Press Conference

by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
after the Informal Meeting of NATO Defence Ministers,
with Invitees, with non-NATO ISAF Contributing Nations

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER (Secretary General of NATO): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Let me start, because that's the right way to do, to thank our hosts, our Polish friends and colleagues wholeheartedly, the city of Krakow of course. We might... that might result in some traffic jams. I apologize for that, but we're all enjoying the beautiful city of Krakow and are very grateful for being here today and tomorrow.

Let me give you a brief "compte-rendu", as the French say, overview of what we have done up till now. As you know, the 26 NATO Ministers and the two Ministers of the invited countries, Albania and Croatia, began with a working lunch which focused on operations and Afghanistan, as might be expected, was a key topic. A theme, of course, to which we returned at length in the meeting which ended a moment ago, the ISAF meeting, with all the ISAF troop contributors. So I'll come to that in more detail in a moment.

We also discussed Kosovo in the framework of our operations and missions. And Allies welcomed the fact that the security situation has remained calm despite the complex political environment and the Allies were satisfied with the way in which the different international actors on the ground are relating to each other. That concerns, of course, the cooperation between KFOR and EULEX and other forms of cooperation.

They're also satisfied—the Allies, that is—with the way in which KFOR is implementing its new tasks despite the occasional teething pains, but that does happen. In particular having stood down the so-called Kosovo Protection Corps and the standing up of the Kosovo Security Force.

We would, however, and I'm still not without hope, that the... like to see that the Kosovo Serbs take a greater representation in the mentioned Kosovo Security Force.

We also discussed, over lunch, the role NATO should play in the future, in the longer term, with regard to fighting piracy. Not in terms of theory, by the way, but practice. And that you can expect to see another, what we call, standing NATO maritime group off the coast of Somalia in the coming months contributing to the overall international effort. Of course, in cooperation with the other actors, I can't say on the ground, but at sea, off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden.

Let me turn then, as I promised, to Afghanistan, which we discussed in the two sessions. You know that in our ISAF session the scene was set by Minister Wardak, Defence Minister of Afghanistan, and the head of UNAMA, Ambassador Kai Eide.

For your information, ISAF, as we speak, is now at the strength of 56,400 in which 41 countries participate. Let me tell you that a number of themes were heard around the table. First and foremost, a firm long-term commitment to supporting Afghanistan. And that from all the partners who are contributing, not just with forces in our discussion, but also with their ideas.

It goes without saying that Ministers welcomed the United States' announcement of more troops and they welcomed Secretary Gates' engagement to consult with Allies and with Partners as the United States, as you know, is reviewing its strategy. The result of that review will be known before the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl in the beginning of April and Allies, of course, are happy and glad to have their input in that process.

They also agreed, Allies and Partners, that we need as international community, not only to see more forces to come into Afghanistan... and let me make clear that more forces is not only, of course, leaning back and waiting for our American friends to bring in more forces, but is very much for the other Allies to live up to their commitments and to live up expectations as well.

But I add that it is not only a matter of more forces in Afghanistan. We need an equal civilian surge as well, to use a word from Iraq. Which means, which means, more development, more support for governance and more institution building.

As you know, there is a strong commitment with the NATO allies and with their partners to support the August elections in Afghanistan with the necessary forces. It goes without saying that these elections are a strategic priority of the Afghan people, but also of the international community, which means that they are also a strategic priority for NATO, for us in NATO.

There was a strong determination to continue to reduce to the absolute minimum civilian casualties caused by ISAF forces, to the absolute minimum. Unfortunately, zero will not be possible. But let me say once again that I have never met and I will never meet one NATO or partner soldier, or airman or sailor or marine, who will intentionally kill innocent civilians. The intent to kill innocent civilians, by the thousands, is the intent of our opposing forces, is the intent of the Taliban and not of NATO. And in saying that I mean, in other words, that we are in a completely different moral category, but we have the obligation to limit civilian casualties to the bare minimum.

There was the need voiced around the table for a regional approach, a stronger regional approach. Afghanistan is not an island. Extremism, terrorism and narcotics are plaguing the region and the region will need to be more engaged in the solution.

Let me also say that the Ministers around the tables over lunch and just a moment ago here at the Jagiellonian University, saw reason to be encouraged. There is reform in the Afghan government. For example, if I look at the Interior Ministry, Minister Atmar, there is a drive for further police reform.

Counternarcotics. Since early February, when the new rules were agreed upon, we have now seen four operations in which 11 drug laboratories were taken down. Fifty million, five-zero million of dollars of drugs seized, and a number of traffickers arrested. This is at least money which will not more feed the insurgency.

The positive note on the elections. Voter registration in Afghanistan has gone very well and has exceeded our, and certainly also my expectations.

And last, but certainly not least, Afghan forces, the Afghan Security Forces are participating now in 80 percent, eight-zero, of operations nation-wide and they already have responsibility for security now in almost all of Kabul province.

Once strong theme around the table this afternoon was and is and should be, and should stay, that we cannot afford the price of failure in Afghanistan. Instability in an already highly unstable region, a safe haven for international terrorism, and massive suffering for the Afghan people is simply too much to accept.

Which is why you'll see all members of the team, Afghan and international, pull closer together and pull harder in 2009.

So this meeting today, and with that I'll finish, ladies and gentlemen, and the upcoming Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels... NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels in the beginning of March, will shape our discussions and our decisions on this and other issues at the Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl in just six weeks from now.

A brief word, finally, on tomorrow's meeting. I'll brief you about that meeting. It will be a NATO Ministers meeting on transformation, followed by two important meetings, one of the NATO-Georgia Commission and one of the NATO-Ukraine Commission in the spirit of the strengthening of relations with Ukraine and Georgia we have embarked upon.

That is what I have to tell you now, and I'm open under James Appathurai's "patronage" for your comments and questions.

Q: Okay. (Inaudible...) TV from Macedonia.  

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Excuse me, I have to (inaudible...).

Q: Mr. Scheffer, what are NATO plans for Macedonia since the name dispute won't be solved, it's likely in the near future, according to the Madam Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece today: she told media in Greece that the Greek government planned to put a veto on Macedonian invitation one year before the Bucharest Summit.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: That last remark I do not understand and I'll not comment on. NATO does not know the word veto. We operate by consensus and unfortunately there was no consensus last year at the Summit in Bucharest, but I'm not going to repeat what I've said many times before.

On the accession question, I can only say that I do hope that the name issue will be resolved as soon as possible and you know that last year in Bucharest it was this issue which prevented the consensus. And that in the meantime NATO's cooperation with Skopje will go on. That's an intensive cooperation in the framework of the Membership Action Plan.

NATO plays no direct role. Is not seeking a direct role on the name issue. I hope it will be solved very soon.

It was, by the way, something which was not as a discussion item on the table today, as you might imagine.

Q: (Inaudible...).

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: The microphone doesn't work.

Q: Can you hear okay? You said that the price... we can't afford the price of failure in Afghanistan and we're calling for a bigger civilian effort right now. Isn't actually NATO's very future part of the price of failure in Afghanistan as well?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Afghanistan is, of course, important for NATO's future. I don't link that to the word failure, by the way. I say failure is not an option. And I've tried to explain to you that despite what we read in the media about improvised explosive devices, suicide attacks, they've gone up, there's no denial there. They've gone up. There are also many rays of sunshine in Afghanistan.

What my point was and is, is that we should not be under any illusion that there is a military solution in Afghanistan. That we need more forces, absolutely, because security and stability is a precondition for reconstruction and development. But that you cannot afford to forget the reconstruction and development part. And that's... how shall I phrase it, the nexus between the military part and the civilian part, we can do better there, I think. We can do better there and we should do better there. But you also know that NATO is not, as such, in the reconstruction and development business, so there it is a matter of closely relating with other international organizations and with partners, with bilateral donors and other relevant actors.

Q: I'm from a Danish newspaper called Ekstra Bladet. Many people talk about the Danish Prime Minister as your successor. Do you think that Anders Fogh Rasmussen has got the right qualifications to succeed you?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Nice try, but you know the answer. It is absolutely not up to me and you'll not hear me do that today, but you'll not hear me do this at all, to comment on my succession.

I'm still in my job. I'm enjoying it. In the summer I'll leave and the NATO allies will decide about my succession, so I'm not going to be specific on any person's qualifications.

Q: Jim Neuger, from Bloomberg. I'm here, Secretary General.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Where are you? Yes, right.

Q: Just a question about the anti-piracy mission. Could you perhaps give us some more details about how many ships you expect to take part, when you think the mission will be launched, and given that there are other groups with warships off the coast of Somalia, what particular value added does NATO bring to this?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Well the value added is that it is an enormous stretch of water, so the ships are not in each other's way. Let's... I mean, we do not have to worry there and we're now seeing almost the end of the monsoon season so I would not be surprised if piracy goes up again.

You're right, there are many actors. There is a United Nations contact group established not that long ago. Of course, those actors have to coordinate and coordinate, they do that in a very practical, tactical way. I mean, we're not going to have heavy institutional structures for coordination.

The NATO role will be a piracy role of our so-called Standing Naval Maritime Group 1. We have another one which is quite logically called SNMG2. That Standing Naval Maritime Group you saw active, or part of it, in the waters quite some time ago, until ATALANTA, the European Union piracy operation took over.

I cannot give you the exact details. It will be in the framework of a trip, this SNMG1 is going to make. And we're trying to define the moments or the moment or the part of that trip which will be used by SNMG1 to be involved in anti-piracy.

James should help me with the actual number of the ships is about? What is it?

JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesman): Six.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: It's about... no, it's... James says not it's about, it's six ships. So it's a considerable strengthening, I think, of the anti-piracy role.

Thank you.

Q: Mr. Secretary, can you hear me?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Yes, I can hear you, but if you raise your hand I can see you as well. There you are, right. Yes, hello.

Q: I wanted to ask if the international crisis have influenced the discussion about the enlarging of the number of troops in Afghanistan? Are there any countries which declared to enlarge the number of troops in that country? Thank you.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: There's several allies who are doing this. I don't deny that the international financial economic crisis is putting extra pressure on defence budgets, but I have not... it has not come to my notice that there are nations using or citing the international financial economic crisis not to do certain things, to my knowledge. But there might be nations in the near future, who perhaps are forced by financial constraints, who are not doing things they might have committed themselves to. I hope not, of course, because we need our forces in Afghanistan and we need defence budgets which are adequate.

But I don't envy Defence Ministers in these days, neither in Poland, nor elsewhere.

Q: I'm (inaudible) from Deutsche Welle, German radio. I broadcast in Pashtu and Dari. Your message and your voice will be translated in Pashtu and Dari to Afghans.

I have two questions. First question is about civilian casualties. I had last week a report from one of our provinces in the east of Afghanistan and a mother was quoted that she lost her son and a journalist, Afghan journalist asked her who killed your son? She... her answer was I don't know who killed him. I can just tell you that I lost my son. How would you give your message to this mother that NATO is practically, after next week, that there'll be no casualty in Afghanistan on civilian side? Because this mother say I don't care who killed my son. This one question.

The second question regarding the financial support for Taliban? Out of the drug sources. Who others in the region or in the world support financially Taliban? Thank you.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: I can't possibly answer the second part of your question because I'm not privy to that information and I'm not there. And they would not like to have me there if that happened, so that's a bit difficult for me to answer.

On the first part of your question, let me repeat perhaps a bit more extensively what I said during my introductory words.

NATO is trying to do everything it can to avoid innocent civilian loss of life. And I add, every single loss of innocent civilian life, a mother, a father, a child, a grandmother, is one too many. And I'll be the first one to apologize if NATO forces cause inexplicable grief to the family because of the killing of a son or a daughter or a mother or a father. We'll do everything we can.

I discussed it, of course, with Minister Wardak again this afternoon. We'll do everything we can. I cannot, and that might sound cynical, but I don't mean it like this, believe me, please, I cannot possibly guarantee in the situation where we are, where from time to time Taliban use children and young women as human shields, put them in houses, put them as a human shield in front of them. I cannot possibly guarantee that NATO or partner forces from now on will create or cause zero civilian causalities. I cannot do that. And I think I would be honest to that mother. I would share her grief, I would apologize if it was proven that there were NATO forces. I don't know this individual case, and I'll not comment on an individual case.

We are with the Afghan people in that regard, and let me repeat, again, for translation in Dari and Pashtu, we are in a different moral category. You will never meet, and I have never met and I will never meet any NATO soldier in Afghanistan intentionally killing innocent civilian life. They'll never do that. That I can vouch for. But it's a difficult issue and I don't reason it away. Civilian causalities are always dramatic. So you'll not hear me say that this is a subject... well, this is inevitable. Yes, it is inevitable, but we have to do everything we can to prevent it from happening. And we should apologize if it happens.

Q: Is it on?

APPATHURAI: Yeah.

Q: It's (inaudible...), Der Spiegel, from Germany. I have one question concerning the piracy mission again. What does it tell you as the head of NATO that three of the nations taking part in this naval group which you mentioned, namely Germany, Netherlands and Spain already dropped out of this mission because they don't see the possibility to get like a mandate in their Parliament for this mission.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: You know more than I do because I'm not aware of any nation dropping out. Neither of the three, so either you check your sources or I have to check mine, but I'm fairly confident that my sources are correct because I presided over the debate, so I'm not aware of any nation bowing out of this mission of Standing Naval Maritime Group 1.

I know, given the fact that you're from Germany, I do know, and I'm aware of discussions in Germany, and I was a parliamentarian in the Netherlands, but it's not unlike in Germany, that that the government has to adhere specifically to a mandate given by the Bundestag. But that does not lead, as far as I know, that does not lead to either the Germans or Spain or the Dutch, for that matter, bowing out of that mission. That is not information which has come to me.

APPATHURAI: Last question is there.

Q: John (inaudible) from Radio Free Europe, broadcasting for Afghanistan in two languages as well.

Sorry, my question is that we hear a lot of the enforcement of the NATO or the increase of forces, but we hear little about political reconciliation process. If NATO says that we're not actively involved, but it's already there, the presence of 40 countries or more, and you say that Afghanistan is not a land-locked country and their neighbours are involved in that, I mean, the Afghan things, what is your message, for example? How you can create a system for reconciliation and define the definition of enemy? Who is the enemy in Afghanistan, please?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: I think the last thing NATO or NATO partners should do is involve itself in political reconciliation. We are operating in the sovereign Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. And it is up to the sovereign Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to decide, up to the government, up to the people, what kind of reconciliation and with whom they want. And NATO allies or the foreign presence in general should be the last, I think, to involve itself in that process.

I think reconciliation is important, but the how and the when and the where and the “with whom” is really up to President Karzai and the Afghan government.

So that is my answer. And as... your question on the enemy, President Karzai and I always use the word “spoilers”, because there are spoilers of different kind. You have of course, criminal spoilers in Afghanistan, in the nexus to the counternarcotics or the drug trade. You have normal criminality like you have that in Poland or in the Netherlands. That also happens. We should not forget that we see that as well. Then it's not enemy related, opposing militant forces related.

But on the other hand you'll see in Afghanistan, and I'm a fairly regular visitor, I can tell you, you see a lot of people shooting directly at our forces. That's what I qualify as an enemy and there are a good many of them, killing our forces on the roadside, killing our forces in suicide attacks, killing more innocent Afghan civilians, by the way, with their suicide attacks than we do or than the Afghans consider acceptable.

But we have, unfortunately, a great number of enemies. But let's keep reconciliation, please, for the Afghans.

APPATHURAI: That's all we have time for.

Q: Thank you.