News & Events

DVC Conference on NATO Summit in Riga with PDAS Kurt Volker

November 22, 2006

DVC Conference on NATO Summit in Riga with PDAS/Kurt Volker, (photo archive)

Host:  I'd like to introduce to you our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Kurt Volker. Kurt assumed his duties as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in July of 2005. He's a career member of the Foreign Service, previously he served as Acting Senior Director for European and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council. He served at the N.S.C. for four years, where he was director for NATO in Western Europe. Mr. Volker also served as Deputy Director for the Private Office of the then-NATO secretary, Secretary General Lord Robinson. Prior to that he was First Secretary of the U.S. Mission to NATO. He also served in Budapest and London. I give you Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Kurt Volker.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs:

Good morning. Thanks for taking time to do this, it's a good opportunity ahead of the Riga Summit to talk about where we are at NATO, what's going on. Let me say, I know that the issues that will be of greatest interest to you will be the NATO enlargement questions, open doors, things like that, I promise we'll spend a lot of time on that, but let me first take a few minutes to talk about what the NATO Summit, the Riga Summit is about overall. There's a long agenda -- a large agenda that the NATO (unintelligible) we should be tackling and enlargement is one part of that; I want to make sure that I give you the sense of what the overall picture is. Particularly as you're from countries that seek to be members of NATO, this will be the agenda of your countries, as you pursue the NATO membership aspirations and hopefully eventually become members of NATO this will be your agenda. So, I wanted to get through that. NATO has gone through two fundamental transformations over the last ten-fifteen years since the end of the cold war.

The first transformation is ending the division of Europe, and that is reaching out of Central and Eastern Europe, pursuing NATO enlargement, straightening freedom, democracy, market economy, stability, security and rule of law throughout a much greater part of Europe, and also dealing with conflicts in the Balkans and working with the region of the Balkans to bring that part of Europe forward as well and to see that it is also in the greatest part of mainstream Europe. That job's about done, but that's a fundamental transformation of NATO, it's two or three very important and I view it as great success. It's important for the people who live in the region, 100 million people enjoying the benefits of freedom and security, of prosperity, that they had not enjoyed before; it's also important for NATO, because NATO has emerged stronger and effective as a result of all this -- more cohesive, as a result. That job's about done, as I said.

The second major transformation is dealing with the new security threats and challenges, particularly after September 11, 2001. Already during the 90's we recognized that the threat that has been posed by the Soviet Union was gone, but it’s really become increasingly clear, particularly after September 11, what the great challenges to our security in defense of NATO members really are. Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, proliferation, failed states, dictatorship and the nexus where these come together - that presents the greatest risks that we face, and NATO has adapted to address these challenges to our security. For it is the mission of NATO, very much the same as it has always been, which is the security and defense of its members, but it has to do this in a very different security environment, one where in order to advance the security and defense of its members NATO needs to be conducting operations far from its borders, and a great variety of operations.

If you look at 1994 and 2005, which are snapshots in time, in 1994 NATO has 16 members, no partners and has never conducted a military operation. In 2005 it had 26 members, 20 partners in Eurasia, 7 in North Africa, 4 in the Persian Gulf and was conducting 8 military operations simultaneously. And that is a tremendous change in itself. If you then look at what these operations were, very high-intensity peace keeping in Afghanistan, training Iraqi security forces in Iraq, counter-terrorist operations in the Mediterranean, humanitarian relief in Pakistan and humanitarian relief at the U.S. Gulf coast, transporting African Union soldiers at Darfur and continuing with the traditional peace-keeping missions that NATO has been engaged in Kosovo and also in Bosnia. That's a great variety in terms of geography, of where NATO is engaged in order to deal with the challenges it faces, it's great variety in terms of the types of missions, therefore it poses certain requirements on the nature of the Alliance, and that's the nature of the forces and the capacities that it needs to develop, and that is what leaders will be talking about when they meet in Riga -- they will be talking about how to make sure you have a strong and effective Alliance in the future that can carry the tasks forward.

So, first off, Afghanistan, because NATO had taken on the ISAF mission and expanded its presence throughout the entire country, we need to make sure that we're dedicating the forces necessary and we're providing the flexible use of our forces so that we can succeed in Afghanistan, then we'll also see that 15 Allies have decided to invest in air lines, buying C-17 aircraft to help transport equipment and troops to these operation far fields, we're creating a Special Operation Forces Coordination Center to get better synergy out of our special operation forces, we hope to add a NATO response force which was launched at the Prague Summit in 2002, we hope to have that up and running and in a full operational capability, so we'll see an Alliance where the unity of what we're trying to accomplish in the world in addressing these 21st century challenges, a determination that we will use NATO for those purposes, and a determination to invest in NATO so that it is a strong and effective Alliance for the future. One of the things that we have discovered in the geography of NATO's operations is that we're working together with countries around the world that we had not worked with as much before. Countries like Australia, or Japan, or New Zealand, South Korea are capable of contributing to NATO operations and, in fact, many have done so.  But we have no means of working together with them at NATO apart from troop-contributor meetings. 

So, we want to make sure that we launch a global partnership at NATO, one where we have flexibility for NATO to sit down and meet with whoever the right partners to be with for a given issue or an area where NATO might be engaged; it could be regional plans, for instance, countries around Afghanistan who might have an interest in working together with NATO to support stability and security in Afghanistan, it might be security contributors such as Japan and Australia or others who might have an interest in an issue where NATO is contemplating an operation but has not yet done anything at this point. So, have some flexibility to use our partnership tools and to open up the dialogue with a group of countries that can be tailored to the issue at hand. So that's the idea of global partnership. That is principally what the Summit is meant to achieve and what it's about.

But there is an important issue which I know – (unintelligible) - which is NATO enlargement and the open door, and let me say how I expect that to be addressed at Riga. I think, first off again, all of us within NATO, all the allies, we want to reaffirm that NATO enlargement has been a historic success for NATO, has been tremendously important process, and that's one that should continue. The door to membership remains open, and it's up to the countries themselves to do the work necessary, the reforms necessary, to walk through that door.

Second, I do not anticipate any decisions being made in 2006 at the Riga Summit about enlargement. However, I would expect that NATO will send a signal - a very strong, positive signal - that we hope to take decisions, so we intend -- let me rephrase that -- that we intend to invite those countries who meet NATO's performance safe expectations for membership, when we next meet at a summit level in 2008. So I would expect NATO to be taking decisions along those lines, to say that it intends to invite these countries in 2008.

I also anticipate that, for those countries that are in the Membership Action Plan, which are the three that we've gathered today, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, we'll also see some individual appraisal, a mention of your country's aspiration, a recognition that a lot of work has been done, a lot of achievements have been made, and that more work needs to be done; and that's in political reforms, democratic, reforms to institutions, judiciary, economic reform, defense reform, defense spending, public support, there's a wide range of things that your countries are working on that are very important and where work needs to be done, and I think NATO will give recognition both to some of the accomplishments and an encouragement to keep going as we work towards the summit in 2008. I will stop there to have an overview of the Summit and an overview of where do things stand, and be happy to take questions, I'm told that we're going to try to do this in turn and I guess it will be just one from each country and we keep cycling through a few times and I guess we're going to go to Albania first.

Albanian journalist: Yes, good afternoon, sir. The first question is from the Gazeta Sqiptare daily here, and are Croatia and Macedonia closer to NATO than (unintelligible) Albania in terms of political, economic and military reforms?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs:

I would say that Croatia has certainly done a very good job working through a lot of reforms, political, economic, defense reform and so on, when Prime Minister Sanader visited the United States a month or so ago and met with President Bush, and the President said that we support Croatia's membership in NATO and we'll advocate that (unintelligible) at the Riga summit, and that decisions on this will be made in 2008, so there's time ahead and work to be done. We think that there's still work that Croatia should do to continue to advance, the reforms that it has set in motion, we have every belief that it will do so, we have very positive estimation of Croatia. We all have a very positive estimation of Macedonia and Albania, and feel that they have also made great deal of progress, but as with Croatia we'd also say there's more work to be done. And, for all of the countries, it requires consensus of NATO, nations have to agree on any invitation, and that has not happened yet, we will be driving towards decisions of that kind in 2008, and so in the time ahead we would urge all three countries to do all the work necessary to present the strongest candidacies possible.

Albanian journalist: Thank you.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Where do we go now, Croatia?

Croatian journalist: Yes. Hello from Croatia. Actually, I wanted to ask you the question which you just answered, and this was (unintelligible). Actually, I do have another question, of course. I mean, do you expect more troops and more engagement from Croatia in those two year's time before we receive the invitation from the next summit. Do you think Croatia should change its constitution in a way that the government is more able to bring decisions in a more efficient way?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Yes.

Croatian journalist: Thank you very much.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Ok, let me take on that question and maybe address it to all three again too because that's an important question. The first thing I think is important to stress is to remind that NATO is a political and a military alliance. It is a means for advancing the security and defense of all its members. Part of that, then, of course the expectation of members of NATO, as members of NATO, is that they would contribute to operations that NATO takes on, such as Afghanistan, such as the training mission Iraq, such as Darfur or the Mediterranean, that's what the Alliance is about, we all contribute together, and on basis of solidarity and shared commitment to the security and defense. For countries that are seeking to join NATO, we very much value the contributions that are being made which demonstrate that, as countries that are not yet members but hope to be members, that they, too, are willing to share in the -- sharing the responsibilities, contribute forces to the efforts of the Alliance, and that's very important. All three of your countries are doing exactly that. And it's very important, the contributions are real, they're valuable, and they demonstrate your resolve, your desire, to be part of this community, that is, the trans-Atlantic community of NATO, working together on security and defense.

As you are probably aware, SACEUR, the Supreme Allied Commander, has responsibility for the NATO operations. He sets down the joint statement of requirement for the forces necessary, he conducts the force generation conferences to solicit the forces, to see whether countries contribute. There are some shortfalls, and we welcome all contributions. We are working with our current allies and we would welcome further contributions from prospective allies as well to help NATO achieve the missions that it has set out. So, I think, further contributions would also be welcome.

Coming to the constitution, as a member of NATO, countries take on obligations, they take on obligations as a of matter of Article 5 on collective defense, they also take on political obligations to support NATO's operations, we agree on things by consensus, and expectation is that once the mission is agreed that we all take part to support it. Every country has different national procedures for how to implement those commitments, how it wants to make forces available in order to do that. Many countries have found that they needed to amend their constitutions in order to facilitate just that kind of natural participation in Alliance missions and activities. Not all countries have done it, but some have. An example is Hungary, which after joining NATO found that its procedures for committing forces to NATO operations were too cumbersome and unreliable for it to participate effectively as an ally and did in fact amend the constitution. I am not an expert in the Croatian constitution although I've heard of this issue, I think it's something the people of Croatia would want to look at because if Croatia's serious about being a member of NATO, it wants to make sure that it's able to participate effectively in carrying out the missions that it agreed to as a members of NATO.

Let's hear from Macedonia.

Macedonian journalist: Hi Mr. Volker, this is question from Utrinski Vesnik. United States was the biggest supporter of Macedonian membership in NATO, but still you are the first to say that we are not prepared for that. Is it possible something like that to happen again, and...

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (overlapping): Yes.

Macedonian journalist (cont.): ...what will be recommended for Macedonia in Riga.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs:

Ok, I didn't quite (unintelligible) I didn't quite hear the exact question, but one of them was stating that Macedonia is not prepared, and that always -- the second part?

Macedonian journalist: What should be recommended in Riga for Macedonia.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: 

Right.

First, concerning prepared and unprepared.

NATO did an enlargement study in 1995 and this was a preparation for the first round of NATO enlargement at the end of the cold war, which brought in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. One of the things that the enlargement study said is that countries need to be like NATO members, they need to have democratic societies, and presumably for them to develop that they need to have (unintelligible) operable, they need to be prepared to contribute to Alliance security, and it also said that NATO needs to be ready to take in members and those countries need to be ready to become members.

Since then we've developed the Membership Action Plan and your countries have been in this for some time, we've gotten more specific about the sort of things that we would hope that countries aspiring to NATO would do, that would be a factor in the evaluation that NATO would make, and NATO would judge whether they feel a country is ready to be a member of NATO based on its performance in a large range of areas; so, we've developed (unintelligible) a short-hand of saying NATO's performance-based requirements and NATO's performance-based standards; and the performance basis meaning that countries have implemented effective democratic reforms, economic reforms, worked on cleaning up judiciary and crime and corruption, defense reforms, keeping defense spending at an adequate level to be able to contribute to NATO operations, high public support for NATO membership so that there would be a sense of certainty or surety that the actions that any government would be required to take as a member of NATO would enjoy (unintelligible) and popular support -- so a number of things -- status reports and agreements, legal issues, protection of classified information, you can go on and on and on; that the range of things -- and the things that we've been dealing with each of your countries on, through NATO and bilaterally, and they're all listed in the Membership Action Plan documents that your country has prepared, we've been working through them.

There will never be a point when a country is perfect. The United States in not perfect, Germany is not perfect, no country is perfect. There are always things that can be done better. And the effort is to try to work hard through these issues as best a country can, and to do it together, to do it with support from the U.S., support from the other allies, and when I say that countries are not ready, what I mean by that is that if NATO were to take a decision today, we can't be sure that it would be a favorable decision, and therefore we need to just to keep doing the work, to keep demonstrating the deepening of democratic institutions and reforms in your countries, to keep improving the interoperability, to keep showing and demonstrating the commitment that your countries have to our common security.

And then what we're trying to do, is on the NATO side, to sharpen the process; so instead of this just being open-ended, say ‘well some day, maybe, somehow’, we've tried to drive towards a decision point and say let's start coming to closure, let's pick 2008 when we'll have our next summit meeting after Riga, as the time when we should be making invitations, we should bring this process to closure.

And so what we're hoping to do is by working with your countries and the work that you're doing on reforms, and working within NATO to build consensus for the next round of enlargement, to have those come together in 2008. So I say that countries are not prepared in the sense that more work needs to be done, I also say NATO is not prepared now to take in new members, but we have an opportunity in the next 18 months or so to drive the process and try to get to a point where we have a success, where we have invitation for as many countries who meet NATO's standards as possible.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Would you like to follow that up on Macedonia?

Macedonian journalist: I just wanted to remind you that the last time when you spoke about NATO membership of Macedonia, you were the first who said that Macedonia is not prepared. My question was whether it is possible something like that to happen again.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Well I think I may have been the first person that people listened to. Because I don't think I was the first person to say it. Normally, I would be the last person to say it and I think until the point when the NATO allies sit around the table and reach a decision by consensus to issue an invitations, every country that is seeking a membership should be doing everything it can to become as prepared as possible.

Ok, let me add one further point to that, too, because I think one of the things that happened, if I remember, is that a lot of expectations have been built up that NATO would issue invitations in 2006. And those were never realistic expectations, that was not where NATO's thinking was, it’s not where the consensus of NATO lay, and I think it may have come as a surprise in Macedonia that that was not where things were. But it was certainly -- it was never part of the thinking in Washington or in the European capitals of NATO that we would be issuing invitations this year, that there's more work yet to be done. But that's it, we've worked very hard to actually view the time positively, that is to say, it’s not a negative message to say that there will be no invitations in 2006. It's a positive message to say that we're working very hard to bring these processes together so that they converge in 2008. The reforms that your countries are carrying out and building a consensus within NATO for further enlargement and we hope to have invitations issued at that time. Should we go back to Albania?

Albanian journalist: It has been repeated many times that non-military reforms are just as important as the military ones when it comes to assessing a country on whether it's ready to join NATO or not. You're probably aware that Albania is about to have local elections in a few weeks. If some of the elections are contested, or are in a way found not to meet international standards, do you think its integration into NATO will become more difficult?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Well, the conduct of free and fair elections is a very important consideration for NATO allies looking at whether a country is ready to be a member of NATO. We hold very strongly to the idea that democratic institutions, market economy, defense reforms and so on are very important and, as you say, Albania has made important contributions in areas of security, and some things in defense reform, but democratic elections that are free and fair, successful, are very, very important. So, I can't tell you today what NATO leaders will decide in 2008, but I can say that the conduct of free and fair elections is extremely important and would urge that they be held in Albania in as free and fair manner as possible. Shall we go to Croatia?

Croatian journalist: I would like to ask you something about the transformation itself. NATO had very serious problems in the case of Iraq. We had a clear transatlantic division, and everybody agrees that, for instance on the Middle East case, that NATO allies were not in the position to have the same opinion on the situation there. Given that, do you think that the future of NATO is more in a coalition of the willing or it would be still driven by consensus system?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs:

Well, there are few parts to your question. The first part is that you were right to say that there were divisions within Europe and divisions between the U.S. and some European countries over Iraq, and that limited what we were able to decide within NATO by consensus, so that what NATO was able to agree (beeping)  what NATO was able to agree by consensus was our training mission for Iraqi security forces, so NATO did not take on a direct security role, but it did take on a training mission of Iraqi security forces. One second I'll alert -- it’s up here. I think we lost the connection with one of the locations.

Voice: I'm calling them back now. It’s all right.

Answering machine: You have reached the American Embassy in Tirana, Albania.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: We're back on, thanks for that.

Just to pick up again. So, NATO agreed by consensus somewhere in 2004 to launch a training mission to train Iraqi security forces, we have maintained and expanded that mission a little bit over the past few years, that will continue, and there's very much a consensus on policy within NATO on Iraq. That is to say that we want to see an Iraq that is democratic, stable, secure, that has its own -- has its territorial integrity intact, that is at peace with its neighbors, that brings in all of the different ethnic or religious groups and the unified country. That's the objective, the shared objective. What NATO's role is in that is limited to the training mission, and it is the Iraqi government that has principal responsibilities for security in its country, and the coalition is there, MNF-I is helping them to the best of its ability. Now that is Iraq.

When you look at all the other issues, of course NATO reaches all decisions by consensus, and we've seen a tremendous increase in the number of missions and the role that NATO's playing to deal with some of the global challenges that we face at the beginning of the 21st century, whether that's Afghanistan or Active Endeavor in the Mediterranean, or Darfur and so on. So, that works pretty well and I foresee no change whatsoever to the idea that NATO makes decisions by consensus. I think that that is an important principle of the way NATO works, when we talk about security and defense issues there's really no other way for a country's interest to be obligated except by that country itself making a decision, and that's why the (unintelligible) is based on its consensus principle. I don't see any change in that, and nor am much concerned about that, because when you have an alliance that's based on shared values - freedom, democracy, market economy, rule of law, human rights - we look at issues much in the same way, we face the same challenges and we have a desire to deal with those together. And that's what NATO does so well. I don't think that the requirement to reach consensus 26 is a burden in that sense, because it is (unintelligible) easy within a community of shared values in that way. So, the NATO consensus rule will stay in place, in our view, and NATO will continue to be strong and effective and engaged in many places in the world.

Do you have a follow-up on that? Ok. Shall we go back to Macedonia?

Macedonian journalist: Good morning, mister Volker. My question is about the name. Is it possible Greece will block the accession of Macedonia in NATO, since the government in Athens a few times threatened to do it if the solution for the name is not found. And the second part of the same question about the name is can we expect U.S.A. to follow the practice of Turkey, and in all official documents of NATO to be mentioned that U.S. recognize the constitutional name of Macedonia. Thank you.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs:

Ok, the first one is that NATO does make decisions by consensus; that means that every member of NATO needs to agree that a country would be issued an invitation for NATO membership. So that includes the U.S., that includes Greece, that includes every existing member. That's the first part.

The second part, it's my understanding, is that Greece had agreed in 1995 not to block Macedonia's participation in international organizations simply because of the name issue. So that's a matter of Greek policy, it's not U.S. policy, but that's my understanding.

Third, concerning the U.S. division, as you know, we have decided on bilateral basis to refer to Macedonia by its constitutional name, Republic of Macedonia, and we say so without any hesitation. We have chosen not to make that an issue in international or multilateral organizations, and chosen not to pursue the route of a footnote in NATO documents. But that said, we're on bilateral basis and in our use of the term we freely refer to Macedonia by its constitutional name.

Macedonian journalist: Can I follow-up?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Ok, yes.

Macedonian journalist: So, you want to say that Greece can not block our accession in NATO?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: No, you want to say that. (laughs) -- What I said -- (laughs) -- what I said is that every country needs to reach agreement by consensus, all 26 allies need to agree on the invitation of any country to become a NATO member. And that is true, and that applies to the United States, it applies to Greece, it applies to anyone, and it can be for any of the reasons that we talk about as to, you know, is the country ready for EU membership, democracy, rule of law, defense reforms and so on. So, it is possible that any country that's a member of NATO would not agree on any other country's joining NATO and so certainly that is a possibility. At the same time, I took note of my understanding, that in 1995 there's an interim accord where Greece had agreed not to object to Macedonia's application for membership in international organizations based solely on the name issue. That's not an American policy, that's Greek policy, and I'd have to let the Greek speak for themselves about their own position. But that is our understanding of something that was said in 1995 and we think it's sensible. And that's what we would expect. Now -- well that's yes -- that I think answers your question again.

Macedonian journalist: Thank you.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs:

All right, thank you. Anything from where are we now, we're in Macedonia, we go back to Albania, are you there?

Albanian journalist: Yes, we're here.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: All right.

Albanian journalist: We have two questions.

The first one is the current situation in the Balkans considered fragile in terms of given that Kosovo status has not been determined yet. Is that a serious impediment, you think, or does it have anything to do with the non-accession soon of Western Balkans countries, and particularly Albania’s non-accession.

And the second question is what will be -- once Albania becomes a member of NATO -- what are its obligations going to be?
 
Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs:

 Ok. 

First off, let me take your first question and express it more in the way that we're looking at it. We haven't been talking about the region being fragile, I wouldn't say that. What I'd say is the region is on the edge of a great opportunity. We've spent the last 10 years engaged in the Balkans, we had warfare and ethnic cleansing, very, very serious problems among ethnic groups in various places, whether it was Kosovo or Bosnia or the Serb-Croat war and things like that. There's already been a tremendous amount of progress made in the Balkans to turn away from that path and to turn toward a path that is democratic, market economy, secure, powered, respectful of the rights of different ethnic groups and working toward European integration. There's been a remarkable progress in 10 years in the Balkans on that. 

We're at a point now when we're seeing the region take many steps forward. We have Bulgaria and Romania that are already members of NATO, and they'll be joining the EU on January 1. We have your three countries, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, that are in the Membership Action Plan, and are strong candidates for membership when NATO takes the decision in 2008. We have countries like Bosnia and Montenegro that are seeking membership in the Partnership for Peace and we believe that that eventually will take place. We have Kosovo, which is now stable, and where we have the UN process in place to define the final status for Kosovo over the next several months, and that will (??) churn a way forward for Kosovo. We think that's an opportunity there as well. So, it is important that we get this right, it is important that we avoid a step backward, but we are poised in a very positive way, to take the whole region forward, to see the whole region come forward in the next few years and I think that's a great opportunity that we all should try to seize on. And I think that's the view not only of the U.S. but also of the members of the Contact Group and the other NATO allies, that we see opportunities in the region. I think it's a view shared by the European Union as well, which is obviously deeply engaged in all of these countries. 

So that's the way I would address your first question. And so far as how it relates to accession, I see a positive dynamic at work. I see work that your countries have done to present strong candidacies for NATO membership, and I see that process continuing, and NATO will be making decisions on that in 2008, issuing some invitations, I see the developments in Kosovo moving forward in the final status, and there's a real movement of the whole region. 

In terms of obligations, well the principal obligation when a country joins NATO is to say that it accepts the NATO Treaty. NATO Treaty has 10 articles -- I may take that back, I think it has more than 10 articles, it might be 11, so scratch the number -- Article 5 is the Collective Defense Guarantee, that is essentially to say that we are sharing a common security and defense phase and we all need to work together, as (unintelligible) member we can solve -- we take action. Article 4 talks about consultation among allies on security and defense issues that we care about, and of course in the practice developed over 57 years NATO has worked to deal with a lot of issues, and the expectation is that Albania would be a contributor, as a member of NATO, to operations that NATO takes on, and NATO would work within NATO with the other allies to reach consensus so that we can forge common security policies, common defense policies, common action and operations within NATO, and essentially that Albania would be a strong and reliable contributing ally. That's what Albania is taking on by becoming a member of NATO.

Do we go to Croatia?

Croatian journalist: Hello from Croatia. This is for Croatia Radio. One question about the agenda in Riga. The Afghanistan will be certainly in the focus and the mission of NATO in Afghanistan. Croatia soldiers are doing very important job there, but recently Croatian public was worried because of transferring some Croatian military structures from north to south Kandahar and it was covered in Croatian media. On the other hand, Secretary General is already before Riga asking for European member countries to leave the  national (unintelligible) and restrictions that some of these member countries have for deployment of their troops. What is your opinion, how is that going to be solved, because that affects in finalizing on the security of Croatian soldiers, too.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs:

Right. Well, first off, let's take a step back and remember why all of us are contributing in Afghanistan. We're trying to help the people of Afghanistan build a strong, stable, democratic, secure country where they can have reconstruction, development, build better lives for their people.

Before NATO's involvement in Afghanistan, before the coalition involvement in 2001, no girls, zero girls could go to school because it was against the law. Now there are 2 million in schools, 6 million children overall back in school. The Taliban had imposed a draconian medieval regime, women were being stoned to death, they were destroying UN historical -- UN heritage sites monuments in Bamyan, they had banned the music, this was a regime that was working hand in hand with Al-Qaeda, that was training terrorists and exporting this radical ideology that distorts Islam around the world. It's where training was conducted for the people who attacked the United States September 11, 2001, and also for other attacks that have taken place since then. So, we're there to try and help the Afghan people build a better state, a better society. They want us there, we're there under a UN mandate, they (unintelligible) request to the government. We're there to do a job, and it's a difficult job, there are elements of the Taliban that still exist, there are elements of Al-Qaeda that still exist, and they're fighting hard, they're violent people and they're trying to prevent the Afghan people from establishing this kind of society. So we're there to help. In order to be there to help, we need to take on missions that fight the Taliban in their strongholds, that fight Al-Qaeda and provide a basis of security so that people can have a sense of peace and stability, and know that, you know, the Taliban is not coming right back again.

The NATO mission is designed to do that, SACEUR has defined a statement of requirements that needs to be met, that he's asked the countries to provide their forces on the basis of solidarity; that all allies agree on the mission, so as we make forces available, we need to all pull together to do what's necessary to help the mission succeed. The military commander on the ground has got to have the flexibility to deploy the forces at his disposal as he needs to do to ensure the success of the mission. So we very much support the Supreme Allied Commander, we support the Secretary General, and say that caveats should be lifted. That is the basis of how we and the allies, working together, support the mission that we've all agreed on and help the Afghan people. 

Now I understand, we all understand that there are domestic politics in all of our countries, we all worry about challenges and risks, but that's part of the nature of being in the alliance too, it's that we need to recognize the challenges that we each have at home, respect each other, but also do everything we can to work together on the basis of solidarity to support the operations that we've agreed on. What we're seeing in NATO now is countries like Denmark, Netherlands, the UK, non-NATO countries like Australia, Canada, Estonia, they've decided to take on some of the harder missions and they're forcing them and they're fighting and some of them are taking casualties; and there are other allies that have chosen to impose limits on the geographic placement of their forces or the role their forces were taken on, and this is creating a bit of a tension between those allies that are fighting and those allies that are not, and it's part of the reason for the Secretary General to call (unintelligible), we're all in this together, we should all look at what we can do to increase the flexibility and the use of our forces, support the military commanders on the ground, support the missions, support each other as allies.

So that's how we're looking at that, and I think as Croatia looks at this currently, as a contributor in Afghanistan, and as it looks in the future it will have to think about exactly those kinds of issues. We value all the contributions in Afghanistan, we need forces in the north as well, but it's important that we do so - we have forces there but we all work together to support each other even in the hardest missions.

Do you want a follow-up from Croatia?

Croatian journalist: Maybe just to, one more part to the other request of since there are general issues that NATO in Afghanistan has to increase the cooperation it's civil and NGO organizations in order to achieve more in nation building. You have agreed with that?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Yes, yes we do. That's --one of the things I think Afghanistan is a terrific example demonstrating is the need for close coordination between military and civilian personnel in an operation, so that we provide security and the civilian side they provide means of development and support for civilians of political structures in a country. And they go hand in hand. Providing security with no development won't last. Providing development without security won't work. So, we have to get them both together, we have to have close coordination among them. What we are hoping that NATO will agree is not only that we do this currently in Afghanistan, but that as a matter of practice and planning at NATO, we plan all this for the future, that NATO considers future operations that are dealing with future crisis, is able to do planning together with civilian entities or organizations so that we can proceed in a more coordinated way.

To Macedonia.

Macedonian journalist: President Bush clearly pointed out that Croatia can become member of NATO in 2008. What are the current differences of Croatia with other two countries from Adriatic group that put her in such a favorable position, and the second part of my question is can you precisely tell us what Macedonia missing to be treated like Croatia, what are the imperative reforms that Macedonia have to make to join NATO in 2008?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Right. The issues that NATO would take into consideration, that the United States would take into consideration for any country's membership in NATO are the same. So, we look at democratic institutions, democratic reforms, crime and corruption, judiciary, economic reform, solving past conflicts, territorial disputes, inter-ethnic relations, defense reform, defense spending, interoperability, public support for NATO membership, contributions in security operations and activities together with NATO, all of these things count.

Croatia has done a lot of work on this, as has Macedonia, as has Albania, everyone has done a lot. When President Bush met with Prime Minister Sanader, the President said we really do appreciate how much Croatia has done and that we believe that they should be given an invitation in 2008, and we'll support that. That doesn't mean that all the work is already done, and we encourage Croatia to continue on the path of implementing the reforms it has to put in place, we're confident that it will, but we want to continue to encourage that. The statements the President made about Croatia, I would take as positive statements about Croatia, that are positive indication about our views on the enlargement processes overall, and I hope they would provide encouragement in Macedonia and Albania as well, and that we will continue to work with Albania, with Macedonia, to help you successfully carry forward the reforms that your countries have set in motion, and equally hope to see you in a position where you also receive invitations in 2008. And it's not our decision whether Croatia receives such an invitation, that's got to be a NATO decision. President Bush has made the U.S. position clear, but it will take a NATO consensus to bring that forward in 2008, and the same is true for Albania and Macedonia, it will take a NATO consensus, and we look very much to working with you over the next 18 months or so to help you present the strongest possible candidacy so that you can also receive such an invitation.

Macedonian journalist: For...

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Yes.

Macedonian journalist: You didn't answer to me really what's Macedonia missing exactly to be treated like Croatia from United States of America?

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Right. I would say this. Looking now that long list of issues I ticked off, I think it's important that Macedonia works hard in all of these, I would in Macedonia point to judiciary and crime and corruption in particular as areas that I think are important, but I would say that all of them are important and we will be working together with Macedonia to support your efforts to deal with all of these issues. I'll leave it there.

Ok, I think we've run out of time as well, we planned on 11:30 here, in Washington, which I guess is about 7 hours or 8 your time, is there a final quick question? Ok.

Albanian journalist: I have a question from Albania.

Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Ok, one quick one.

Albanian journalist: Ok, the other question is do you see Kosovo some day as a NATO member?
Kurt Volker, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: Well,  the answer to that question is the answer to NATO's enlargement process overall, which is, first, I should say, first off, Kosovo needs to achieve a final status, and we have to see how that plays out, that's the first step; but then NATO is an alliance that believes in open-door policy and enlargement, and that democratic states within Europe that share the same values and that want to contribute to common security are eligible for consideration for NATO membership. It is the matter of those states choosing whether or not they wish to become members of NATO, and we work very closely with Finland and Sweden, for example, who have chosen not to become members of NATO, or at least that's their position to this day, and we are open to working with countries like Georgia and Ukraine who have expressed aspirations for NATO membership, to have an intensified dialogue with NATO, they're not in the Membership Action Plan yet but we want to work with them. So, the first issue for Kosovo is what is its status; the second issue then is that NATO's policy will continue to be an open-door policy.

Ok, I think I'm going to have to wrap up here, but thank you very much, I hope this was useful to you and it's always a pleasure to meet and to have a chance to speak with all of you. Thank you. Bye bye.

--end of transcript--