NATO Headquarters 3 April 2003 Audio file (.MP3/4604Kb)

Press Statement by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson: Following the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Foreign Ministers Today, the North Atlantic Council met at the suggestion of the United States to consult on the situation in Iraq, to reaffirm the crucial importance of transatlantic relations, and to emphasise the solidarity which exists among the Allies on their fundamental security issues. These are undeniably challenging times. But that makes consultation among friends and Allies more important than ever. Our discussions over lunch with NATO and European Union Ministers, and then in this afternoon’s Council, were a clear demonstration of multilaterism at work, and working. The Council discussions reconfirmed the central role of the transatlantic partnership, based on enduring shared values and common interests. All Allies recommitted themselves to fulfil their obligations under the Washington Treaty if there is any attack on Turkey. Of course, there continue to be differences among Allies over the decision to use force against Iraq. But all Ministers were looking ahead, and there was no disagreement on the need for Saddam Hussein to be disarmed. There was also general agreement that the conflict should be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible, that civilian casualties should be minimised, and that aid should be delivered to the people of Iraq as a matter of urgency. In our discussion on post-conflict Iraq, there was agreement that the United Nations, and other international organisations, must play their part. The issue of whether and how NATO might contribute to this effort will need to be considered carefully, including in the light of decisions taken by the United Nations. Some nations strongly favour some kind of NATO role; none exclude it. In our wider discussions, there was strong support for moving ahead quickly with NATO’s Prague agenda, and for a significantly increased NATO role in support of the International Security and Assistance Force in Kabul. No decisions were taken on this or any other issue at the meeting. None were expected. None were sought. This was an occasion for political consultation with the critical people at a critical time. Today’s discussions were frank and direct but they were always balanced, calm and without acrimony. But that consultation has demonstrated that the Alliance is in fundamentally good shape. We are now determined to work together for the good of the whole international community. Yves Brodeur, NATO Spokesman: First question there. Please identify yourself. Q: Právo Daily Newspaper, the Czech Republic. Secretary General, were there any concrete ideas on how NATO could help the security situation in post-war Iraq? Lord Robertson: It was regarded as premature to be dealing with the details of how NATO might find a role, but there are some ideas that have been tabled and clearly there may well be more to come. But the fact is that although there was no opposition to a NATO role expressed during this afternoon's meeting, most people still think that the whole issue of how the United Nations is involved is yet to be resolved and we must wait the outcome of that. Yves Brodeur: Gentleman in the first row here. Q: Robert Van de Roer, NRC Handelsblad: Secretary General, you sound optimistic as ever... as usual. Are you giving us the impression, or are you trying to give us the impression that there is no transatlantic rift anymore? Lord Robertson: Well I'm always optimistic, but I'm not stupid. And of course there are differences and there have been differences. But there have been differences in the past. And what I saw today, and I think you'll find the same sense from the ministers who give individual interviews, there was a sense of consensus developing about the future. That leaves me optimistic. But you can have differences, and indeed there have been differences in the past in an Alliance which at the moment has 19 democracies as part of it, and differences of opinion are healthy in democratic organizations. But of course, it's been a difficult period to go through, but I believe that today's meeting shows that we are through the worst, and that developing consensus about the future is not put on simply for the occasion. It's real and it's important and the future agenda unites the countries much more than they were divided over one particular issue. Yves Brodeur: Before we continue, may I ask people to switch off their cell phones or put them on silent mode please. Q: Perhaps your last remark answers my question, but let me try it anyhow. Are these differences over substance or are these differences in attitude? Lord Robertson: I think the differences have been over some issues. They don't exist over the wider range of other issues. If you take the possibility of a greater role for NATO in the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul I think six months ago this would have been inconceivable. The fact is that the troops that are in Kabul are there because of the amount of assistance already given by NATO. And people are now willing to look at all the options, including a full NATO operation in Kabul, because it makes sense, because there is a security problem and because we need to have an organized and ordered way of signalling to the people in Afghanistan that the international community cares enough to be able to plan for the long term in having stabilization forces there. So there are real issues of substance that we are working on at the moment. Not least the whole problem of terrorism, which is an area where we are absolutely united and where our co-operation with Russia takes the bonding out with even the normal boundaries of NATO. Q: Frederick Bonnart, NATO's Nations. Secretary General you mentioned a developing consensus about the future. In view of the differences just now about the Iraq war and the differences expressed by different other European countries, some of whom are candidates for NATO, are you noticing any flattening, if you like, of support for some of these countries who are due to come in in the future? Lord Robertson: Absolutely not. The opposite. I think that the ratification process is already moving. Indeed, Canada ratified the protocols of accession for the seven new countries within 48 hours of the protocols being signed, and in other nations the process is moving forward readily as well. I see absolutely no spillover problem. And I re-emphasise what I've said. Today's discussions were characterized by a complete lack of acrimony and unwillingness to revisit the arguments of yesterday that have divided NATO, the European Union and the United Nations, and now to move on and to deal with some of these serious problems in a sober and sensible way. And I think people therefore are looking now to post-conflict Iraq and how all the international organizations can make sure that out of this comes a better situation in that region, and therefore a better situation for the rest of the world. Q: Secretary General, knowing very well you are not stupid, please just provide us with some detail... Lord Robertson: I'm sure we don't have to tell Der Spiegel that I'm not stupid. Q: No. Just provide us with some details why Mr. Colin Powell did come here, what it is what he wants. Lord Robertson: Mr. Powell came to consult. As one of the key allies involved in what has been a controversial move to take military action against Iraq, the American Secretary of State wanted to come and to tell what was happening in Iraq. He wanted to tell about American ideas for post-conflict Iraq. And he also came to listen to the views of the allies. And he did that. He was there for the whole of the two sessions both at lunch and then the afternoon. And in the lunch session responded to a number of the points that had been made on a wide range of issues. That is what NATO is good for. We are still the principal and the only key venue for transatlantic consultation and despite the differences that exist at the moment, we've managed again to provide that venue for discussion without acrimony on some of the biggest issues that face the world today. Q: Robin Oakley, CNN. Secretary General, when you talk about an emerging consensus on the question of the UN role in post-conflict Iraq, are you confident that that consensus extends beyond the representative of the State Department to the Pentagon as well? And on the question of any NATO role in post-conflict Iraq, given that the difficulties that there were in agreeing a pre-war assistance for Turkey, how easy would it be to get agreement within NATO on any such security role? Lord Robertson: Well on the second issue, I think that the experience that we went through in February has perhaps reminded all of the allies of just how important the organization is, how valued it is in the international community as a whole, and how necessary it is that we avoid the kind of prolonged debate and discussion that we had in February. So I think that out of that will come quicker decisions in the future, and I offer you the evidence of this accelerating discussion on a NATO role in ISAF in Afghanistan to back that up. In relation to who speaks for governments, the United States of America is not the only country that is made up of different agencies within government. That the Secretary of State of the United States of America speaks today in NATO with the authority of the United States of America behind him and I don't doubt that for a minute. Yves Brodeur: Last question please back there. Q: You talked about mighty federalism at work. Have you got a clear sign from Mr. Powell that the U.S. is prepared to refrain from further unilateralism and go back to multilateral acting? Lord Robertson: Well, you'd better ask the question of Secretary Powell, who I thinks follows me onto this stage about that. But he would dispute your view about American being unilateral. But I make the point that he came here today to consult in this multilateral forum with allies and with friends about their thoughts, their proposals, their plans, and to listen to the views that he got back and to relay them back to his government. And not only did he do that, he encouraged the idea that the informal lunch of foreign ministers would not simply be of NATO ministers, but that we would have it with the European Union, with the Commission, with the High Representatives for Foreign Security Policy and the Presidency of the European Union and the additional countries who are in the European Union, but not in NATO. I think that's a pretty significant element of evidence to suggest that the United States does believe in multilateralism, and that today was multilateralism in practice and working. Thank you very much for your attention.