An exclusive interview of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen with the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of signing of Charter on a Distinctive Partnership Q: Fifteen years after signing of the Charter on Distinctive Partnership is a rather long time in relations. Where are Ukraine and NATO now, and where are they going? A: First of all, let me stress the importance of this so called distinctive partnership we agreed upon 15 years ago. It's based on the fact that an independent, sovereign and stable Ukraine is one of the cornerstones of Euro-Atlantic security. That's one of the reasons why we decided to engage Ukraine within the framework of this distinctive partnership. We've seen a lot of progress in our relationship over these 15 years. When it comes to operations, Ukraine has made a contribution to most NATO-led operations, as well as contributing to the NATO response force, and we're very grateful for that. Furthermore, we've created a forum, and I will call it a unique forum, for political consultation within the NATO-Ukraine Commission. A number of cooperation projects were developed and implemented over this time. For example, NATO assisted in the destruction of stocks of weapons. We've participated in the retraining of former Ukrainian soldiers etc. We've seen a lot of progress and I think there is a potential for closer cooperation in the coming years. One of the most important issues is energy security, as well as the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I've met with President Viktor Yanukovych on several occasions, and we've discussed ways for further practical industrial cooperation. I think there's potential for further cooperation, but there's also one major issue of concern - and that is what we consider to be politically motivated court prosecutions of opposition leaders in Ukraine. Q: … and was this the reason NATO postponed the NAC visit to Ukraine? A: We've conducted an overall assessment on the current situation and there's no reason to hide the fact that the Tymoshenko and Lutsenko cases are matters of concern. A mutual commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights is also part of our distinctive partnership. I see these cases as a major stumbling block in our relationship, and for that reason I urged the political leadership of Ukraine to get this issue resolved as soon as possible. Q: What, for NATO, would be a clear indication that the relationship can get back on track, so that the NAC visit can take place? A: As far as an NAC visit concerned, there are many things to take in to account, including, of course, our busy schedule. But ultimately - let me be very frank about it - I think the release of Tymoshenko would be one important element. But in general, I think a clear Ukrainian commitment to reforms of the judicial system and the legal system in Ukraine is a very important element in the further development of our distinctive partnership. Q: In the NATO declaration issued following the Chicago summit, the alliance called on Ukraine to hold fair and free parliament elections. I believe this issue also related to what you said before… A: … Of course. Our distinctive partnership is also based on a strong commitment to democracy, which also foresees free and fair elections. Obviously, we will follow the elections with great interest… Q: What do you mean - follow? As far as I know, usually the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (PA) sends observers to Ukraine. Will this also be the case at these elections? A: The PA takes decisions such as this independently, but according to the information I've received, the PA is considering the possibility of sending its observers to follow the election process in Ukraine. If they take such decision, I will welcome it. Q: Coming back to the Chicago summit: As reported, Ukrainian President Yanukovych, metaphorically speaking, put on the table proposals for the further engagement of Ukraine in Afghanistan. Can you tell us about this, and which proposals NATO could take up? A: I suppose it is the Ukrainian authorities who should present their proposals. We would appreciate [Ukraine's] continuing contribution to our training activities in Afghanistan. As you know, the current ISAF combat operation will end in 2014, but we decided in Chicago that beyond 2014 we will continue a support mission focusing on training, assisting, and giving advice to the Afghan security forces. That’s why we're encouraging our ISAF partners to consider the possibility of making a contribution to that training mission. So if Ukraine were to be in a position to contribute to training missions, we would warmly welcome it… Q: Only training mission and nothing else? No transportation possibilities? A: The core of the support mission after 2014 will be training activities, but obviously training also includes the possibility of transporting troops or trainers and equipment. Maybe other elements will be needed to conduct such training activities, but the core of this mission will still be training. Q: Following the official announcement in Chicago of the start of the building of the NATO antimissile system in Europe, where are we now with this project, do we have any progress with Russia, and what is the window of possibility for Ukraine to participate in this project? A: As for the first part: In Chicago we approved the first step in the development of a NATO antimissile defense system that we say will have 'interim capability." We've just started this process, and over the next eight to 10 years the NATO missile defense system will be developed, with the aim of protecting all populations in European-NATO nations. Regards of our cooperation with Russia, we've not seen much progress. There's an ongoing dialog, but there's no agreement. We've invited Russia to cooperate [in antimissile defense] but so far we have not achieved much progress… Q: Do you believe that it will happen? A: I hope so, because it also benefit Russia to cooperate. The whole system will be more effective if we cooperate. The Russians had requested what they call guarantees that our system is not directed against them. We have told the Russians that our system is not designed, from a technical point of view, to attack Russia, and even politically we have no intention whatsoever to attack Russia. On the contrary - 15 years ago we signed a joint document in which we stated that we will not use force against each other. We're still committed to this declaration. I hope the Russians are too. And finally, we suggested that we establish jointly a staff center for the exchange of data, and other activities, so that Russians could see with their own eyes that our system is not directed against Russia. I hope they realize that it's also in their interests to cooperate. And finally, the last element of your question. We've also clearly stated that we're ready to engage with third countries if they wish. Q: The section of the NATO declaration concerning 'smart defense' stated that partners are welcome to participate. What are the possibilities for Ukraine? A: We've stated in very clear terms that we're ready to engage with partners when it comes to the development of military capabilities. In the smart defense concept we will go for a multinationals project instead of purely national solutions. We believe that we can make more efficient use of resources if we help each other. That also includes our partners. The same goes for our connected forces initiative. The connected forces are about training, education, and exercises, to make sure that our militaries can actually work together. It's important that when a partner country sends military contributions to a NATO led international military operation, our troops and our equipment can work effectively together. So we've invited our partners to participate in this activity. Q: We used to hear from the Ukrainian government that the relationship between NATO and Ukraine got much better when Ukraine declared its neutral status, compared to the way it was when Ukraine tried to get the MAP. What's your opinion on the development of this relationship? A: Over the 15-year period of our distinctive partnership, the political leadership in Ukraine has changed on several occasions, and we have had good, gradually developed relations with Ukraine. We decided in 2008 at the Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of NATO. This very invitation proves that our door remains open. But at the same time, we fully respect Ukraine's decision to pursue what is called non-bloc status. That is for Ukraine to decide. We don't force any nation to become a member of NATO. It's a voluntary decision. We fully respect this national decision. At the same time we have excellent partnerships with those countries that don't want to become NATO members. The current political leadership in Ukraine has clearly stated that Ukraine intends to live up to each commitment within its distinctive partnership, and further develop our partnership within the NAC. Let me reiterate that we consider Ukraine a very important partner, but currently we also have some concerns. I hope the political leadership in Ukraine are aware of this serious concern and will take the necessary step to remove that stumbling block. Q: When the mission in Afghanistan comes to the end, aren't you afraid that NATO will become a sort of political talking club? A: First of all, it was always clear that we wouldn't stay in Afghanistan forever. We're not an occupation force, and we want to see an end of our combat mission in Afghanistan, when the time is right. Finally, you never know what might happen in the future. If three years ago, when I started as the SG of NATO, you'd asked me if I could imagine NATO operating in Libya, I think I would have said "no" immediately. But nevertheless, it happened last year. And this is my point – as military allies you have to be prepared for the unexpected. You never know what could happen. Our core task is to protect our populations and our member states against attack. And we stand prepared to take the necessary steps to protect our populations. So for that reason NATO will never become a talking shop, it will forever be a military alliance with strong military capabilities.