Diverse information keeps coming up as to which will be the Bulgarian bases to host NATO troops. Is it clear now which bases these will be? In fact, will the outcome depend on the Bulgarian side or more on the requirements of the allies as to the infrastructure of the bases, for instance?

Let me once again make it clear that NATO does not establish and support special bases, but uses the national infrastructure provided for by the member states, when necessary.

At the same time, however, NATO has established the practice to aid the construction and maintenance of national infrastructure, which has proved its significance for the Alliance.

By taking this into consideration, the Ministry of Defence and the General staff of the Bulgarian army have been seeking opportunities to include Bulgarian military infrastructure sites in the NATO Security Investment programme (NSIP).

So, let's not talk any more about NATO bases.

The issue which has come into the public eye is a matter of bilateral relations between the U.S. and Bulgaria and touches upon the use of Bulgarian military infrastructure by the U.S. armed forces. Yet in the course of consultations quite naturally attention will be paid not only to bilateral interests but also to the interests of the Alliance, as well as to some of the NATO member states.

At this stage, Bulgaria's opportunities have been probed to this end.



What would you say to those who fear that the U.S. bases in Bulgaria will increase the risk of terrorist attacks?

There is a risk of terror acts even now when there are no U.S. bases in Bulgaria. Nowadays, none of us is safeguarded against terror acts. The September 11 events showed that even the most powerful country could become at some point a target for terrorist attacks.

Our country also pays its contribution to this war through its commitments and participation in the international coalition. It is very important to foresee possible risks and take up all possible preventive measures against their manifestation. The dislocation of U.S. bases in Bulgaria would boost this country's level of security in this respect namely.

Curious information surfaced at the start of October saying that the U.S. is planning to dislocate Patriot missiles on the territory of Bulgaria. This once again kindled the debate as to what will Bulgaria permit and what not in the process of negotiations over the bases?

The general staff and the Ministry of Defence have received no official request so far for the dislocation of Patriot missiles on the territory of Bulgaria. In principle, the stationing of surface-to-air missiles, such as the Patriot, should not be considered apart from the overall process of stationing of military bases. When locating bases on the territory of a foreign country, the military command of the U.S. naturally takes up the necessary measures to protect them. The Patriot missiles are a part of this system for protection.



In early December, Foreign Minister Solomon Passi broke the news from Brussels that Bulgaria will join NATO before the Istanbul summit in June. What is left to be done on such a short notice?

The news that Bulgaria will become a NATO member before the summit in June does not mean we have achieved everything. Full-fledged integration into the military structures of NATO is a long process, about 10 yeas, which means we will continue our work in this direction even after our membership becomes a fact.

We should be going on with the work on the Strategic defence review and the implementation of the reforms within the set deadlines.



Once again, at the end of this year, not but a few Bulgarian servicemen will be dismissed. This is a painful part of the reform in Bulgaria's army. Isn't this too high a price to pay?

I think that the whole society paid a high price for Bulgaria's future NATO membership by sharing the burden of the reforms in different areas of public life. The army, as part of this society, has made its worthy contribution by stepping up the speed of reforms. This has been a very painful process.

The reduction of troops to 45 000 men has had its impact on many military professionals who had to leave the army. Each of those axed has three or four other people depend on them. By taking into account the difficult process of adaptation of the military into the civil society, I think, the army indeed paid a heavy price for the reforms.