3:00 P.M. EDT
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: Well, thanks for coming today. This is an additional NATO foreign ministerial that wasn't on our regular schedule. (Inaudible) for NATO, but we decided that because we've got a lot of work to do to prepare for our NATO summit in Riga, November 27-28, that it was a good idea to take the opportunity of most of the foreign ministers being here anyway for the UNGA for them to get together. So they're going to have a relatively short session, 90 minutes tomorrow, primarily to be looking at the political aspects of preparation for the NATO summit and to give those of us who do this all the time day in, day out in Brussels some more guidance.
Tomorrow in particular, we're expecting Afghanistan, NATO's primary operational mission, to be very much on everybody's minds. As you know, it has been a challenging summer in Afghanistan. NATO took over, has been in Kabul, has been in the north, has been in the west, and then on July 31st, took over management of Afghanistan south. As we all expected, we -- the Taliban took that opportunity to mount a significant challenge. But I think foreign ministers tomorrow will take a look at how NATO has responded. And in our view, NATO has acquitted itself extremely well, particularly in the last couple of weeks. We have, as you have been all reporting, wiped the floor with the Taliban in the Panjwai Valley. We are going on to do more intensive operations up in Ferah and in Helmond.
You have seen, however, that we went into the operation without the additional cushion of the commander's theater operational reserve. SACEUR General Jones two weeks ago made an urgent appeal for those forces. And I think if you followed the news today, you saw that he in Washington today expressed a lot of satisfaction with how allies have been answering that call. We have new troops from Poland, new troops from Romania on the way, Canadians and Brits augmenting their forces. And I would hope tomorrow that foreign ministers will also -- other foreign ministers will talk about what they are doing to lift caveats on forces and to think about helping out.
But this is obviously a very challenging and important time in Afghanistan to keep faith with the Afghan people. So Afghanistan very much on minds tomorrow.
We will also, I think, talk about the other political aspects of the Riga summit. We are working, I think you know, on enhancing and creating flexibility in NATO's partnership structures. Foreign ministers will likely review that tomorrow. And also ensuring that although it's unlikely we'll make any decisions on membership at Riga, that we send the kind of signal that keeps those countries that aspire to NATO membership working hard and moving towards us and sends them a positive signal. So that's what we're expecting tomorrow.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: I'd like to put the NATO summit and the NATO ministerial in a bit of historical context. There was a debate in the early part of this decade about NATO's future and that debate has been, in fact, answered in the way that debates are, not through a judge's summary but through actual changes on the ground.
NATO is becoming an organization with global and expeditionary reach. It was ten years ago that the Balkans seemed to be an out-of-theater stretch for the NATO alliance which then had 16 members and had never fired a shot in anger. Move ten years ahead and NATO is an organization of 26 members which has operations, including combat operations, going on all over the world. Whether it is humanitarian relief in Pakistan and for that matter some help in Louisiana, or Afghanistan or Iraq or Operation Active Endeavor in the Mediterranean, NATO is an alliance in action. This has been --
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: And the Darfur –
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: And Darfur. And the list goes on. The point is that NATO, which was – NATO’s future was debated at the end of the Cold War. It turns out that the world needs an alliance by which the great democracies of the transatlantic community have the ability to act where it is necessary, when it is necessary and when they decide. In the early after 9/11, NATO voted to invoke Article 5 for the first time in its history and now NATO is taking over security in more and more of Afghanistan. So this alliance is transforming. This transformation is real. This transformation puts NATO at the heart of security in the world today and it is important that NATO become an alliance in action where it is need. So that is very much the context and it is a context of success for the alliance and for its members.
QUESTION: I was a little surprised to hear your very, very rosy characterization of Operation Medusa in Afghanistan because it is – at least I’, Martin Bucharth, U.S. correspondent for Information Danish newspaper. Because in Denmark there’s been a lot of debate about whether this was the right way to handle the situation. It’s clear that the Taliban used this as an opportunity – the taking over -- Europeans of the NATO command and operations in Afghanistan to try and push them out and steer public opinion in Europe. But besides that, it’s clear that the mandate was to go out and reconstruct and it’s understandable that you have to create security before you actually start reconstruction, but the way it was handled in terms of the very offensive methods that were used is seen by some to have caused some kind of counterproductive effect by which the population eventually turns against NATO troops. What is your response to that?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s important for all allies to understand the totality of the NATO mission. When we agreed to go into the south, we also expanded the mandate for the NATO mission to include not just stabilization but also the ability to respond to attacks, to respond to challenges, and as necessary conduct operations up to the level of counterinsurgency. This is what allies agreed to because of we knew we would face challenges in the south. The south, remember, in Afghanistan is the traditional home of the Taliban.
And then remember what happened this summer. The Taliban who had, you know, heretofore been conducting primarily hit-and-run operations or suicide attacks, decided to make a territorial stand. They tried to cut highway one, the main artery into Kandahar, and they occupied the villages of the Panjwai Valley. It was completely unacceptable both in terms of the integrity of NATO’s mission but more importantly in terms of the message that we and the Afghan Government and Afghan security forces needed to send to the Afghan people that the Taliban’s days are over. So it was the Taliban that took a territorial stand and it was obviously NATO and the Afghans’ responsibility to respond.
So what we did though was done in a very strategic and surgical manner. Commanders have talked about this from Afghanistan. Among other things, we were able to work with tribal leaders in advance of the kinetic activity to warn villagers, get them to clear the area. We then set up sort of a choking mechanism on the Taliban and succeeded in driving them out of that territory and now NATO is engaged in an intensive reconstruction effort in that part of the south of Afghanistan. We are coming in now with refugee relief and water and food and rebuilding schools and rebuilding buildings.
So remember what needs to be done in Afghanistan. Yes, we have to support the extension of the Afghan Government’s reach. We have to support reconstruction. We have to support economic growth. But as necessary, when enemies of freedom and change take a stand, we have to turn them back and that’s what NATO did and did it very well.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: There was -- at the time NATO took over in the south, there was a widespread expectation that the Taliban would choose to challenge NATO troops on two grounds: one, because NATO was appearing and support for the Afghan Government was appearing in areas where they’d been largely absent; and secondly, there may have been a calculation on the part of the Taliban that non-U.S. NATO forces could be attacked with impunity, that they would not fight. If that was the Taliban expectation and if they acted on it, they were very sadly disabused. The non-American NATO forces fought, fought hard and fought well, and the Taliban has been hit hard and had a number of tactical defeats.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: Although it’s important also to say that U.S. forces did participate.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: And U.S. forces did participate indeed, but I mention the non-U.S. forces because that may have been a factor in expectations and it was just wrong. There are American forces down there of all sorts, but it was a – if -- it may have been a very painful lesson for the Taliban. But they were the ones who, as my colleague said, took a stand and lashed out. This was not unexpected, in fact, and we knew what NATO forces would very likely be getting into and they did and they acquitted themselves very well.
QUESTION: (Washington Times) You said that this ministerial wasn’t planned in advance. There is a ministerial of the defense ministers at the end of September in Vienna in September. Is there any other foreign ministers meeting planned before the summit? That’s my first question – before the Riga summit.
And second, in Darfur what exactly is NATO going to do logistically once the UN mission is in there? And is that a precondition for NATO to do anything?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: We don’t currently have another foreign ministerial on the books between now and Riga. Obviously ministers can decide if they need to get together either just before or at some point, but at this point this is a signals check and instruction-setting session for those of us.
In Darfur NATO is now, as you know, lifting African Union troops in. We are doing pre-deployment training. We are offering logistical support in Addis Ababa where -- for the African Union’s joint operation center. We have made a number of other offers of that kind of enabling support to the African Union. At the moment, the African Union has not taken up those offers. We have also offered our planning services to the United Nations and we have liaison officers here at the UN as they plan that mission.
I think, you know, from our national point of view, we obviously would support continuing to support the UN if and when it takes over this mission if that’s needed in a logistical way. But at the moment NATO has more on offer than the AU or the UN have taken up and, you know, we would be very eager to do more if we were invited.
QUESTION: Kirsten Larsen from Danish Radio. Five years ago the Afghans also in the south seemed very happy to see the U.S. troops and wanted peace. They never had it. Now five years ago the animosity has grown quite a lot and the population broadly in some areas seems to have turned to the Taliban once again because they give them protection. Do you think you might be in a bit late?
And second question. Saying that you sweep the floor with Taliban, does that help the fight for hearts and minds?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: I think the first part of your question answers the second part of your question. You know, what is going on now in the south is an effort by the Taliban to re-infiltrate some of these small villages, to intimidate people and to try to persuade them that this experiment with democracy, this experiment with free economy, this experiment with a modern way of living, this experiment with the Karzai government, was a mistake. They are buying fighters in a part of the country where employment is a problem and where people don’t – you know, where they are able to offer, you know, more money than people can get for their crops.
So that is why it is absolutely essential that with this operation, not just Operation Medusa but more importantly the larger bringing in of more troops which NATO allows, the eight nations plus Afghans who are now working in the south, we are able to get to more parts of the country, bring more reconstruction, support more economic growth, support governors, provincial leaders, town leaders, local police who are trying to bring a better way of life.
But if we are not there to support the good guys in Afghanistan, then they’re not going to be able to withstand the kind of intimidation that the Taliban are mounting. So it’s absolutely the right moment to be present in the south, to be present, as I said before, not just when we need to fight but every day when we need to build and support and help the Afghans grow. We are there. The Dutch in Uruzgan are now starting to train police forces. We are rebuilding infrastructure and agriculture in Helmond. That’s what we have to do: bring hope and help to the Afghans themselves and to their government.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: It’s important for – you know, a lot of the people in the south of Afghanistan are waiting to see who is the strongest force and they’re scared, which is why it’s important to send the message that NATO and the Afghan National Army – remember that the Afghans are our partners, we had two battalions of ANA down there with us in the south operating – that we are doing the job and that these guys, these yesterday’s men, are not going to win.
QUESTION: Andrew Gray (ph) from Reuters. Coming back to the question of additional troops, is the United States satisfied both with the number of troops that has been pledged so far to reinforce the Afghan mission and with the speed at which it’s planned to deploy them? I know Poland is going to make some fresh moves possibly this week, but it sounds like the bulk of the forces may not be there until the spring of next year. Do you expect to see more in terms of numbers and in terms of timing?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: This is certainly moving very much in the right direction. The commander of NATO issued his call just a couple of weeks ago and we’ve been very encouraged by the response. Obviously governments have to – governments make decisions about the deployment of their troops. In many countries there’s a debate about this. That’s wholly understandable. NATO is a collection of democracies. Democracies debate these issues, as they should. But in fact, troops are coming in and I think offers of battalions, offers of companies, are very heartening and I think you heard General Jones this morning speak to the progress. So things are going the right way.
QUESTION: Hi. Farhad from The Daily Outlook, Afghanistan. This morning President Karzai appealed today foreign forces engaged with the Taliban and the al-Qaida forces in Afghanistan to focus the fight beyond Afghan borders, places where there are trained and recruited and deployed. So what would be the NATO’s response to that because NATO now is kind of engaged with the counterterrorism operation in the area and it seems the more you kill the Taliban, the madrasas in Pakistan will send you more and then by killing one you will get more and more enemies. Thanks.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: First let me say that I think you know that we have had for some time now with coalition forces a trilateral commission – Afghanistan, Pakistan and coalition forces – which works on border issues, works on managing insurgency on both sides. NATO is now a full partner in that so we are part of the conversation between the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan, how to handle this very volatile region.
NATO itself is involved in the stabilization aspects up to the level of counterinsurgency, making sure that it protects the territory. But the actual counterterror mission, particularly some of these very intense operations, are still going to be conducted by the coalition. So I think, you know, the kinds of moves that we’ve seen where President Karzai and President Musharraf get together, work together. They met in Kabul not too long ago. They’re going to meet in Washington next week. And the contribution of both coalition and NATO forces to working on these problems is the best way to move forward.
QUESTION: Yes, Jorgi Yomiyuri (ph) Daily News, Japanese daily newspaper. I’m curious as to you said that Afghanistan is going to be high on the agenda of course for tomorrow’s meeting. Just looking at tomorrow’s meeting itself, what might we expect to come out of that meeting specifically in sort of moving NATO’s various missions forward? What might we expect to happen in the next 24 hours, if anything significant?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: This meeting is an informal meeting in the sense that we don’t have a communiqué planned. This was a meeting out of the regular cycle so it is, as my colleague said, a signals check as we go to Riga and an opportunity for ministers to give instructions to their NATO delegations on the various initiatives that are being developed for Riga. So I think Afghanistan will certainly come up. Ministers will want to discuss where we are. They will want also to discuss what we are trying to accomplish at Riga. But I had – there were never any expectations that this would produce formal NATO decisions. It wasn’t designed as that kind of meeting.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: I would just say though since you’re representing a Japanese newspaper, which I spoke at the beginning about NATO reflecting on its partnership structures. I mean, NATO works now with countries in the Euro-Atlantic space all the way out to Kyrgyzstan. It works with countries in the Med, it works with countries in the Gulf, and now increasingly we’re working with countries in Asia. We have our first troop contributions from Asia to NATO missions. We have Australians with us in the south. We have New Zealanders working with the coalition who may come in. We have a political relationship with Japan.
So I think one of the things that ministers will talk about tomorrow is the importance to this core 26 alliance as it goes out there and takes on responsibilities in support of global peace and stability of having these partnership relationships which bring us more capability, more know-how, more troops sometimes for our missions, and also enable us to create an increasingly strong security community in support of peace and stability. So I think there’s a growing appreciation among ministers which you’ll see reflected tomorrow of the importance of partners in our efforts.
QUESTION: I have a couple of questions (inaudible). Just on the Afghan side, what other sources of financing are the Taliban receiving? I mean, there’s been a lot said about drugs and opium, but are there any sort of flows from states or other kind of non-state actors? And in that context, what kind of efforts is NATO making to maybe talk to and buy off individual Taliban commanders?
Just another question on the UN’s UNIFIL kind of strengthened, bolstered force. It’s setting up this strategic planning cell, maybe doing some more NATO-like stuff there, although it’s still very much the UN. I’d just be interested in your thoughts on what is the relationship there between the UN and how the sort of way in which the UN operates and the way in which NATO operates, sort of meeting in the middle perhaps (inaudible)?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: On the UNIFIL question, this is a UN operation and under that there is a European – there is a coalition of the willing that under the – you know, using the UNIFIL structures. And this is – NATO is not playing a forma part in that although it is quite obvious that European countries, NATO members, form the core of this and their ability to work together is a function of the NATO – the habits of NATO and the interoperability which NATO has incubated and developed over the decades. But it is not a NATO operation and I don’t anticipate it will become one, for now at least.
QUESTION: Because there’s a sort of suggestion that this planning cell is sort of like a NATO inside the UN.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, I think, again, it has been said, you know, that these guys are used to planning inside NATO so they take those good habits, we hope, to their UN operations.
QUESTION: And on the Afghanistan question?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: On the Afghanistan question, you know, obviously drugs. But there’s increasing information that there is jihadist funding going to the Taliban. But again to the question that you raised, you know, that money tends to flow to folks who look successful, so when you wipe the floor with them their funding tends to try up from outside sources.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Taliban commanders and (inaudible)?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: There’s been a lot of work on the ground, particularly by President Karzai and his team, to – at national reconciliation. In fact, we have a number of governors and other leaders in Afghanistan who are former Taliban. The Governor of Uruzgan, a province the south, who I met just two weeks ago, is – you know, he took off his Taliban cloak just a few years ago and now he is a fighter for democracy, openness, pluralism, women’s rights and freedom in Uruzgan. It’s really a terrific thing to see. And essentially he says the Taliban ideology failed and I want to spread that word. So I think the more of that we can have, those are some of the best mentors for change in Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Hi, I’m a reporter with the Slovenian Press Agency. If I understood correctly, you said there won’t be any decision made in Riga about enlargement, right? And when do you expect that decision might be made and is there any limit to further NATO enlargement in the future?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: NATO enlargement has been one of the great successes of NATO and your country has benefited and we have benefited from having Slovenia in NATO. The NATO membership is open to countries that are willing, interested and able to meet NATO’s standards. Membership is performance-based; that is, we look to countries to be NATO-capable, to be democracies, to have good relations with their neighbors, to have civilian control of the military, and above all to want to join the alliance, to be willing and committed members of an alliance which is an action, to be security providers, not just security consumers.
How far does that go? Well, there are no artificial limits. We are interested in countries that want to join NATO. There are three Balkan countries – Croatia, Albania, Macedonia – that have expressed an interest and they are very interested in receiving a NATO – an invitation to join. The Ukrainians are thinking about this. They are in a process of a national debate and we certainly support their cooperation with NATO and as they are interested and both able and willing, NATO, I suspect, will be open to that. And the Georgians are very interested and we want to -- as I said, NATO is – NATO membership is performance-based.
So this has been a great process. It’s worked well for the alliance. It’s worked well for the members – for the countries who have aspired to NATO membership and we look forward to that process continuing.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: I have to leave and go to another meeting and my colleague (inaudible). One more minute. Counting.
QUESTION: Hi, my name is Bjorn Malmquist from Iceland International Broadcasting. I had a question for both of you since we are on, you know, nations in NATO. I was wondering if the issue of Iceland defense agreements with the U.S. would come up at the meeting tomorrow in light of the recent decision to pull out, you know, the U.S. forces from the Keflavik navy base. And if you could talk a little bit about how the U.S. Government sort of sees this issue go forward in light of there are still ongoing talks between the governments and the decision has obviously been made to continue it on the basis on the treaty.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: I’m so glad you’re staying. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I thought so. From 1951. Thank you very much.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: We very much support the bilateral defense alliance between the United States and Iceland, the treaty that you mentioned, and we very much value Iceland’s contribution as a NATO member. We need – we have been discussing with the Government of Iceland ways in which we can realize our mutual obligations under our treaty in a very new and very different strategic situation. These talks have been going rather well. I don’t want to get into the details because we’re not quite there yet, but they have been going very well. They have been marked by a real understanding on both sides of each side’s interest in a new strategic context. I frankly think they’re going to be quite successful. And we, as I said, value the contributions Iceland has made and value our alliance with them.
QUESTION: Do you see an end to it, though?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: An end?
QUESTION: Do you see a date where it would end?
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I see that the discussions are going very quickly toward a successful conclusion, but it is as danger – it is both dangerous and futile to start giving dates when discussions are still going. But I’m very confident that these will reach a successful end.
Thank you.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: Thanks. See ya. See you tomorrow.
QUESTION: I wonder how serious the Administration views the pullout of Pakistani troops from Waziristan in terms of the war on terror in general. Okay, that and also the situation in Afghanistan.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the last part of the question. How seriously we view --
QUESTION: The fact that the troops have been pulled out from Waziristan means that it’s easier to cross the border into Afghanistan for Pakistani fighters which are in the south.
SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL ONE: You know, I think the situation in Pakistan will be the subject of conversations bilaterally when President Musharraf is in Washington, so I’m going to stay off of that one. Obviously from our point of view, when Afghans and Pakistanis talk to each other at senior levels, when we all talk together at senior levels about these issues, we stand the best chance of working on them together. And our interests are the same, obviously, which is to make both sides of the border safe and prosperous places to live.
Thanks.
# # #
