Anders Fogh Rasmussen - Secretary General, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation HARDtalk

emerged. Those are the headlines. It is time for HARDtalk. After ten

years and a painful cost in blood and treasure, the NATO mission in

Afghanistan is entering its final phase. What has Afghanistan done

for NATO's credibility? HARDtalk is in Brussels speaking to NATO

secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. In a a week's he will be

in Chicago for a NATO summit, where doubtless a positive spin will be

put on the alliance's continued relevance. But never mind the

rhetoric, what's the reality? Anders Fogh Rasmussen, welcome to

HARDtalk. You are deep into preparations for the imminent

summit in Chicago, which accept that this NATO meeting is about

finessing a retreat from Afghanistan? On the contrary, it is

about how we will continue our mission after 2014. The current

mission will end by the end of 2014, will stay committed after then.

2014, that has always been the NATO plan to draw down combat troops.

That date has become irrelevant. If we look at what the NATO members

are doing, they are rushing to the exits long before then. The

Americans want to complete the transition in 2013. Those are the

words of Leon Panetta, the Defence Secretary. That is in accordance

with what we decided in 2010. A gradual process to handover

security to the Afghans. It has been speeded up. When he said that

in February, it came as a surprise. We stick to the timetable. He does

not. There is nothing new in the year 2013. We will have to hand

over the last provinces in some time in 2013 if we are to complete

the process by the end of 2014. That is what it is about. All

provinces will be handed over to Afghan responsibility. From that

time on, the role of our soldiers will change from combat to more and

more focus on support. You have always had a very emollient voice

in these matters, you have always said it is under control. The fact

is, for example, in France you have a new President elect who has made

it plain he is committed to getting French combat forces out by this

year. As we hand over responsibility to the Afghans,

you'll see a gradual change of the role and also the numbers of our

troops. For reasons, France. They operate in one province that will

be handed over to Afghans. You have no problem with Francois Hollande

coming into power and getting French combat forces out by the end

of this year. You have no problem? As we hand over responsibility to

the Afghans, it is quite natural. Our troops will step back and leave

to combat to the Afghans. We will still be there to support them. At

the end of the day deployment of soldiers is a national decision.

respect that. Do you welcome Francois Hollande's commitment to

getting French forces out by the end of this here? I take note of

that. Do you think it is the right thing for France to be doing?

spoke with friends or Holland, we agreed to discuss this at the

summit in Chicago. -- Francois Hollande. You have members pulling

out their combat forces much quicker than had been anticipated,

at the same time it is a clearer and clearer that the Afghan

government security forces and institutions are incapable of

delivering security and stability in those areas which come under

their control. Firstly, until now, all 50 partners within the

coalition has stayed committed to the operation. Actually, during my

tenure as Secretary General of NATO, the number of partners has

increased from 42-50. That is a demonstration... Fear only partners

that matter are a handful. -- the only. What I want to get to, the

real point, we see more and more clearly that the Afghan government

is not capable of delivering security and stability.

mentioned Australia. It is not two Australia will withdraw. The

Australian province will be handed over to Afghan responsibility and

consequently the Australians at that their presence. We are arguing

about something that is missing the main point of my question. Would

you accept that in many different parts of the country right now the

Afghan government is showing itself incapable of delivering security

and stability. That is my second point, that is not the true story.

The Afghan security forces are increasingly capable to handle the

security situation. Some weeks ago I visited Kabul. I could observe

with my own eyes the activities of Afghan special operations forces. I

was very impressed. I'm confident they can take full responsibility

by the end of 2014. I do not doubt there is some very well trained

Afghan forces. Look at the reality. We saw two more British soldiers

killed by a Afghan security forces. The number of instances of Afghan

security forces turning their fire on their supposedly partners and

allies in NATO are increasing month by month. How do you explain that?

What I'm going to say, they are, isolated events. They are not

isolated. Do you know how many there have been this here? 16 this

year. Sometimes it is just personal grievances. Unfortunately there is

a culture in Afghanistan of solving conflicts in a violent matter. It

is regrettable. -- violent manner. Are they do not define our

relationship between our troops and the Afghan security troops. I have

read that NATO forces are revised to keep at least one armed guard

with weapon when they are rising with Afghan forces? Am I right when

I read that telephones have been withdrawn from Afghan soldiers?

That suggests there is a lack of trust between NATO forces and

Afghan forces. We have taken counter it on foot -- infiltration

measures. We have strengthened procedures to make sure that

infiltration does not take place. systemic lack of trust? It is not a

systemic lack of trust. Why take these measures? We have to take

measures to protect our soldiers. Compared to the degree of co-

operation between our troops and Afghan security forces, these

incidents are fewer and isolated. Let me quote you the words of a

senior Afghan security official, he said of the reality is, they,

Afghan security forces, sell bullets and weapons in the

marketplace to the highest bidder, that sometimes includes Taliban or

other insurgent groups. These are weapons you are providing to the

Afghan security forces that they're selling. That is one of the aspects

we have taken into account without counter infiltration measures.

insist you are very confident the Afghan security forces can take

charge of these areas that you have a changing more rapidly than you

thought you would, and that peace and stability can be delivered?

because I have seen it with my own eyes. We know they can handle

security incidents in a professional manner. Half of the

Afghan population now lives in an area where the Afghan security

forces have taken the lead. The incidence in Kabul were handled by

a very skilful manner by a Afghan security forces. I have not heard

to speak out so much about the series of incidents involving NATO

forces, in particular US forces, which appeared to have raised the

temperature in Afghanistan. We had the burning of the Koran at a US

military base. We have had more video images of US soldiers

defiling the bodies of Taliban fighters. How will you save the

Afghan -- say the Afghan people perceive NATO forces on the ground?

I regret such incidents. They do not represent... They serve to

undermine trust and confidence. badly? When you ask me how do you

think the Afghan population perceived international troops? We

know from several surveys that a huge majority of Afghans realise

that an international military presence is needed right now to

shake the country's future. The Afghans also want to take

responsibility for their own security. That is the essence of

that transition process to be completed by the end of 2014.

is something you know from internal reporting, the state of the Taliban

2012, your people on the ground, dominated by the Americans, drew up

based on thousands of interviews with detainees inside Afghan

prisons. The report was leaked to the media. It says, the Taliban

have wide support amongst the Afghan people. Afghan civilians

frequently prefer the Taliban government over the national

government as a result of government corruption. Do you

accept the findings of your own confidential report? I would not

rely on such statements from detainees. Why did you commission

the report? The fact is, the Afghan population does not want the

Taliban back. They know that the future of Afghanistan lies within

democracy, within freedom. I do not deny there are problems when it

comes to governance in Afghanistan. Overall we have seen a lot of

progress during recent years. Economic growth, improved education,

improved health, improved economic activity. The issue, looking

forward, is how to respond to the Taliban in the future for there are

ways in which diplomatic reaching out is happening. -- future. Do you

know of NATO members talking with the Taliban are today?

reconciliation process must be led by the Afghans. We can help, but it

must be led by the Afghans. there NATO states talking to the

Taliban? I will not exclude the possibility that individual member

states talk with the Taliban. Taliban said they would not speak

to the Americans any more because they said the Americans did not

have a co-ordinated position. Do you know if the Americans are

talking to the Taliban? If the process is to be a success it has

to be led by the Afghans. The Taliban and others must abide by

the Afghan constitution, including respect for human rights, including

women's rights and must finish all links with terrorist organisations.

If those conditions are met, we should give it a try. Just the

other day a former Taliban commander were shot dead in Kabul.

Is the current government capable of delivering any sort of

meaningful settlement with the I think it demonstrates that those

who initiate that attack, do not want a peaceful solution to these

solutions in Afghanistan. -- to the problems in Afghanistan. A few are

as after that attack, President Karzai announced that there was

their trance of transition in Afghan provinces to lead it

themselves. They cannot derail and I'll process. That will gradually

hand over responsibility to a Afghanis. The air is another

fundamental Nato problem, you have failed consistently to reach out

and create a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan. In your confidential

report, again, concludes that, these are the words in your report,

Pakistan's manipulation of the Taliban leadership continues

unabated. You have no meaningful relationship with the Pakistanis?

have to stress that my staff and Nato operate on the basis of a UN

mandate. That UN mandate covers Afghanistan and after must, we need

it Pakistan's. -- and only eat Afghanistan, we need it Pakistan.

Pakistan were not allowed the convoy earlier of materials through

its country it. That is a big problem a firm of NATO. How will

you develop a meaningful relationship with Pakistan's?

Especially when you believe they control the Taliban. The Taliban

enjoy is safe havens in pack as town, we are working in terms -- in

Pakistan's. You say you are working with them, you have failed?

Pakistanis have refused to listen to you. We work with them, it is a

political process. I hope that soon it will be added to reach a

conclusion. A finer point on Afghanistan. -- weir were able to.

As NATO loses man in Afghanistan, particularly the United States

which is essentially pain to Berman dollars a week firmer their

operations. Public opinion in a member states is against their

their involvement. Who will pay in the long run of their be stability

and security that Afghanistan can deliver to its own forces. Who will

pay for it? When it comes to the Afghan security passes, it is a

responsibility for the whole international community -- security

forces. In 2013, when the handover for responsibility, they would be

enough security forces. That will cost how much? It is beyond what

the Afghan government can pay. would pay vote but the next five,

10, 15 years? That is a responsibility for the highly

international community. The international community committed

itself to participate in the financing when the Met in banner in

December last year. -- met in a banner, Switzerland. Taxpayers

would willingly pay for a pro nun turned 50,000 Afghan security

personnel on an open-ended basis? - - willingly pay 350,350 1,000. Not

so long ago, the outgoing a UN Defence Secretary pointed to a

crisis for a NATO. It said it could have a dim, if not dismal future

unless many member-states fund set up and put resources into defence

expenditure which would allow them to be creditable. Nothing has

changed since then? The economic crisis is a challenge. All

ministers of defence are faced with declining defence budgets. To the

way forward, how can we acquire the military capabilities for the

future, that is by defence budgets. We are looking into smarter defence,

it will be increasingly difficult for individual allies to get the

military equipment. By joining forces, and pulling Resources, a

weekend. That is what we will adopt in Chicago. I had been reading a

leaked NATO reports in the New York Times. It shows that there were

grave problems. Only 30% of the aircraft needed to now able to work.

It seems Nato is not working properly any more? On the contrary,

that was a huge success. They say it was absolutely it simple eye of

NATO's weakness. The United States had to provide the bullets. No, it

was a clear demonstration of our strength. It was a positive story

of European leadership together with Canada. The European allies

provided ask the majority of assets in an operation. Shirley, we could

not have carried out that operation successfully without a significant

contribution from the United States. the essence up in an alliance, we

help each other. You will go to Chicago, you will argue that the

United States must put in 75% of Nato's defence budget. Do you think

that is sustainable going colour? had in the long-term, we can ensure

a fair bet and share with in arm alliance. -- going off their legs.

R Kinsey -- go and their lead first-up we were declared in Tramp

capabilities of NATO defence. We will acquire a five Jones that can

be used for intelligence, surveillance purposes in the future

-- fibre drones. We will agree on more than 20 multinational projects.

Chicago would be a clear demonstration of alliance

commitment to investment into necessary military capabilities.

Turner is after SEP- 11, defence budgets sleep by 50%. -- ten years

budgets sleep by 50%. -- ten years . Far they declare it work on Nato.

Asbestos with education. It would be political suicide if a

government suggested that a minister of defence should get the

dead from an exercise. That is why Robert Gates said that the future

of NATO looks na. No, it is not the am. -- looks as though they might.

It will be increasingly difficult of allies to buy a necessary