Paris, 15 February 2008.- At the invitation of the Secretary General of Nato, Mr Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Assembly’s Parliamentarians were briefed in Nato Headquarters in Brussels on Monday 11 February, on the agenda for the forthcoming Nato Summit in Bucharest.

The same subjects which had figured in the discussions last week-end at the Munich Security Conference dominated proceedings: operations in Afghanistan and in Kosovo, relations between Nato and the European Union, relations with Russia and the Ukraine and France’s place in Nato.

Ambassador Richard Duqué, Permanent Representative of France opening the proceedings built on declarations from the Elysée and from the French Minister of Defence concerning the possibility of France fully re-integrating Nato’s integrated military structure. In particular, the French government argues that France’s re-integration can only take place if European defence is being reinforced. As regards NATO itself, it demands a revision of NATO’s defence planning system and a further reform of the command structure.

Both military briefers, the Deputy SACEUR, General Sir John McColl and the Deputy Chairman of Nato’s Military Committee, Lt General Karl W. Eikenberg insisted on the excellent relationships amongst those in uniform serving both Nato and the EU. The blockage between the two organisations is purely political and risks creating expensive duplication and rivalry. Agreement at the highest level on command structures, planning arrangements etc.. was urgently required to ensure the most practical approach to the many crises with which the Alliance and the EU are confronted.

Discussions with Ambassador James Pardew focussed on Nato’s current operations in both Afghanistan and Kosovo.

As regards Afghanistan, all current questions were examined, including the number of troops needed and the caveats of different troop contingents. Nato was not aiming at a military solution. Providing security was only one of the many keys to success and there was now a requirement for a comprehensive programme with strong and centralised international leadership which aimed at improving the situation of the Afghan people. The Afghan government was to improve its ability to govern and to commit itself to the establishment of capable national military and police forces.

Nato’s military force in Kosovo, KFOR, was fully prepared for the expected declaration of independence. Contingency plans were ready and KFOR was confident that it could provide security on the ground within the borders of Kosovo.



Ambassador Robert Simmons emphasised the importance of Russian attitudes regarding Kosovo. He also outlined the current state of play regarding Nato’s Partnerships and other outreach programmes and their possible development at the forthcoming Bucharest Summit.

The Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (a former, very active member of the Assembly) brought a political slant to discussions covering the whole range of open questions which ranged from Afghanistan and Kosovo to missile defence, Nato’s relationship with Russia, Ukraine and especially the European Union, including links between Nato’s armaments agencies and the European Defence Agency which had to be developed in a more constructive way.

The Secretary General also regretted the lack of real progress in the overall relationship between Nato and the EU which had great potential but which was severely limited at present for well-known reasons.

Commenting on the Kosovo challenge, the Secretary General was confident that KFOR was ready for every eventuality.

Operations in Afghanistan represented a major investment for Nato and demonstrated a good return on this investment in certain key areas such as equipment programmes and Force transformation.

The major problem confronting the Alliance over Afghanistan was the difference of approach between the 26 Nato Member States, both to participation per se in operations and also over the restrictions placed on certain national contingents (“caveats”) which makes the overall operation much less effective.

In this context, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer underlined the importance for Nato of public opinion. Parliamentary support was the key to convincing public opinion and he called on the Assembly’s Members to help him explain and encourage Nato initivatives.