Manama: Anders Fogh Rasmussen, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (Nato) secretary-general, has blamed the Taliban for causing the deaths of many innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
"I have to say that a huge majority of the casualties are caused by the Taliban, and I base this on statistics from the United Nations. We know the Taliban use innocent civilians, women and children, as human shields on routes, in windows and elsewhere," said Rasmussen, who was elected to the top post last year.
The presence of Muslim and Arab troops in Afghanistan was crucial for the alliance in its fight in war-torn Afghanistan.
"They play a very important military role and at the humanitarian level, financially but also as far as cultural and religious aspects are concerned," he said. "I do believe that active participation of soldiers with a Muslim background makes it visible that what is going on in Afghanistan is not a fight against religion, but against extremism and terrorism," he said.
Rasmussen, who as prime minister of Denmark during the issue over the controversial cartoons waded into controversy with Muslim ambassadors, said that "religion and faith should not be divisive and that, on the contrary, they should promote peace, forgiveness, mercy and tolerance."
He said Nato, the world's largest military alliance, would consider Iran a threat if it acquired nuclear capacity.
"While Nato as such is not involved in the Iran issue, we support the international endeavours to find a political and diplomatic solution. But if Iran, at a certain stage, actually acquires the nuclear capacity, then we would consider it a threat against the alliance," Rasmussen told Gulf News. "This is also the reason we are currently considering the establishment of a missile defence system that we can start to deploy by 2011 and then it will be gradually developed."
The system will be set up in Europe, and will cover all Nato allies.
"The Americans, are of course in the lead, but according to their new approach and plans, the missile defence system will be developed within a Nato framework and it can cover all allies, so that all European allies can be protected by the missile defence system," he said.
Gulf News: How do you assess the status of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) six years after it was launched?
Anders Fogh Rasmussen: I think the ICI partnership is a great success. It has been a great success because we have developed a very effective practical cooperation between Nato and the ICI partners and I am particularly happy in this framework that Bahrain is very close to finalising an individual cooperation programme with Nato and this cooperation programme will carry our cooperation even further. Bahrain will be the first ICI country to achieve that. There is also potential for further development of this partnership, as I proposed during my speech in Manama, for example in the fields of the fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, or of energy and maritime security.
As far as political cooperation is concerned, we have seen progress and soon we will have a meeting in Brussels between the 28 Nato countries and the four ICI countries at the ambassadorial level where we will discuss issues of common interest. On that occasion I intend to invite partners, including the ICI countries, to comment on our new Nato strategic concept to be approved at the Lisbon Summit, bringing their contribution of ideas in the current debate on the strategic concept.
These examples illustrate that it is a very dynamic partnership.
What about Saudi Arabia and Oman?
We invited Oman and Saudi Arabia to join the ICI partnership in 2004, at our Nato Summit in Istanbul and I think that their accession to the partnership will make it even stronger and more dynamic. Of course at the end of the day, it is up to them to decide whether to join or not. It is their sovereign decision. Our door is open to Oman and Saudi Arabia. In the meanwhile, we are continuing to maintain dialogue with them, inviting them to participate in different events, like the public diplomacy conference we organised with the Kingdom of Bahrain in 2008, or the seminars on the new strategic concept we organised in Brussels and in Oslo.
How do you see the existence of two partnerships — the ICI and the Mediterranean Dialogue?
I see the two partnerships in parallel. We have two partnerships because we want also to respect the specifics of the countries participating in them. We attach strong importance to the specific and individual needs expressed by each country in the ICI or the Mediterranean Dialogue, through a tailored approach. That is why, for example, we are offering Individual Cooperation Programmes, in order to better adapt our offer for cooperation to the specific needs of each partner country. So, I do believe that both partnerships will continue to progress in the coming years.
We have a lot of indications from partners within both partnerships that they want to further strengthen their cooperative ties with Nato. This is also my desire. On my first day at Nato I clearly said that I consider the MD and the ICI among my three top priorities, as Nato Secretary-General. I indeed intend to enhance both partnerships during my mandate.
What is Nato's role in Iraq?
We have a training mission in Iraq. In response to the Iraqi Government's request, we train and educate Iraqi security forces. Our major task is to train and educate Iraqi security forces help Iraq build the capability of its government to address the security needs of the Iraqi people. The aims of the Nato mission are: training, coordination of equipping and technical assistance — not combat. This is important for the country's future and for their ability to take over responsibility themselves.
So you do not have a military role there?
No, only in the training field, which is of course important because the Iraqi forces can develop a strong capacity to secure the country themselves. The Alliance is prepared to continue and broaden this cooperation not only in operational terms through the extension of the Nato Training Mission in Iraq (NTM-I) beyond 2010, but also through the offer of a Structured Cooperation Framework, which is a toolbox of practical activities of interest to Iraq including the areas of the fight against terrorism, border security, and intelligence sharing.
Do you foresee any role for Nato in the Arab-Israeli conflict?
Nato is not involved in the Middle East Peace Process and therefore in the negotiations. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not an item currently on Nato's agenda. All Nato allies believe that progress towards a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based upon a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians live side by-side in peace and security, should remain a priority for countries of the region and the international community as a whole. At this stage I do not see an active role for Nato. But Nato allies are engaged in the peace process within the Quartet. We all know that the Americans are very active in pursuing a solution to this conflict. Obviously, we follow the peace process closely because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also the source of other regional and global conflicts.
So, in my opinion, it is a matter of urgency to find a solution. We do hope the resumed talks will eventually have a positive outcome.
Do you have a message for the Muslim world?
I have just delivered a strong message, through my speech in Amman. I referred to the message of [Jordan's] King Abdullah's Amman Message from November 2004. It was a strong message where King Abdullah called for a broad platform upon which people of all faiths can work together in peaceful co-existence.
He stressed the need for tolerance, and I referred during my visit to Jordan to this message of tolerance, dialogue and inter-cultural and inter-religious understanding. I am convinced that people of different faiths can meet together, with respect for others' ideas and beliefs, and act in common in the service of human society.
My point is that religion and faith should not be divisive. On the contrary they should promote peace, forgiveness, mercy and tolerance.
I also conveyed the message to our ICI and MD partner counties that I think they should consider positively whether they can contribute to our mission in Afghanistan, because active participation of soldiers with a Muslim background would make visible the very fact that our operation in Afghanistan is not about religion. It is a fight against extremism and terrorism.
How do you assess the role of Muslim countries in Afghanistan? Are you pleased?
They play a very important military role and at the humanitarian level, financially but also as far as cultural and religious aspects are concerned. This aspect is of the utmost importance.
I do believe that active participation of soldiers with a Muslim background makes it visible that what is going on in Afghanistan is not a fight against religion, but against extremism and terrorism.
The government and people of Afghanistan need all the help they can get from all those countries of the world, willing to contribute to the security and stability of Afghanistan.
When do you think the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission will be finished?
I cannot give you an exact date, but I can tell you that our mission will be accomplished when Afghan forces can secure their own country. Our mission will end when Afghanis are capable of taking responsibility for security themselves. We are in Afghanistan to make sure the country will not once again become a safe haven for terrorists. We will stay as long as it takes to finish this job. However, this is of course not forever. Our strategy is to hand over responsibility to the Afghanis province by province as they develop their own capacity.
Do you think the announcement by the Obama Administration that it would start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan was a mistake?
Actually, it was not an announcement of withdrawal. It was an announcement of an evaluation of our mission which I find quite natural. During the last two to three months, we have made a number of important decisions, and the most important was the troop surge. We will increase the number of troops in Afghanistan by almost 40,000 to reach 125,000. After having increased the number of troops significantly, it is naturally necessary to evaluate the effects of that troop surge. This evaluation will take place in 2011. Hopefully, the security situation will have improved so we can gradually reduce the number of troops after having boosted it. I say hopefully because it will very much depend on conditions and on making sure the security situation has actually improved. I do believe the situation will allow us to gradually reduce the number of troops, but before we hand over responsibility to the Afghans, we must be sure they have the capacity to secure the country themselves.
Do you think that European countries would give you troops?
They did actually. As I said, we decided to increase the number of troops by 40,000, out of which 30,000 are Americans and almost 10,000 are from non-US members of our alliance. So, the European allies have stepped up to the plate, which I appreciate because it is also important that this is kept as a Nato alliance mission, and not just an American mission.
How do you feel about the instances when civilians in Afghanistan were killed?
First of all, let me express my condolences to the bereaved families. I strongly regret civilian casualties. I also called President [Hamid] Karzai to convey this message and assure him that our soldiers do their utmost to minimise the number of civilian casualties.
Actually, we have been quite successful in reducing the number of civilian casualties significantly during the last 12 months and we will continue down that path. Having said all that, I also have to say that a huge majority of the casualties are caused by the Taliban, and I base this on statistics from the United Nations. We know the Taliban use innocent civilians, women and children, as human shields on routes, in windows and elsewhere. They do not care, but we do. Our soldiers will do all they can to minimise the number of civilian casualties.
Until when will the Nato expansion continue?
Our door is open. According to the Nato treaty, we may invite any European country to join the alliance if the applicant country fulfils specific criteria. I cannot tell you when this process will end. It depends. We stick to the principle that each individual country has the right to decide its security policy and alliance affiliation freely. We know that a number of European countries would like to join the alliance. There may be non-European countries, but according to Nato Article 10, the Nato alliance covers Europe and North America. So, according to the Nato treaty, we may invite any European country if it wants to join.
Can Russia join Nato?
I do not find it realistic, but in principle, Russia could apply for membership because it is a European country. But, I have never received any indication that Russia would apply. So, I think a more realistic perspective would be to develop a strong partnership between Nato and Russia, as we are doing now, through our joint work in the Nato-Russia Council, in areas of common interest.
Does Nato feel threatened by Iran or the Iranian nuclear programme?
Nato is not involved in the current negotiations with Iran. Nato allies are. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a common threat to Nato, ICI countries and to all the other seven Mediterranean Dialogue countries. While Nato is not involved in the negotiations with Iran, it is deeply concerned about the proliferation risks of the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Particularly worrying is the recent IAEA report showing the total number of centrifuges has been raised to more than 8,000; or Iran's recent admission of having clandestinely built a new facility for uranium enrichment near the city of Qom.
We are also very concerned that the IAEA has once again concluded it cannot exclude the existence of a possible military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme. The Nato allies have called on a number of occasions on Iran to fully comply with all United Nations. Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) and with international obligations. They remain hopeful for a diplomatic solution. And even if there may be scope for engaging with Iran in the framework of a regional approach to Afghanistan, this does not mean we have set aside our differences on key issues such as the Iranian nuclear programme; especially since Iran is not accepting the offer of Russia, and France on uranium enrichment abroad.
If Iran at a certain stage actually acquires the nuclear capacity, then we would consider it a threat against the alliance, and this is also the reason we are currently considering the establishment of a missile defence system that we can start to deploy by 2011 and then it will be gradually developed. While Nato as such is not involved in the Iran issue, we support the international endeavours to find a political and diplomatic solution.
And it will be set up in Europe?
Yes. The Americans are of course in the lead, but according to their new approach and plans, the missile defence system will be developed within a Nato framework and it can cover all allies, so that all European allies can be protected by the missile defence system.
How do you define your relationship with Turkey?
I have an excellent relationship with Turkey and its leaders. Turkey was one of the first Allied Nations I visited as the new Nato Secretary-General. I had very, very positive and fruitful meetings with Turkey's political leaders. We agreed to develop positive and strong cooperation and this is also how I experience it in my daily work. So, our relationship is among the best. I know that you refer to the fact that the Turks were the last to actually support my election as Secretary-General. But, it is quite natural within an Alliance of free democracies that we have free and open discussions before we select and elect people to specific posts.
Do you enjoy running Nato?
Yes, indeed. It is a very challenging and very interesting job. I enjoyed my job as Prime Minister of Denmark. I served as Prime Minister of Denmark for nearly eight years, and of course it is quite different to run a multilateral organisation like Nato, where 28 nations are in a strong community and, according to the treaty, must take decisions based on consensus. That is my main challenge: to make sure that 28 individual nations with strong interests can unite and make decisions by consensus. Of course, that is a challenge, but it is also the strength of the Alliance because once you have taken a decision and created unity, then it is a very, very strong decision. This is a very important element in making Nato the world's strongest defence alliance.
