NATO Response Force is the spearhead of NATO

 

In his opening remarks at the monthly press conference on 4 November, Secretary General Rassmusen strongly condemned the attacks on Kosovan polling stations in north Mitrovica. He said that KFOR deployed a quick reaction force and reserve units to the area to ensure freedom of movement on the routes through which the election ballots travelled to the counting centre.

 

He then talked about going to Latvia and Poland to observe Exercise Steadfast Jazz which he called ‘the graduation test’ for the commanders and headquarters of the 2014 NATO Response Force. He added:

 

 

He welcomed the participation of three valued partners, Finland, Sweden, and Ukraine in addition to the support that Poland and the three Baltic States were giving. He added that more than 6,000 soldiers from NATO countries and several partner countries were participating in the exercise which involved major land, sea and air assets, and included a live fire demonstration. Command and control exercises will involve several NATO bases throughout Europe and be tested behind computer screens in a tented camp located in Latvia. The objectives are:

 

1. To ensure Alliance and partner nation troops are ready and able to work together whenever they go into action.

 

2. To demonstrate NATO’s commitment to its core mission - to safeguard security right across the Alliance.

 

3. To build the NATO of the future with the experience and the equipment to work together, and with partners, on any battlefield, in any environment, as a single, united force.

 

The Secretary General said that “this is exactly the goal of the Connected Forces Initiative”, adding that Defence Ministers recently decided to support an enhanced exercise programme with a broader training concept and more technological support. He concluded that: “The NATO Response Force, with its regular series of exercises, will be at the centre of this initiative…….and major exercises like Steadfast Jazz are key to shap[ing] the NATO of the future.”  

 

There follows the edited highlights of the Q&A session.

 

Q1. Teri Schultz, NPR:  General Dunford says that progress in Afghanistan is still not sustainable and two NATO tankers were torched in Pakistan today as a result, apparently, of increased US-Pakistani tensions. Do you have concerns that this situation between the United States and Pakistan is going to complicate NATO's downsizing and its on-going operations?

 

A1. Secretary General:  I think there is a broad agreement that the Afghan Security Forces have made strong progress and that they will be able to take full responsibility for security by the end of 2014. That's the essence of General Dunford’s briefing. I don't have detailed information about recent incidents in Pakistan, and I'm definitely not going to guess about motives, but I feel confident that the Pakistani authorities will do all they can to secure transit through Pakistan because at the end of the day that's also in Pakistan's own interest.

 

Q2. Nawab Khan from the Kuwait News Agency: The drone strike last week in Pakistan killed the Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud. Following that several Pakistani politicians have called for a stop to the NATO supply route going to Afghanistan. So are you concerned that this might happen? Generally, what is NATO's view on the drone strikes? Do you think it is contributing to restore stability and peace, or creating more resentment among the population?

 

A2. Secretary General: I feel confident that the Pakistani authorities will maintain open supply routes and transit routes because it is in Pakistan's own interest to contribute positively to stability and security in the region. I have no comment on specific reports on drone strikes but the security of Afghanistan and Pakistan is interlinked.

 

Q3. Agence Europe, Europe Diplomacy & Defence: A few days ago the Russian president decided to dissolve the Russian interagency working group on missile defence cooperation with NATO and he also eliminated the special envoy position to NATO on this subject. Do you think it puts an end to the structural dialogue between NATO and Russia on missile defence? Could you remind us what was the latest proposition from NATO to break the ice on this matter?

 

A3. Secretary General: I have no comment on the internal Russian organization or the interagency organization of missile defence deliberations. Our NATO-Russia structures are not impacted by internal Russian decisions on interagency structures. I envisage a dialogue on missile defence to continue within that framework. Having said that, there's no reason to hide that we do not yet agree on missile defence. We have suggested the establishment of two jointly-staffed missile defence centres which could constitute a framework for exchange of data, preparation of joint exercises and the elaboration of joint threat analysis.

 

Q4. NHK Japan Broadcasting: The Pakistan government has been critical about the killing of the Taliban leader because it might backfire the negotiating process. What do you think of the impact of this killing of the Pakistan Taliban leader in your effort in Afghanistan?   

A4. Secretary General: I don't have any comments on these concrete reports. I do believe that there is a growing awareness in the region of the need to engage constructively with each other, with the aim to ensure long-term peace and stability. And stability along the western Pakistani border is definitely in Pakistan's self-interest.

 

Q5. Thomas Lauritzen from the Danish Newspaper Politiken: What's your response to Russian criticism of Steadfast Jazz taking place so close to their borders?

 

A5. Secretary General: Steadfast Jazz is not an exercise directed against Russia. It's a NATO exercise with the aim to test the NATO Response Force and test our ability to work together. We have provided full transparency. We have invited Russian observers to have a look at the exercise

 

Q6. Brooks Tigner, Jane's Defence: The fact that Russia has eliminated all interagency cooperation on missile defence is significant and suggests that Russia's is moving away from NATO on this issue. And yet at the same time, the two sides have just finished their technology demonstrator STANDEX to guard against IED attacks in urban environments. How do you explain the contradictory trends? Have the Allies agreed on the future budgetary resources needed to carry out those five CFI-connected forces aspects that you described?

 

A6. Secretary General: We do know that we are faced with huge challenges when it comes to missile defence. We still have our disputes but I hope the dialogue will continue. We are still working on the Connected Forces Initiative and resources in the run-up to the NATO Summit in 2014.

 

Q7. Adrian Croft, Reuters: After the NATO-Russia Council you raised the possibility that NATO and/or Russia could help eliminate serious chemical weapons. I wonder if there'd been any developments in that area? Has the Kosovo election violence changed the timetable for downsizing KFOR force levels in the future?

 

A7. Secretary General: I think I answered that if there were to be a request from the United Nations to assist OPCW in carrying out the important task to eliminate chemical weapons in Syria, that members of the NATO-Russia Council will consider it. But we haven't received such a request. We have no intention to reduce the KFOR presence for the time being.

 

Q8. Gérard Gaudin, Belgium News Agency: What was the initial Russian answer to the NATO proposal to establish two missile defence centres?

 

A8. Secretary General: We would have expected a more positive response by now to what was initially a Russian proposal to establish two missile defence centres.

Q9: Has NATO already convinced the Turkish government not to buy the Chinese rockets?

 

A9. Secretary General: It remains a national decision to decide which military equipment to acquire. Having said that, I have also stressed that seen from an Alliance perspective, it is, of course, of utmost importance that systems acquired by Allies can work and operate together.