 hours. Maybe you would like to comment on that?

Appathurai: Beyond saying that NATO is following closely and with interest events taking place in Pakistan over the past 48 hours, no.

Please.

Q: James, Moldova questions. How can Russia be involved in this framework and are you thinking of a CFE follow-up mechanism in Vienna or some other... is the NATO is a good place to be discussed or what is your perspective?

Appathurai: These are good questions, but unfortunately NATO isn't the place to discuss them. NATO does not take a direct role in the situation in Tranistria, in Moldova. Other bodies do, you know that very well, of course.

And President Voronin will have to take up his ideas with the relevant parties. But NATO an organization is not going to be, I quite confidently predict the forum either for discussion or for a role in any kind of change in the situation in Moldova.

Q: Inaudible

Appathurai: Yes that seems much more likely.