Press conference

by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER (NATO Secretary General): Good morning. Let me tell you something about the three meetings we had today. We began at 28; 26 plus our two invitee nations. There was a meeting on NATO Transformation which might have some technical elements and aspects, but nevertheless for the functioning of the Alliance, it's very important.

One of the subjects discussed was how best to implement the NATO Response Force in a flexible way and in a sustainable way and in that context there was also a discussion on an idea put forward by Secretary Hutton of the United Kingdom, as you might have seen, of creating what has provisionally been dubbed a standing solidarity force in the context of the NATO Response Force. This discussion started; is by far from finished as we speak, so it will certainly have a follow-up.

I got positive reception from many around the table on this idea and General Craddock, the Supreme Allied Commander, will now elaborate ideas on the NATO Response Force in conjunction with this solidarity force, which will then be advised upon by NATO's Military Committee, and finally of course the North Atlantic Council has to give its approval. I expect - I hope at least - that during the formal Ministerial meeting in Brussels in June, Ministers can take decisions on these issues.

We also spent some time... you'll say this is also housekeeping, but very important housekeeping, on improving the way NATO Headquarters do business. That comes under the NATO Headquarters Reform label and I have a mandate to bring that forward. It is my strong belief, and that's the reason that we discussed this again after five years at the helm of this organization, that we can enhance the speed of decision making and get more value for the money we spend within NATO by being more flexible in the way we spend it.

We had a discussion today where I heard endorsement for specific proposals I've made for improving decision making. I'll have to raise them with Foreign Ministers in March, at the beginning of March when Foreign Ministers will come to Brussels to meet. And then I hope to have a package, a deliverable (as it's called in our jargon) for the summit in Strasbourg and Kehl in the beginning of April.

We had two other meetings today. The second was the NATO-Ukraine Commission. Two main topics on the agenda there: first a discussion with Minister Yekhanurov on the state of Ukrainian Defence and security sector reform; and second, an examination of Ukraine's progress in developing its so-called first Annual National Plan, which is not yet completed. You know that when we created the NATO-Georgia Commission - and we had a meeting with Georgia as well - we also changed the structure of the NATO-Ukraine Commission in the sense that Ukraine will now also operate on the basis of Annual National Plans. That first Annual National Plan is not yet completed and we tried to stimulate Minister Yekhanurov and the Ukrainian authorities to go on drafting it.

Allies are aware by the way that the financial and economic crisis that has also hit Ukraine very hard is having an affect on Ukrainian reforms, but Ministers encouraged Ukraine to keep up the effort, including with the necessary resources difficult as that may be because an inefficient and antiquated defence and security sector will cost Ukraine much more in the long run. But I say this in the understanding, and that's not exclusively true for Ukraine, that times are dire in this regard. Nevertheless it is important to continue.

Let me welcome - and that was of course also addressed around the table - Ukraine's participation in all NATO's operations and missions. Ukrainian Minister Yekhanurov suggested that despite Ukraine's difficult balance sheet, Ukraine might send more forces to the ISAF operation in Afghanistan - what I would qualify as a strong signal from a very important Partner. There's no other Partner by the way that participates in all NATO's operations and missions.

Finally we had the meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission where I think I should mention three main issues addressed with Minister Sikharulidze. First of all Georgia's progress in defence reform, its priorities for 2009, and that included a review of Georgia's national security strategy. Of course NATO's assistance for Georgia since the crisis of August last year - let me note not with weapons, but with support for planning, as well as in airspace management and other areas.

And you will not be surprised that Minister Sikharulidze also raised the general security situation in Georgia, including intentions to establish Russian bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It goes without saying that the Allies reiterated their firm commitment to Georgia's territorial integrity and their disquiet on Russian intentions to build these bases.
This is what I have to tell you from this morning's meetings. I'm open to take your questions.

JAMES APPATHURAI (NATO Spokesperson): Questions?

Q: A question about Georgia. After integration in August, Russia-NATO relationship -

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Please go ahead.

Q: So after integration in August, Russia-NATO relationship was... is unusual. Now we have problems in our country. Russian military brass still (inaudible) in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Russian military forces still are in Georgia. So in that case, relationship between Russia and Georgia... Russia and NATO will be as usual?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Well as you know - and that is what I discussed with Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov in Munich - as you know we strongly disagree. That position has not changed. We have seen the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We see the intention of establishing bases there. We still have the problems of the access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, a part of Georgia by the way. Let me reiterate those principles. And it is crystal clear that we do not agree with Russia there; we fundamentally disagree.

But then comes the question and that is basically what you're asking me - does that mean that this measured reengagement by Russia should stop for that reason? And then my answer is no, it should not, because we should use (and at the moment we do it as you know on an informal basis)... we should use the NATO-Russia Council not only as a fair weather institution, but also to discuss exactly these things where we fundamentally disagree.

It will not be easy to find an agreement there. I would be wrong in giving you the wrong information if I said this will be easy. But let's discuss it and I think that is finally in the interest of Georgia as well. But the principles underlining the NATO relationship with Georgia were heavily underlined again this morning. There can be no misunderstanding about that.

Q: Mr. Secretary General do you believe that a regional dialogue about Afghanistan is still possible with Iran after the new UN report about its nuclear activity?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Well what I said a few weeks ago in a speech in Brussels was that if one agrees, and I think one should agree, that we have perhaps too long looked at Afghanistan in isolation in the sense that we have not paid sufficient attention to the regional dimension, which we are now doing. Do not forget Richard Holbrook is President Obama's Special Representative for Afghanistan in Pakistan. So Pakistan clearly comes in here in a very prominent fashion.

But I do think - and that's what I said in Brussels and that's what I can repeat here this morning with you - I do think that we even need a wider region approach. Let me come to the previous question on the question of Afghanistan. There is clearly a position, an important position, to be taken by the Russian Federation. And in that regional dimension where you can mention other neighbours of Afghanistan as well, I did mention Iran as well as a neighbour of Afghanistan. Now that does not mean that we in NATO immediately enter into a dialogue with Iran, but in the regional context I could imagine that at a certain stage Iran would also be involved in that dialogue.

That is of course not linked directly to the concerns, the grave concerns, the Allies have about Iran's nuclear program. That goes without saying. But here it's focused on Afghanistan and I could imagine at a certain stage, not overnight, that Iran would also be involved in a regional approach for Afghanistan. A regional approach by the way which is certainly not a prime NATO responsibility - NATO is a political military organization - but which I hope would be picked up by other international organizations.

Q: I would like to know when do you expect France to be back in the integrated structure and what steps does NATO have to undertake to come there?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: France and NATO - and you might know that I had the privilege to be heard by the Assemblée Nationale in Paris last week, the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee - France and NATO is completely in the hands of the French government and the French President. French President, government, has to decide and how they do it is also within their remit, to transfer the notion that France would like to be member again, part again I should say, of the integrated military structure. So it's first Paris and France and certainly not NATO.

If the French President would decide that the moment has come - and I say again that is up to him, that is a sovereign French decision - then it will be known to NATO, it will be known to me and as Secretary General of NATO I consider myself, I am I think, the guardian of procedure. Le guardien des procedures. And then of course there are a number of procedures with have to be followed in the implementation of that wish as indicated by France, but still as we speak it is up to France, the French President, to announce that he thinks the moment is right for France. That's the order.

Q: Mr. Scheffer you talked about the co-operation between Ukraine and NATO. Will you propose Ukraine to take part in peacekeeping contingent in Afghanistan or it will be some technical co-operation? In what way will you co-operation with Ukraine in Afghanistan?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Well that's first of all up to Ukraine to decide. Ukraine is in Afghanistan and Minister Yekhanurov said that it would be possible that the present would be beefed up and so... and that's highly appreciated. So I do not know exactly about the when and the where. We'll work out those technical details. For me the political principle is important and I say again Ukraine is... If I look at our Partners, a very important one given its participation in all those operations and missions of NATO.

Q: Mr. Secretary General you said the NATO-Russia dialogue should not just be in good times, but also to talk about tough issues. Did the Ministers discuss that? Did they make any decision to resume the formal dialogue? When would you expect it to resume?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: No, not here today. That was not on the agenda of the Defence Ministers. What I do expect though is that the NATO Foreign Ministers when they meet in Brussels in the beginning of March will address exactly this question. So it's slightly early to tell you. The state of play at the moment as you know is this measured re-engagement; informal meetings of the NATO-Russia Council with the Russian Ambassador Rogozin in Brussels. My first political contact with Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov in Munich and where that is going to lead to in the more political sense... I think we'll have that on the agenda on the 5th of March.

APPATHURAI: Two questions. There and there.

Q: What about Georgia's participation in ISAF contribution? The decision was made before August, but then it's changed? What's the news about that? Will Georgian troops sent to Afghanistan or not?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: When I spoke to President Saakashvili in Munich two weeks ago, he told me that he is in the process of looking indeed into the possibility of sending Georgian forces to Afghanistan in the ISAF framework. How far that process in Tbilisi has exactly progressed I couldn't possibly tell you, but I know the intention is there and that's a very positive signal.
APPATHURAI: Next question.

Q: Jim Nuger from Bloomberg. There are groups in Slovenia that have now started a petition drive against Croatia joining. What is your concern that this, at the very least, could delay Croatia's membership until after the April summit? And what signal does this send about the consensus behind NATO enlargement?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Well first of all as a basic matter of principle, Slovenia as a democracy - and you can't blame Slovenia for being a democracy and for having democratic means whenever a nation decides that those means should be or the people of a nation. Having said that, I hope, because it gives me reason for concern of course, that we might not see a situation at the summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, that we can greet Albania and Croatia in the NATO family. And I think everyone involved, including in Slovenia, should do everything they can to make that happen.

So I'm not hiding my concern, but on the other hand there is a basic democratic principle which is in my opinion a very important one. But I call on those people in Slovenia to make it possible following whatever procedure - that's not up to me to say, but up to them to decide - that in Strasbourg and Kehl we can greet Croatia as well into the NATO family and that not... there is a link between issues which have no direct relationship with NATO membership.

APPATHURAI: Thank you very much. That's all we have time for.

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Thank you.