:00:16. > :00:19.emerged. Those are the headlines. It is time for HARDtalk. After ten
:00:19. > :00:23.years and a painful cost in blood and treasure, the NATO mission in
:00:23. > :00:28.Afghanistan is entering its final phase. What has Afghanistan done
:00:28. > :00:38.for NATO's credibility? HARDtalk is in Brussels speaking to NATO
:00:38. > :00:44.
:00:44. > :00:47.secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. In a a week's he will be
:00:47. > :00:50.in Chicago for a NATO summit, where doubtless a positive spin will be
:00:50. > :00:56.put on the alliance's continued relevance. But never mind the
:00:56. > :01:01.rhetoric, what's the reality? Anders Fogh Rasmussen, welcome to
:01:01. > :01:06.HARDtalk. You are deep into preparations for the imminent
:01:06. > :01:12.summit in Chicago, which accept that this NATO meeting is about
:01:12. > :01:17.finessing a retreat from Afghanistan? On the contrary, it is
:01:17. > :01:26.about how we will continue our mission after 2014. The current
:01:27. > :01:32.mission will end by the end of 2014, will stay committed after then.
:01:32. > :01:37.2014, that has always been the NATO plan to draw down combat troops.
:01:37. > :01:42.That date has become irrelevant. If we look at what the NATO members
:01:42. > :01:48.are doing, they are rushing to the exits long before then. The
:01:48. > :01:53.Americans want to complete the transition in 2013. Those are the
:01:53. > :02:02.words of Leon Panetta, the Defence Secretary. That is in accordance
:02:02. > :02:08.with what we decided in 2010. A gradual process to handover
:02:08. > :02:14.security to the Afghans. It has been speeded up. When he said that
:02:14. > :02:22.in February, it came as a surprise. We stick to the timetable. He does
:02:22. > :02:27.not. There is nothing new in the year 2013. We will have to hand
:02:27. > :02:36.over the last provinces in some time in 2013 if we are to complete
:02:36. > :02:41.the process by the end of 2014. That is what it is about. All
:02:41. > :02:46.provinces will be handed over to Afghan responsibility. From that
:02:46. > :02:51.time on, the role of our soldiers will change from combat to more and
:02:51. > :02:59.more focus on support. You have always had a very emollient voice
:02:59. > :03:05.in these matters, you have always said it is under control. The fact
:03:05. > :03:08.is, for example, in France you have a new President elect who has made
:03:08. > :03:16.it plain he is committed to getting French combat forces out by this
:03:16. > :03:21.year. As we hand over responsibility to the Afghans,
:03:21. > :03:27.you'll see a gradual change of the role and also the numbers of our
:03:27. > :03:35.troops. For reasons, France. They operate in one province that will
:03:35. > :03:38.be handed over to Afghans. You have no problem with Francois Hollande
:03:38. > :03:46.coming into power and getting French combat forces out by the end
:03:46. > :03:52.of this year. You have no problem? As we hand over responsibility to
:03:52. > :03:58.the Afghans, it is quite natural. Our troops will step back and leave
:03:58. > :04:03.to combat to the Afghans. We will still be there to support them. At
:04:03. > :04:08.the end of the day deployment of soldiers is a national decision.
:04:08. > :04:13.respect that. Do you welcome Francois Hollande's commitment to
:04:13. > :04:20.getting French forces out by the end of this here? I take note of
:04:20. > :04:24.that. Do you think it is the right thing for France to be doing?
:04:24. > :04:33.spoke with friends or Holland, we agreed to discuss this at the
:04:33. > :04:37.summit in Chicago. -- Francois Hollande. You have members pulling
:04:37. > :04:45.out their combat forces much quicker than had been anticipated,
:04:45. > :04:50.at the same time it is a clearer and clearer that the Afghan
:04:50. > :04:53.government security forces and institutions are incapable of
:04:53. > :05:02.delivering security and stability in those areas which come under
:05:02. > :05:12.their control. Firstly, until now, all 50 partners within the
:05:12. > :05:12.
:05:12. > :05:16.coalition has stayed committed to the operation. Actually, during my
:05:16. > :05:22.tenure as Secretary General of NATO, the number of partners has
:05:22. > :05:32.increased from 42-50. That is a demonstration... Fear only partners
:05:32. > :05:32.
:05:32. > :05:36.that matter are a handful. -- the only. What I want to get to, the
:05:36. > :05:42.real point, we see more and more clearly that the Afghan government
:05:42. > :05:49.is not capable of delivering security and stability.
:05:49. > :05:54.mentioned Australia. It is not two Australia will withdraw. The
:05:54. > :06:00.Australian province will be handed over to Afghan responsibility and
:06:00. > :06:04.consequently the Australians at that their presence. We are arguing
:06:04. > :06:09.about something that is missing the main point of my question. Would
:06:09. > :06:12.you accept that in many different parts of the country right now the
:06:12. > :06:19.Afghan government is showing itself incapable of delivering security
:06:19. > :06:23.and stability. That is my second point, that is not the true story.
:06:23. > :06:30.The Afghan security forces are increasingly capable to handle the
:06:30. > :06:36.security situation. Some weeks ago I visited Kabul. I could observe
:06:36. > :06:41.with my own eyes the activities of Afghan special operations forces. I
:06:41. > :06:46.was very impressed. I'm confident they can take full responsibility
:06:46. > :06:53.by the end of 2014. I do not doubt there is some very well trained
:06:53. > :07:00.Afghan forces. Look at the reality. We saw two more British soldiers
:07:00. > :07:03.killed by a Afghan security forces. The number of instances of Afghan
:07:04. > :07:10.security forces turning their fire on their supposedly partners and
:07:10. > :07:18.allies in NATO are increasing month by month. How do you explain that?
:07:18. > :07:24.What I'm going to say, they are, isolated events. They are not
:07:24. > :07:33.isolated. Do you know how many there have been this here? 16 this
:07:33. > :07:38.year. Sometimes it is just personal grievances. Unfortunately there is
:07:38. > :07:48.a culture in Afghanistan of solving conflicts in a violent matter. It
:07:48. > :07:48.
:07:48. > :07:58.is regrettable. -- violent manner. Are they do not define our
:07:58. > :08:01.
:08:01. > :08:06.relationship between our troops and the Afghan security troops. I have
:08:06. > :08:11.read that NATO forces are revised to keep at least one armed guard
:08:11. > :08:18.with weapon when they are rising with Afghan forces? Am I right when
:08:18. > :08:22.I read that telephones have been withdrawn from Afghan soldiers?
:08:22. > :08:29.That suggests there is a lack of trust between NATO forces and
:08:29. > :08:37.Afghan forces. We have taken counter it on foot -- infiltration
:08:37. > :08:42.measures. We have strengthened procedures to make sure that
:08:42. > :08:48.infiltration does not take place. systemic lack of trust? It is not a
:08:48. > :08:54.systemic lack of trust. Why take these measures? We have to take
:08:54. > :08:57.measures to protect our soldiers. Compared to the degree of co-
:08:57. > :09:06.operation between our troops and Afghan security forces, these
:09:06. > :09:13.incidents are fewer and isolated. Let me quote you the words of a
:09:14. > :09:18.senior Afghan security official, he said of the reality is, they,
:09:18. > :09:22.Afghan security forces, sell bullets and weapons in the
:09:23. > :09:27.marketplace to the highest bidder, that sometimes includes Taliban or
:09:27. > :09:33.other insurgent groups. These are weapons you are providing to the
:09:33. > :09:39.Afghan security forces that they're selling. That is one of the aspects
:09:39. > :09:42.we have taken into account without counter infiltration measures.
:09:42. > :09:46.insist you are very confident the Afghan security forces can take
:09:46. > :09:53.charge of these areas that you have a changing more rapidly than you
:09:53. > :09:58.thought you would, and that peace and stability can be delivered?
:09:58. > :10:02.because I have seen it with my own eyes. We know they can handle
:10:02. > :10:08.security incidents in a professional manner. Half of the
:10:08. > :10:16.Afghan population now lives in an area where the Afghan security
:10:16. > :10:25.forces have taken the lead. The incidence in Kabul were handled by
:10:25. > :10:30.a very skilful manner by a Afghan security forces. I have not heard
:10:30. > :10:34.to speak out so much about the series of incidents involving NATO
:10:34. > :10:39.forces, in particular US forces, which appeared to have raised the
:10:39. > :10:45.temperature in Afghanistan. We had the burning of the Koran at a US
:10:45. > :10:53.military base. We have had more video images of US soldiers
:10:53. > :10:59.defiling the bodies of Taliban fighters. How will you save the
:11:00. > :11:06.Afghan -- say the Afghan people perceive NATO forces on the ground?
:11:06. > :11:14.I regret such incidents. They do not represent... They serve to
:11:14. > :11:21.undermine trust and confidence. badly? When you ask me how do you
:11:21. > :11:29.think the Afghan population perceived international troops? We
:11:29. > :11:35.know from several surveys that a huge majority of Afghans realise
:11:35. > :11:41.that an international military presence is needed right now to
:11:41. > :11:44.shake the country's future. The Afghans also want to take
:11:44. > :11:50.responsibility for their own security. That is the essence of
:11:50. > :11:57.that transition process to be completed by the end of 2014.
:11:57. > :12:01.is something you know from internal reporting, the state of the Taliban
:12:01. > :12:05.2012, your people on the ground, dominated by the Americans, drew up
:12:05. > :12:12.based on thousands of interviews with detainees inside Afghan
:12:12. > :12:16.prisons. The report was leaked to the media. It says, the Taliban
:12:16. > :12:21.have wide support amongst the Afghan people. Afghan civilians
:12:21. > :12:25.frequently prefer the Taliban government over the national
:12:25. > :12:32.government as a result of government corruption. Do you
:12:32. > :12:40.accept the findings of your own confidential report? I would not
:12:40. > :12:46.rely on such statements from detainees. Why did you commission
:12:46. > :12:54.the report? The fact is, the Afghan population does not want the
:12:54. > :12:59.Taliban back. They know that the future of Afghanistan lies within
:12:59. > :13:03.democracy, within freedom. I do not deny there are problems when it
:13:03. > :13:10.comes to governance in Afghanistan. Overall we have seen a lot of
:13:10. > :13:16.progress during recent years. Economic growth, improved education,
:13:16. > :13:22.improved health, improved economic activity. The issue, looking
:13:22. > :13:32.forward, is how to respond to the Taliban in the future for there are
:13:32. > :13:32.
:13:32. > :13:37.ways in which diplomatic reaching out is happening. -- future. Do you
:13:37. > :13:47.know of NATO members talking with the Taliban are today?
:13:47. > :13:52.reconciliation process must be led by the Afghans. We can help, but it
:13:52. > :13:57.must be led by the Afghans. there NATO states talking to the
:13:57. > :14:05.Taliban? I will not exclude the possibility that individual member
:14:05. > :14:08.states talk with the Taliban. Taliban said they would not speak
:14:08. > :14:13.to the Americans any more because they said the Americans did not
:14:13. > :14:17.have a co-ordinated position. Do you know if the Americans are
:14:17. > :14:25.talking to the Taliban? If the process is to be a success it has
:14:25. > :14:30.to be led by the Afghans. The Taliban and others must abide by
:14:30. > :14:35.the Afghan constitution, including respect for human rights, including
:14:35. > :14:41.women's rights and must finish all links with terrorist organisations.
:14:41. > :14:51.If those conditions are met, we should give it a try. Just the
:14:51. > :14:57.
:14:57. > :15:01.other day a former Taliban commander were shot dead in Kabul.
:15:01. > :15:09.Is the current government capable of delivering any sort of
:15:09. > :15:17.meaningful settlement with the I think it demonstrates that those
:15:17. > :15:21.who initiate that attack, do not want a peaceful solution to these
:15:21. > :15:25.solutions in Afghanistan. -- to the problems in Afghanistan. A few are
:15:25. > :15:32.as after that attack, President Karzai announced that there was
:15:32. > :15:39.their trance of transition in Afghan provinces to lead it
:15:39. > :15:45.themselves. They cannot derail and I'll process. That will gradually
:15:45. > :15:50.hand over responsibility to a Afghanis. The air is another
:15:50. > :15:55.fundamental Nato problem, you have failed consistently to reach out
:15:55. > :16:00.and create a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan. In your confidential
:16:00. > :16:04.report, again, concludes that, these are the words in your report,
:16:04. > :16:12.Pakistan's manipulation of the Taliban leadership continues
:16:12. > :16:16.unabated. You have no meaningful relationship with the Pakistanis?
:16:16. > :16:26.have to stress that my staff and Nato operate on the basis of a UN
:16:26. > :16:37.
:16:37. > :16:47.mandate. That UN mandate covers Afghanistan and after must, we need
:16:47. > :16:49.
:16:49. > :16:54.it Pakistan's. -- and only eat Afghanistan, we need it Pakistan.
:16:54. > :16:59.Pakistan were not allowed the convoy earlier of materials through
:16:59. > :17:07.its country it. That is a big problem a firm of NATO. How will
:17:07. > :17:13.you develop a meaningful relationship with Pakistan's?
:17:13. > :17:21.Especially when you believe they control the Taliban. The Taliban
:17:21. > :17:31.enjoy is safe havens in pack as town, we are working in terms -- in
:17:31. > :17:32.
:17:32. > :17:39.Pakistan's. You say you are working with them, you have failed?
:17:39. > :17:44.Pakistanis have refused to listen to you. We work with them, it is a
:17:44. > :17:51.political process. I hope that soon it will be added to reach a
:17:51. > :17:59.conclusion. A finer point on Afghanistan. -- weir were able to.
:17:59. > :18:04.As NATO loses man in Afghanistan, particularly the United States
:18:04. > :18:10.which is essentially pain to Berman dollars a week firmer their
:18:10. > :18:16.operations. Public opinion in a member states is against their
:18:16. > :18:19.their involvement. Who will pay in the long run of their be stability
:18:19. > :18:26.and security that Afghanistan can deliver to its own forces. Who will
:18:26. > :18:30.pay for it? When it comes to the Afghan security passes, it is a
:18:30. > :18:39.responsibility for the whole international community -- security
:18:40. > :18:46.forces. In 2013, when the handover for responsibility, they would be
:18:46. > :18:50.enough security forces. That will cost how much? It is beyond what
:18:51. > :18:56.the Afghan government can pay. would pay vote but the next five,
:18:56. > :19:00.10, 15 years? That is a responsibility for the highly
:19:00. > :19:04.international community. The international community committed
:19:04. > :19:14.itself to participate in the financing when the Met in banner in
:19:14. > :19:15.
:19:15. > :19:19.December last year. -- met in a banner, Switzerland. Taxpayers
:19:19. > :19:29.would willingly pay for a pro nun turned 50,000 Afghan security
:19:29. > :19:46.
:19:46. > :19:53.personnel on an open-ended basis? - - willingly pay 350,350 1,000. Not
:19:53. > :20:00.so long ago, the outgoing a UN Defence Secretary pointed to a
:20:00. > :20:05.crisis for a NATO. It said it could have a dim, if not dismal future
:20:05. > :20:10.unless many member-states fund set up and put resources into defence
:20:10. > :20:16.expenditure which would allow them to be creditable. Nothing has
:20:17. > :20:24.changed since then? The economic crisis is a challenge. All
:20:24. > :20:29.ministers of defence are faced with declining defence budgets. To the
:20:29. > :20:39.way forward, how can we acquire the military capabilities for the
:20:39. > :20:44.future, that is by defence budgets. We are looking into smarter defence,
:20:44. > :20:49.it will be increasingly difficult for individual allies to get the
:20:49. > :20:58.military equipment. By joining forces, and pulling Resources, a
:20:58. > :21:02.weekend. That is what we will adopt in Chicago. I had been reading a
:21:02. > :21:12.leaked NATO reports in the New York Times. It shows that there were
:21:12. > :21:16.
:21:16. > :21:21.grave problems. Only 30% of the aircraft needed to now able to work.
:21:21. > :21:30.It seems Nato is not working properly any more? On the contrary,
:21:30. > :21:36.that was a huge success. They say it was absolutely it simple eye of
:21:36. > :21:42.NATO's weakness. The United States had to provide the bullets. No, it
:21:42. > :21:47.was a clear demonstration of our strength. It was a positive story
:21:47. > :21:52.of European leadership together with Canada. The European allies
:21:52. > :21:56.provided ask the majority of assets in an operation. Shirley, we could
:21:56. > :22:03.not have carried out that operation successfully without a significant
:22:03. > :22:09.contribution from the United States. the essence up in an alliance, we
:22:09. > :22:15.help each other. You will go to Chicago, you will argue that the
:22:15. > :22:23.United States must put in 75% of Nato's defence budget. Do you think
:22:23. > :22:31.that is sustainable going colour? had in the long-term, we can ensure
:22:31. > :22:41.a fair bet and share with in arm alliance. -- going off their legs.
:22:41. > :22:45.
:22:45. > :22:53.R Kinsey -- go and their lead first-up we were declared in Tramp
:22:53. > :22:58.capabilities of NATO defence. We will acquire a five Jones that can
:22:58. > :23:03.be used for intelligence, surveillance purposes in the future
:23:03. > :23:06.-- fibre drones. We will agree on more than 20 multinational projects.
:23:06. > :23:15.Chicago would be a clear demonstration of alliance
:23:15. > :23:21.commitment to investment into necessary military capabilities.
:23:21. > :23:31.Turner is after SEP- 11, defence budgets sleep by 50%. -- ten years
:23:31. > :23:37.
:23:37. > :23:41.budgets sleep by 50%. -- ten years . Far they declare it work on Nato.
:23:41. > :23:44.Asbestos with education. It would be political suicide if a
:23:44. > :23:50.government suggested that a minister of defence should get the
:23:50. > :24:00.dead from an exercise. That is why Robert Gates said that the future
:24:00. > :24:02.
:24:02. > :24:06.of NATO looks na. No, it is not the am. -- looks as though they might.
:24:06. > :24:11.It will be increasingly difficult of allies to buy a necessary