Press briefing

by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai

JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman):Thanks for coming. I'll turn on the microphone. I'll be, as usual, I hope, relatively brief, and I'm happy to take your questions.

First, the... just to inform you the Secretary General phoned late last night President Karzai to express his condolences to the President over the bombing that took place, as you know, in Baghlan province yesterday, the suicide bombing, which killed, numbers vary, but certainly around 40 or more civilians, members of parliament, of course, as you know, and a number of children who had gathered to welcome them. The Secretary General, of course, conveyed NATO's continued determination to support the development of peace and security in Afghanistan and President Karzai, no surprise, welcomed this. It was no surprise to him either.

Today the Secretary General met this morning with the President of Turkmenistan, whose name I'm afraid you're going to have to look up because it's a little long. They discuss a number of issues. The Alliance and Turkmenistan have had a relationship for some years now. We have provided to Turkmenistan support in technical areas relating to, for example, scientific development, the establishment of Internet connectivity, what we call the Virtual Silk Highway.

We have also been working with Turkmenistan in two ways when it comes to Afghanistan. One is that Turkmenistan has generously provided to the Alliance transit rights, so that our equipment and personnel can transit, if necessary, through Turkmenistan without, in any way, I might add, violating their neutral status. They are a neutral country and I think the anniversary... an important anniversary of their neutrality is coming up soon. But they do provide transit, as do other neutral and non-aligned countries.

Second, we are working with Turkmenistan and the Russian Federation in a counternarcotics project to help train Central Asian counternarcotics officials to help stem the tide of narcotics flowing out of Afghanistan. And this was, in fact, quite a subject of discussion between the Secretary General and the President, because the President of Turkmenistan is concerned at the rise of narcotics flowing through his country. That is obviously a concern to him. It is equally a concern to us, because as you know, 90-percent-plus of the opium ends up in Europe, in European schools and in European back alleys.

So the end market is us. The end market is here. The transit area is there, and we have a shared interest in cooperating to help stem that tide as close to the source as possible and that was, as I mentioned, clearly an area of convergence between the President and the Secretary General.

That meeting was followed immediately by a bilateral meeting between the Secretary General and Mr. Miroslav Lajĉak, who is the High Representative, the EU High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Lajĉak then went to meet with the entire North Atlantic Council.

Mr. Lajĉak laid out... Ambassador Lajĉak, excuse me, laid out for ambassadors the steps that he has taken since assuming office, his assessment of the current political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in particular the actions that are being taken by the Republic of Srpska in response soit-disant to the measures that he has taken.

He received from the Secretary General and from the 26th NATO allies the fullest support for him, for his position, for the powers that he has, and for the decisions that he has taken. There should be no doubt that the Alliance is fully behind Mr. Lajĉak and fully supports the position of the Office of the High Representative as being important. And as the Secretary General has said in the statement yesterday, all political actors in Bosnia and Herzegovina should stop trying to obstruct the High Representative from carrying out his duties and focus on taking the necessary measures to allow Bosnia and Herzegovina to meet the requirements of Euro-Atlantic integration. And that means, in essence, creating a functioning set of state structures. Whereas, unfortunately that is not the case now and there are many who are obstructing measures to bring the two entities closer together, not least when it comes to police reform.

I'm happy to, of course, answer any questions that you might have on that.

Tomorrow and the next day the Secretary General will be going to Finland and Sweden. He will arrive tomorrow, have a lunch with... in Finland with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That'll be followed by a brief meeting with the press. At around two o'clock he will meet with the President and then with the Minister  of Defence, then with the Prime Minister, then with the Speaker of the Parliament and speak at a seminar which is, I understand, open to selected members of the press at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

On Friday he will be in Stockholm, and happily I, too, will be in Finland and Sweden with him, meeting with the Minister of Defence, then Mr. Bildt, Minister of Foreign Affairs, then the Prime Minister and then he will participate at the Atlantic Committee Conference before returning to Brussels.

Finally, looking forward to next week and then I'll be happy to take your questions on any issues that you might have. The Chiefs of Defence, the NATO Chiefs of Defence will be meeting in Brussels Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. This is the third of three such meetings per year at the Chiefs of Staff level. The last one was in Victoria, Canada in September. They will meet in five different formats: NATO, Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue, Ukraine and Russia. So there'll be Chiefs of Defence from all of those various countries.

The agenda's fairly standard, but it will focus, as expected, on ongoing operations, Afghanistan and Kosovo in particular. One twist to the usual format is that on Wednesday, the 26 NATO Chiefs of Defence will also elect a new Chairman of the Military Committee, which is our highest ranking military office, to replace the Canadian General Ray Henault, who will be retiring next June.

Three candidates are the Italian, Polish and Spanish Chiefs of Defence; Admiral Di Paola, General Gągor from Poland and General Sanz Roldan—I'm sure I've mispronounced all of these names—from Spain.

There is a backgrounder on the election process which is posted on the IMS portion, to the International Military Staff, portion of the NATO website if you want to go see how it works. There will be a media advisory issued on Friday with more details about the meeting, including press and media arrangements. Colonel Boudreau, B-O-U-D-R-E-A-U, of the IMS, will happily answer any of your questions and I am going to ask him, if he has the time, to come down next week and brief you all on the meeting.

There are clearly some questions and I'm done, so let's start and go back. Please.

Q: James, what is NATO's comments on what is happening in Pakistan?

APPATHURAI: NATO is obviously watching very carefully what's happening in Pakistan. The Alliance would like to see a return to democracy as soon as possible. I understand that the military-to-military cooperation between Pakistani forces and ISAF continues unabated and that's very important because whatever happens in Pakistan we would wish to see efforts against... or efforts to curtail cross-border support to the Taliban to continue.

Q: James, le chef des forces armées de la Russie, Monsieur ...le général Balouïevski a déclaré... a appelé plutôt aujourd'hui les membres de l'OTAN de ratifier le nouveau traité sur les armes conventionnelles. Qu'est-ce que vous en pensez? Merci.

APPATHURAI: Bien, nous sommes complètement d'accord que c'est important que le traité... Je le fais en anglais ou en français? Peut-être c'est...

Q: En français.

APPATHURAI: Je le fais en français. On peut le refaire en anglais. Les alliés sont d'accord que le traité de la CFE... FCE devrait être ratifié aussitôt que possible. Et... Ils sont en train... Attendez...

C'est un traité qui est très important pour la sécurité européenne. Tous les alliés sont d'accord. Et le traité modifié—updated treaty—devrait être ratifiée et mise en oeuvre aussitôt que possible. Tous les alliés ont déjà confirmé ça à de nombreuses occasions. Toutefois, stressant l'importance qu'ils mettent.... Je traduis mal. Toutefois, en stressant que c'est très important que la Russie "fulfil" il y a un mot que je cherche...  

Q: (inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: Um? Remplit...merci, remplit ses obligations, les obligations d'Istanbul, merci.

Un Canadien qui se fait corriger en français par un Américain c'est... c'est difficile. Mais merci. L'OTAN n'aimerait pas, regretterait si la Russie se retirerait de le traité. Les alliés sont en discussion intensive avec tous les autres pays qui ont signé le traité y compris la Russie. Ces consultations ont lieu à Vienne dans le cadre de la NRC—NATO-Russia Council—et aussi dans d'autres formats, par exemple il y a des réunions récentes en Allemagne et en France.

Finalement, je dois dire que les Alliés continuent de remplir leurs obligations... les obligations de le traité ratifié même si n'est pas encore mises en oeuvre... mis en oeuvre, merci. Oui.

Q:  (Inaudible)...approuvé. Donc un commentaire.

APPATHURAI: Si je comprends bien ce qui s'est passé au Douma aujourd'hui, c'est qu'ils ont approuvé un projet de loi qui doit maintenant passer aux chambres supérieures. C'est la date du 10 au 12 décembre... le 12 décembre qui est évidemment le moment clé. Mais comme je dis, chaque pas que prend la Russie vers une direction où ils se retirent de ce traité est un pas regretté par l'Alliance.

Q: (Inaudible)... On the same CFE thing, maybe partially you answered in French, maybe you could repeat some things in English, but actually could you explain a little bit more what steps is NATO taking in dealing with this issue on the CFE, in dealing with this issue with Russia. And on the other hand, the second question, in dealing with this issue within the NATO allies and having in mind the recent speech of U.S. Assistant Deputy Secretary of State, I guess, Mr. David Kramer, before the Helsinki Committee in Washington, and he was expressing the idea that some NATO allies expressed their willingness to step forward with a unilateral initiative to start certification process, not waiting before Russia finishes with (inaudible), or finished (inaudible) Istanbul Commitment.

So what would be your comment on this? Is that true, the interpretation which was spread by some news agencies on that?

APPATHURAI: As a basic point, of course, I'm not the spokesman for CFE negotiations, so I want to be very careful with what I say here. Secondly, NATO as NATO is not a signatory to the CFE. It is the NATO countries, of course, who do coordinate their positions when it comes to CFE.

There are many ideas in play, many discussions, both formal and informal, about how to move forward when it comes to CFE ratification. The Russia Federation has put forward some of their ideas. NATO countries put forward ideas at the Vienna discussion on the 12th to 15th of June, which did not meet with full consensus. There are other ideas that have been put forward, for example, by the United States in informal discussions which could see steps taken if these ideas were to gain traction to, as I say, help move us forward.

I can't give or confirm details, certainly on the record, on how that would go forward, but the basic point is this, there are ideas on the table about how to move forward, how to break this impasse. These discussions are taking place in a number of fora, and we hope, as NATO, that a way is found for the treaty to not only remain in force, but for the adapted treaty to be ratified. And we would regret steps taken in the other direction.

Q: (Inaudible)... can you confirm that this idea specifically about the early initiative to start the ratification process, not waiting while Russia... if Russia starts, of course, withdrawal process, but not waiting for the finishing of this process, is this idea on the table, on discussion in the NATO among the ambassadors, NATO Council?

APPATHURAI: It is not for me now to confirm or deny that, so I'll make no comment on that. Let's go back.

Q: James, the spokesperson for in Kosovo has stated that a helicopter went down in Macedonia. Are you aware of the situation there? The government of Macedonia didn't accept this confirmation for helicopter down. And are you aware of eight people dead, the government say is terrorist, other sources civilians, so how do you comment on this, or more information? Thank you.

APPATHURAI: I have seen the same reports, but only media reports of a helicopter crash. For the moment I have no confirmation that that has actually happened. Nor can I confirm that KFOR has made any comment on that issue. I have also just heard, literally in the car on the way over here, reports of eight killed, but I have no confirmation of that, so I don't want to make any comment on it until I actually know what the situation is. Sorry.

Q: What about overall mood in the NATO concerning Macedonia? Because we are talking about a candidate country. With or without the victims, many war is happening in the mountains.

APPATHURAI: I can tell you that certainly NATO is watching carefully events that take place in Macedonia. That is no surprise because, of course, Macedonia is, as you say, a candidate country. There are many press reports. I have no seen confirmation of these press reports, so I don't want to go too far. What I can say is as with any candidate country NATO is watching carefully political events and certainly anything relating to violence would be looked at with concern.

Q: Can we have some assessment of the security situation in Macedonia? Recently there was also some incident in (inaudible).

APPATHURAI: Yes, there was. The problem is, I don't feel... to be very frank, I don't feel comfortable giving a security assessment because I'm not... it's not clear to me, or put another way, no one has given me any definitive assessment of whether these incidents are criminal, whether they are related to inter-ethnic, whether they are terrorist. So I just don't know, and I certainly have not seen anything authoritative, so I'm afraid I can't give you...

Q: Do you see Kosovo as a threat... do you see Kosovo as a threat for the Macedonian security and (inaudible)?

APPATHURAI: I have not seen any assessment whereby Kosovo was deemed a threat to security in Macedonia.

Q: (Inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: In neither direction.

Q: James, Kai(?) from German Television. Since yesterday we have talks at SHAPE about the force generation conference and can you give us an idea how far the talks have proceeded now?

APPATHURAI: The Force Generation Conference has, as you quite rightly point out, just started. We expect it to go on till Friday, so there are no definitive conclusions yet. What I can say from what I've heard literally until I came into this room is there have been positive indications that political commitments made in Noordwijk are being followed up with more practical commitments at the force generation conference, but nothing has yet been formalized. They have not come to the point where all the cards are put onto the table.

But we are cautiously optimistic. I have seen already, for example, a number of Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams have been offered just in the last day. And that's good news. We expect, as I say, not dramatic offers of divisions, but slow and steady progress as we have seen until now. Force generation is always like that.

But first assessment is nothing yet formalized, but moving in the right direction.

Q: (Inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: Sorry. Well, we will... when we know something we will let you know.

Q: Can you give us an idea on which dimension do you...

APPATHURAI: Yes, right. What do you mean, which dimension?

Q: How many soldiers have been promised at this point.

APPATHURAI: Until they have formalized their offers I'm simply... believe me I wanted to come here and give you more, but until they have actually made the formal offers I'm just not in a position to do it.

Right there, and then we'll come back. It's okay, the microphone's there, we'll take it.

Q: Stephanie Lock(?) from AFP. I've got a question on the suicide attack yesterday in North Afghanistan.

APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: Do you feel that the German public, which is already quite hostile against the engagement in Afghanistan, will turn further against the mission?

APPATHURAI: I would hope that the German public would not take as a reaction to a terrorist attack, which as I say, primarily had children as its victims, as a reason to pull out of the mission. I would hope that they would see this precisely as the reason why their soldiers are there. If you believe in human rights even in the most basic way abandoning the people of Afghanistan of all ages to this kind of attack, which is exactly what will happen if we leave in greater numbers. It's  simply very difficult to imagine.

So I hope, and I think I would expect, that the citizens of all NATO countries would stiffen their resolve in the face of this, because as the Secretary General said in his statement, this kind of thing shows exactly who we're up against and why we're there. And why the UN, by the way, as you know, yesterday or the day before under UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. He's not Undersecretary General, he's UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, released a statement precisely saying we need ISAF to stay, we need international forces to stay and do their job and this is the UN Secretary General calling for it.

There was a follow-up back there.

Q: It's a follow-up on the Force Generation Conference. You said nothing has been formalized yet. The conference now in Mons is not at the highest military level, but the highest military level will be in Brussels next Wednesday, you said Tuesday and Wednesday, I think.

APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: Do you expect offers to be formalized then mid next week?

APPATHURAI: On the contrary, the national military representatives at SHAPE for this Force Generation Conference are there precisely to talk about force generation. It's not what the Chiefs of Defence are expected to do. When I said nothing's been formalized yet it's because this is a ongoing  meeting. But this Force Generation Conference is a place for them to do force generation. It's not the last place. It's a continuous process, and maybe the CHODS, the Chiefs of Defence, do more when they arrive.

But certainly if there are offers to be made I would expect that they would be indicated at least in the first stage at the Force Generation Conference in Mons. I don't think people will be waiting for the CHODS to arrive. But it'll have to wait till the end of the week.

Q: Back to Afghanistan. There have been a lot of criticisms about NATO and the so-called lack of strategy in Afghanistan. What are your response to that?

APPATHURAI: I think that that is not reflecting reality. There's a very clear NATO strategy in Afghanistan. And I can give it to you in a few sentences. NATO's first stage of the strategy was to provide the military forces to create the conditions for reconstruction and development. What does that mean? It means providing military forces which in the south have had to fight, to knock the Taliban off and onto the back foot, which is where they are, where they cannot take or hold territory, to create the space for reconstruction and development.

The next stage of the strategy is to train and equip Afghan national security forces, in particular the Afghan army, because that's our area of expertise, so that they can, at a certain stage, take the front and we can provide a more supporting role. And that's the stage we're in now.

The next phase will be precisely what I just mentioned. At a certain stage in a few years, when the Afghan National Army is of a sufficient size and capability to take the front-line, and we can start to see the very first stages of that now, NATO will be able to move back and provide embedded trainers, air support, logistics, emergency support, and allow the ANA, the ANP, Afghan National Police, to take the front-line in providing security in their own country.

At the same time we have to support all of the other elements of reconstruction and development for Afghanistan. And we don't take the lead there, we provide a supporting role. But the steps for NATO, to my mind, are quite clear, and they are steps that we are following.

Are we following them as well as we should be? That's a second question. Are we providing enough trainers for the Afghan National Army to allow us to move quickly enough to the next phase? I think the NATO answer would be no. And we would like the allies to provide more, what we call OMLTs, Mentoring and Liaison Teams, embedded within Afghan battalions. And the challenge to provide that will only grow as more battalions come off the assembly line.

So I think the strategy is relatively clear, the implementation on the training side is not going as quickly as it should be.

Go back there and then come up.

Q: James, last night I understand the Secretary General was expecting to speak with President Karzai, just to have more details about what has happened. Apparently it's an attack not directed against ISAF forces. It's an attack that could be thought about as internal political infighting. Is not that a new layer of complication to the whole operation of NATO and ISAF in Afghanistan if the different political groups, parties, tribes and groups start to fight amongst themselves? Is that something to be considered to be NATO? Thank you.

APPATHURAI: I would caution against assuming that yesterday's bomb was some political or factional attack. To my knowledge the only group that has engaged in... groups that have engaged in suicide bombings have been al-Qaeda or the Taliban. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

And the fact that a suicide attack was carried out against democratically elected members of the Afghan government strikes me as fully within the mission, self-defined mission of such groups of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

All this to say, I don't know who did it. I'm not sure yet anyone knows who did it, but to assume that it was not al-Qaeda and the Taliban I think would be premature.

And second, does it complicate NATO's mission? No, 90 percent of the victims of suicide bombs until now, 90-percent-plus, have been civilians anyway, that they have been the primary victims of these attacks. This simply makes that unfortunate number a little bit higher.

We'll go here and then...

Q: Just to follow up on that, if I could. Sorry, it's David Brunnstrom from Reuters. We got some reports from Mazari Sharif that a fair number, in fact a majority perhaps of the casualties in that episode were actually caused by gunshots which followed the explosion. Do you have any information to that effect?

APPATHURAI: I have not had any information to that effect. That's the first I've heard of this.

Q: (Inaudible)... News Agency of Russia, (inaudible).... James, could you evaluate the situation in Georgia, the current tensions, and could you please confirm the statement of Georgian officials that they intend to rearm armed forces of Georgia using their western weapons and equipment?

APPATHURAI: On the second issue I have no information about where they intend to purchase their armaments, but there is nothing illegal about purchasing arms legally, according to the appropriate international regimes. And if they choose to buy western arms and those arms sales comply with international regimes and laws I don't think anyone has anything to say about that.

When it comes to what's happening, NATO is watching very closely, of course, what's happening in Georgia. Not least because we have an intensified dialogue with Georgia and that allows for, I think, requires a privileged focus. It goes without saying, I think, that the open and free expression of dissent, open and free expression is part of a healthy and democratic process. And it is important that the Georgian government affords its citizens the right to express their opinions openly. That seems to be happening.

NATO has, of course, met both with members of the government, but also with members of the opposition at the official level. I think the final point is of course to call on all parties to remain within the law as this process goes forward.

Q: Yes, I'd like to come back to CFE, which after all is a... concerns conventional equipment. These are heavy pieces of equipment, tanks, APCs, artillery, some missiles, offensive weapons against which have evolved tremendously in the last 20 years and are very lethal against tanks and artillery and those movements can easily be tracked by satellite.

So my question to you is, so what if Russia doesn't sign the CFE? What's the military risk?

APPATHURAI: Well, it's certainly not up to me. I think the key... let me start again. NATO allies believe that the CFE treaty provides for stability and confidence building because of transparency, because transparency through inspections, you know all these things, because it's...

Q: (Inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: Well, because it sets limits on specific kinds of equipments in specific regions. And there is a technical military element to that. There I also a political element, relating to, as I said, transparency, confidence building, mutual inspection. All of these things build trust and confidence.

And it is important that that trust and confidence exists. To see large amounts of what is now treaty-limited equipment suddenly moving, in particular to areas called the flanks, would be of concern to NATO countries.

Q: And again, what's the military risk? NATO has an overwhelming capacity to kill all of those tanks.

APPATHURAI: We don't want to be in a position even to be talking about killing tanks. That's not the issue. The issue is stability, transparency and confidence building. And the best way to ensure that is through the ratification of the CFE Treaty. Which means all the parties need to take the steps necessary to allow for it to happen.

But no wait, you're next. (Laughs).

Q: James, I will turn back to Afghanistan.

APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: Normally Talibans, or even al-Qaeda, they claim immediately any incident. This time there was no claims. No one took responsibility for it. And don't you think that the... our... I'm sorry, how NATO sees the collateral damages which are often lately fits in the strategy in Afghanistan.

APPATHURAI: First, I place no confidence in the Taliban for what they claim and don't claim in terms of responsibility. Second, in fact, I think I have seen that they denied responsibility. That may well have been... and now I'm speculating, because of the backlash that one would have gotten if an attack... an attempted attack on members of Parliament ended up slaughtering a number of children, which is exactly what happened. And you never know how no a minute-to-minute basis these attacks are carried out and by whom.

But in essence, I don't... as I've said before, I don't know who's behind it. I don't know any group that has carried out suicide bombs, except suicide bombers in Afghanistan, except al-Qaeda and the Taliban, so I don't think know where else to point the finger, and I really am not very interested in what they claim or do not claim in terms of responsibility.

I didn't really understand the second question, collateral damage.

Q: Civilian victims.

APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: In many attacks made by NATO lately, the last weeks, there was collateral damages. Civilian people killed, children...

APPATHURAI: By NATO?  

Q: By NATO or the Americans or the British.

APPATHURAI: I don't have information about many, or even few civilian casualties caused by NATO in the past few weeks, even in the past months. There has been whatever...  there has been a significant reduction because there was... there were a lot of reports of civilian casualties a few months ago, you all remember this. A number of steps were taken. One was that the commander of ISAF issued a tactical directive, which in essence recognized that the Taliban was using civilians as human shields, putting them into the lien of fire to deliberately, or to create a situation in which NATO caused civilian casualties.

And he put in place some measures to take account of that.

Second, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Craddock, instructed the military chain to put in place a quicker and more effective system of investigation to find out what actually happened, after events.

Since then we have seen two things. One is, I think, a real reduction in the number of civilian casualties caused by NATO, which were already, I think, relatively low and certainly much lower than the reporting. Second, we have seen many fewer reports of civilian casualties. A, because the investigations have been quicker, and second because journalists on the ground have become much more careful about reporting instantly what the Taliban tells them were the numbers of civilian casualties. For both of those reasons the numbers have gone significantly down and I don't... I have not seen any reports of civilian casualties caused by NATO in recent years. So that's where we are.

Q: There was a... Mr. Singh(?) from New Europe. There was a group of journalists, they came for a tour of NATO, SHAPE, etcetera, from Central Asian countries.

APPATHURAI: Yes.

Q: Does it mean that this public opinion building scenario NATO is getting ready to give them membership?

APPATHURAI: To Central Asian countries?

Q: Yes.

APPATHURAI: No. We have a number of partnerships, as you know. Twenty partners. And where we have formal relationships with these partners we also have a number of informal relationships with countries like Australia. Journalists from all of those countries come on a regular basis. We have what we call a visits program, which brings these people in, people from all around the world, just to get to know NATO. With countries in Central Asia is only makes sense for all the reasons that we know, but no one's talking about membership for NATO countries for countries from Central Asia into NATO. Nobody.

Q: (Inaudible)...

APPATHURAI: Not in the near future. I would take off the word near. I don't see it on the horizon, frankly.

Q: The second is about since like whenever this question has been raised, there has been either no comment or is watching the developments, but now with the U.K., U.S.A. also commenting, the situation in Pakistan, and the internal alertness of NATO in Afghanistan on the borders, is it NATO saying that there's now nothing has changed, or is there a high alert or, you know?  Thanks.

APPATHURAI: Well, as said, NATO is A, watching carefully what's happening in Pakistan; B, like many others, including the United Nations, the Secretary General has called for a return to democracy as quickly as possible.

We are... we understand that military-to-military cooperation between ISAF, the Afghan Armed Forces and the Pakistani Armed Forces continues undiminished and that's very important to us as well. But that is the extent of our comment on what's going on in Pakistan.

Q: But a former intelligence chief of Pakistan yesterday in a TV interview made some comments about... which were not very... that's what going on is not very... as you have been mentioning, these were transparent.

APPATHURAI: I have... obviously I can't comment. I didn't see the interview. I don't know who this person is, so I won't comment on that.

Go back.

Q: About the bombing in Afghanistan, does NATO see this as something new, given the fact that this area has been calm for many years? Secondly, is NATO involved in any investigation of this bombing? Thirdly, is NATO taking steps, accordingly, given this new situation, if it's new? Thank you.

APPATHURAI: Thank you. Is it new? Well certainly it's the biggest bombing in Afghanistan, biggest suicide bombing and most effective, if you want to use that word, suicide bombing in Afghanistan for quite some time. And it's true that that region has been relatively stable. But I think NATO has always been very clear that all regions of Afghanistan face some risk. I have to say each time that the Germans have been criticized for not sending troops to the south, I and all of my colleagues have continuously said, remember that all of Afghanistan faces some risk and that they are doing an important job precisely where they are. And that the north, like the west, cannot be simply abandoned. This is, unfortunately, an illustration that Afghanistan is not yet fully secure even in the north.

As to the investigation it will be Afghan-led. I do not know if NATO will provide support, but I can tell you that NATO did provide medical evacuation right at the time, or right after the bombings. So NATO ISAF has been part of the Afghan-led effort to provide assistance.

Will it change what NATO does? As in all cases when there is an event there will be a report, there will be an analysis and there will be steps taken, but I think we're simply too early... it's too early on to say what those are yet.

Are we all happy? Oh wait, there's two more. (Laughs). Let's go here and then here.

Q: James, some months ago there were some talks and reports saying that the Swedish government was considering applying for NATO membership. I was wondering if the Secretary General's trip to Stockholm and Helsinki could be related to this and if you were waiting for something?

APPATHURAI: Certainly not. A, because I... my understanding is that there is not a very active discussion about... in Sweden about membership in NATO. There is, I believe, a slightly more active discussion in Finland because there are reports being written precisely on this subject and the white paper being created, which probably creates the context for this.

But the Secretary General's been very clear, because NATO's position is very clear. If Finland or Sweden were to decide that they wanted to join NATO that would be 100 percent their decision, but we don't expect anything imminent. There is no connection between his visit to either of these countries and membership. He is going because Finland and Sweden are, with Australia, probably the most active contributors to NATO-led operations. They are absolutely vital partners to what we do together in Afghanistan. And we would not want to do it without them, and that will be... Afghanistan will be undeniably the primary focus of our discussions. Their discussions, excuse me.

Q: James, on Pakistan again, did General Pervez Musharraf speak to the SG before the declaration of emergency, has he spoken to some other leaders or has the SG sent any messages to Pervez Musharraf?

APPATHURAI: No, and no. Thanks.