News conference by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer - Questions and answers

JAMES APPATHURAI (Spokesman, NATO): Questions

Q: Jim Nuger(?) from Bloomberg. You spoke of the need for a shared vision over how to use the Response Force. Could you lay out for us what your vision is, how many countries share it and what discussion was there today over possibly using it in Afghanistan.

JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER (Secretary General of NATO): I will not enter into details, because that would harm a process of an informal and confidential discussion Ministers had. The fact that there was a discussion on the NRF means that subjects like these are on the table. But this is not a meeting where you leave the room with consensus or no consensus, because this is an ongoing process in Brussels. It's discussed in the Military Committee. It will continue to be discussed in the Military Committee.

There were, by the way, introductions by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Craddock. The Dutch Defence Minister Kamp had produced a food-for- thought-paper on the future of the NRF, and I think it was very useful because Ministers are for giving us guidance, giving me guidance, giving the people who work in NATO Headquarters guidance on the NRF.

So many elements were discussed. I mentioned a few—the way we generate our forces, the way we can better assure that we have a good force generation process, the relationship between the NRF and our reserve forces has been discussed. You know about the discussion, which is not new, about answering the question, when and under what circumstances do we use the NRF? But again, I'm not going into details, because I'm not going to, of course, communicate to you the positions the nations took. They are mature enough to tell it to you themselves. And I think they'll not do that because the discussion is going on in Brussels, but you can give it a try.

APPATHURAI: Next question.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you said you'd touch briefly on the Iranian issue with...

APPATHURAI: Could you identify yourself?

Q: Arik Bahran(?), Maariv Daily, Israel. You've discussed briefly the Iranian issue with the Russian Minister. What is your sense of the Russian approach. Everybody assumes that Russia would not like to have an Iranian... nuclear Iran on its border. So do they know anything none of us knows?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Well, about the Russian approach I think you should question my friend Sergey Ivanov and not me. But it was clear, because the Russian Minister spoke on the subject, that there is a widely shared belief that this is not only a complicated, but also a potentially dangerous situation. But that's all I'm going to say, because if you want to hear the position Minister Ivanov took he'll, I think, brief you in a few moments. So let me leave that to him.

That's... NATO allies, I said, I think we discussed that yesterday, although NATO does not have the intention to play a direct role. There is, of course, anxiety about the developments in Iran and on the Iranian threats, that's crystal clear.

Q: Yes, Gerard Gaudin, Belgium News Agency. But coming back to the use of the NRF, there was already an agreement in the past, how to use it, when to use it, and would it open the debate again?

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: No, there's not a debate on the agreement. There is on the different missions of the NRF. As you know, full operational capability means that the NRF can have all its missions and there are quite a few of them, but there is a feeling that we need a wider discussion to assure A) a secure longer-term force generation for the NRF, and you also have the situation where the medium-sized and smaller nations every time have to make a choice—are we going to commit in an NRF rotation, are we going to participate in an operation, am I, Defence Minister of Country X or Y going to use my scarce funds to invest in my own defence, in equipment or what have you.

So there are a number of elements which are relevant. I mentioned one of them, the relationship between what we have in the NRF and the reserve forces NATO has, is a topic and is an important issue we should discuss.

But I add immediately, that does not mean, of course, that in a morning's discussion, informal discussion in Sevilla, there's immediately a consensus on all these themes. But I think, and I consider it my responsibility as Secretary General, to raise these issues, because it is our most important tool. It is for many nations expensive. I want a guarantee and I want to be secure that in all those NRF rotations we have generated the right forces, and if I talk, and if we talk about longer-term force generations nations come up with questions.

So that is the debate, but don't conclude from my remarks and from our discussion this morning that there are doubts about the concept as such, or that there are doubts about the NRF not being able to fulfil its missions. It can, but we need, I think, to keep the NRF under permanent review.

APPATHURAI: Next question's here. Please.

Q: Martinez de Rituerto with El País. A question in relation with Kosovo. Minister Ivanov, before entering the meeting spoke about the opening of the Pandora box if the proposal...

DE HOOP SCHEFFER: Sounds familiar.

Q:Yeah. And today we've heard that the President of Slovakia has said more or less the same, and it's probably the first time that someone in his rank and position in our side, the western side, speaks against the Ahtisaari's plan. What would you reply to Ivanov's ideas if he is playing the same misgivings in the meeting? Thank you.