Washington manages both impending military action against Iraq and
the ongoing war on terrorism in the same manner, international
accusations of "unilateralism" should
fade. Were the United States truly acting unilaterally, it would be
pursuing solely American national interests, and no other country
would participate. But as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has
observed, if one leads and the cause is right, over time others
will follow. In the war on terror, the
United States has not had to go it alone. Washington leads a
"coalition of the willing" that includes not only its allies, but
many other countries that share its objectives.
Indeed, as detailed in the appendix, 136
countries have offered the U.S.-led war varying forms of military
assistance, and some 20 nations have deployed a combined 16,000
troops for operations in Central Asia. The sky above Afghanistan is
patrolled by some 40 fighter aircraft from five countries, while
the Arabian Gulf has some 80 ships from 15 countries. Afghanistan
is rid of al-Qaeda, and beyond Afghanistan almost every country in
the world has enacted legal and administrative measures to combat
terrorism, improve border and airline security, and empower law
enforcement agencies to investigate and arrest suspected
terrorists. Many countries also have taken steps to thwart
America's close cooperation with its
formal treaty allies paid especially great dividends. The United
Kingdom sent 3,600 military personnel and provided the largest
naval task force, including one destroyer, two frigates, and one
missile-armed submarine among other vessels. Australia deployed
some 1,550 soldiers and sent the 16th Air Defense Regiment that
includes four F-18 Hornet fighter jets and two Boeing 707 aerial
refueling tankers. Japan has expanded beyond the traditional
confines of its constitution, enacting new legislation to enable
its Maritime Self Defense Forces to contribute directly to the
operations in the Arabian Gulf. Tokyo ultimately authorized the
deployment of 1,200 military personnel, three destroyers, two
supply ships and six C-130 transport aircraft, among other
strong U.S. stance against Iraq is following a similar pattern of
criticism and charges of unilateralism that belie the global
objectives at stake. Every responsible member of the international
community understands the dangers that Saddam Hussein poses. Yet
most will defer to U.S. leadership and its efforts to achieve a
more stable and secure world. Once again, just as in the war
against terrorism, the United States will lead a coalition of the
willing, comprised most prominently of its formal allies. Britain
and Australia have already formally indicated that they would be
willing to send ground troops to support any U.S. action in Iraq.
Several other countries, like Spain, Italy, and the Philippines,
have softened their initial opposition and have offered conditional
alliance lesson learned during the global war on terrorism should
not be lost on policymakers and governments discussing a possible
military action against Iraq. To incapacitate an informal network
like al-Qaeda required swift action, which precluded a multilateral
response decided by consensus. Washington led a coalition of the
willing rather than a combined operation under the auspices of an
international organization, and America's formal treaty allies have
been the most productive members of this coalition because
alliances are founded on shared values and congruent security
have argued that the need for formal alliance partners is redundant
in today's environment because the traditional Cold War threats of
invasions or military attacks by third-party states lessened when
the Soviet Union's fall ended the Cold War. But September 11 and
the new security environment that has ensued demonstrate that
alliances are critical for confronting the emergent threat from
non-state actors like al-Qaeda, whose tentacles extend across 60
countries. The United States should therefore reinforce its formal
alliances with the goal of consolidating resources, stepping up
cooperative efforts, and coordinating plans for a wide array of
The GLOBAL Response to Terrorism
President George Bush announced before a
joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, that the "war on
terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not
end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
stopped and defeated." In effect, the President declared two wars:
a general war to eradicate global terrorism and a specific one to
dismantle the core leadership of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Both wars
have elicited substantial international participation.
Almost every country has enacted legal and
administrative measures to combat terrorism, improving border and
airline security and empowering law enforcement agencies with
greater powers to investigate and arrest suspected terrorists.
Canada, for example, enacted anti-terrorism laws that designate and
define terrorist groups and activities. It invested over $289
million on immediate measures to counteract terrorist activities,
including enhanced policing, security, and intelligence. Austria
established an interdepartmental working group that incorporates
its Departments of Interior, Finance, and Justice. Singapore
formally outlawed Osama bin Laden and established a National
Security Secretariat to "develop a more coherent and integrated
approach to ensuring Singapore's national security," including battling terrorism.
Other nations have enacted similar measures.
Beyond securing national borders, many
countries also have helped thwart terrorist financing, which is
perhaps the most difficult element of the terrorist infrastructure
to dismantle. Some 142 countries have issued orders to freeze
terrorist assets; consequently, over $33 million in assets of at
least 153 known terrorist individuals and organizations has been
frozen outside the United States. General Counsel to the U.S.
Treasury Department David Aufhauser reports that al-Qaeda no longer
has the ability to raise funds efficiently.
Meanwhile, Operation Enduring Freedom has
been successful in ridding Afghanistan of al-Qaeda. After settling
in Afghanistan in 1996, bin Laden had established a terrorist
training center that trained an estimated 50,000 militants from
over 50 countries. In a relatively short period,
the U.S.-led military offensive destroyed 11 training camps and 39
command sites, incapacitating the al-Qaeda command center. Enduring
Freedom also unseated Afghanistan's de facto ruling Taliban
government, which sponsored al-Qaeda's
presence in the country, and established an interim government
under Hamid Karzai. On June 13, Afghanistan's Loya Jirga, or grand
tribal council, elected Karzai president.
The Value of Alliances
America's formal treaty allies are the
countries most likely to participate in an international coalition
of the willing led by the United States for achieving global aims.
While any country that has offered support since September 11 to
the global war on terrorism has been called an ally, only 23
countries are formally obligated by treaty to defend the United
States from an armed attack. These treaty allies include Australia,
Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and the 18
countries that belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
America's existing alliances were
established formally after World War II, primarily to deter
invasion by third-party nation states. An allied bloc of countries
mutually obligated to defend one another, like NATO, significantly
raises the cost for an aggressor to invade. That is why, in NATO's
50 years of existence, no member of has ever been the victim of an
invasion or military attack.
Asia, a network of bilateral alliances, along with the presence of
U.S. troops, has maintained relative peace in a region rife with
historical animosities. Although North Korea invaded the South in
1950, the United States and its allies launched a swift
counteroffensive to restore the partition along the 38th Parallel.
The presence of U.S. troops along the border ever since then has
kept this volatile regime in check, providing South Korea with the
security necessary to cultivate an economy that has grown 21-fold
since then. Furthermore, the U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Australia
alliances--respectively, the "northern pillar" and "southern
pillar" of security--are the foundations of security, prosperity,
and democracy in East Asia.
alliance can be as symbolic as it is functional. A formal treaty
embodies shared values and congruent national interests. For
America and its allies, it symbolizes a commitment to democracy,
the rule of law, and free market capitalism. No matter how
situations and paradigms change, shared values make it likely that
allies will pursue a similar course of action for the same reasons.
Hence, America's best weapon against the unexpected is its
the role of Alliances In the New Security
September 11 reemphasized the relevance of
alliances and expanded both their scope and nature. The countries
of NATO quickly invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, recognizing the terrorist
attacks as an attack not only against the United States, but
against NATO as well. This treaty mechanism was the necessary first
step for a collective military mobilization under the aegis of
United States eventually declined the option of a collective
operation, choosing instead to lead a coalition of the willing.
Australia also invoked the mutual self-defense clause of the
Security Treaty Between Australia, New Zealand, and the United
States, despite the fact that there
was no formal declaration of war. Other allies responded as if they
had invoked their articles of mutual self-defense without formally
doing so. For instance, Japan expanded beyond the traditional
confines of its constitution to allow new legislation enabling its
Maritime Self Defense Forces to contribute directly to the
operations in the Arabian Gulf.
September 11 is certainly the first
instance in which treaty allies have invoked articles of mutual
self-defense following an attack by a non-state entity. This means
that America's allies have expanded the kind of event that triggers
a military response to include non-state threats to sovereignty.
Concomitantly, there is an implicit expectation that the United
States would do the same in a similar instance.
the sole superpower with the most powerful military force in
history, the United States is most vulnerable to unconventional
modes of military attack or asymmetric warfare. These include
tactics like guerilla warfare, conventional terrorism, and
cyberterrorism. The desire to exploit this vulnerability guided the
formation of al-Qaeda, a loose but extensive network of networks
whose cells operate independently of one another, often unbeknownst
to each other. Al-Qaeda deployed operatives, stored weapons caches,
and set up bank accounts in many different countries to avoid
detection and penetration.
Al-Qaeda is arguably the first
organization to recognize America's military dominance and reorient
its goals accordingly. Unlike a rival state power, al-Qaeda does
not seek to invade the United States from without or overthrow its
government from within. It does not even intend to diminish
directly America's economic or military might. Al-Qaeda aims to
injure American citizens and their values in order to extort
Washington into inaction and ultimately a withdrawal from
limited objective allows al-Qaeda to pursue an unlimited array of
methods to achieve success. Its structure, hierarchy, and methods
make it difficult for the United States to defend against, let
alone exterminate, it single-handedly. In many ways, al-Qaeda is
the archetype for other groups or organizations with goals that
conflict with the national interests of the United States.
Asymmetric threats from such a nebulous
organization will require the United States to look beyond its
borders. These threats are more difficult to anticipate than
conventional threats; therefore, preparing adequate defenses and
deterrence is even more problematic. Terrorist organizations
operate in several countries to exploit the lack of coordination
between and among countries, as well as within a sovereign
country's own law enforcement agencies. For example, European Union
countries have expressed their reluctance to extradite criminal
suspects to the United States because of its death penalty, and
terrorists may take advantage of such disagreements.
Intelligence sharing is a long-term
solution to this problem. An unprecedented number of countries
offered intelligence assistance to the United States after
September 11. Even Russia provided the United States with at least
100 comprehensive intelligence reports after September 11. This
level of intelligence cooperation is probably unsustainable; it is
also ultimately undesirable because extensive international
intelligence sharing is susceptible to leaks that terrorist
organizations can easily exploit. In 1998, the United States
launched cruise missiles at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in an
attempt to eliminate top al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin
Laden; but the attack came three hours too late, and senior U.S.
officials suspect that Pakistani intelligence had tipped off bin
middle ground on this issue is for America to bolster intelligence
ties with a core network of countries that have similar
intelligence needs and objectives as well as an equal stake in
preserving intelligence security. The foundation of such a network
should inevitably start with America's treaty allies.
An Alliance-Based Approach
There are currently two wars on terrorism:
the general war to eradicate all forms of terrorism and the
specific war to dismantle the core leadership of al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan. The general war on terrorism will not succeed without
significant participation from the international community.
Unlike the general campaign to eradicate
terrorism worldwide, however, Operation Enduring Freedom is not a
global coalition of equal partners. As the primary target of the
September 11 attacks, the United States is leading the war effort.
In all likelihood, Washington would have launched a massive
military operation against al-Qaeda even without vast international
support. While a majority of the U.N. General Assembly supports
U.S. action in Afghanistan, Enduring Freedom is not an official
U.N. operation like the Korean War or Operation Desert Storm in
United States was able to rely heavily on a few select countries,
particularly its formal allies, for the main military operations in
Afghanistan and the surrounding region. And those countries that
participated in the operation did not hesitate to defer to U.S.
control of the operations. The success thus far of the war on
terrorism, therefore, has provided a blueprint for future allied
operations. As the primary victim of the September 11 attacks, the
United States led that operation. Had Australia been attacked, for
example, the United States would have offered its vast military
arsenal; but it would have recognized Canberra's right to lead and
decide the manner in which to execute the military response.
While some criticize U.S. action as
unilateral, it is rather an exhibition of real leadership from a
country that was not only the primary target of the terrorism, but
also the most powerful and best equipped to lead the charge. The
valuable role of America's allies during this time of hurried
action shows that the system of bilateral alliances is well- suited
to address the new global security environment, providing critical
flexibility to complement U.S. leadership.
Bilateral alliances thus have provided the
United States with an immediate and great pool of resources,
without the excess deliberation and consultation required of
organizations that require a consensus or even a majority vote.
America's system of bilateral alliances in Asia is well-suited to
prosecute the war on terrorism. Alliance commitments give the
United States flexibility to request specific contributions from
particular allies; and in turn, they can contribute according to
their capabilities and to the degree to which their national
interests coincide with U.S. actions. For example, Australia sent a
detachment from its 16th Air Defense Regiment while Japan provided
logistical support in the form of refueling ships and fuel, because
of constitutional restrictions that limit its participation in
offensive military operations.
Asia's security environment is sometimes
characterized as unstable or insecure because the region lacks a
formal multilateral security institution such as the mutual defense
pact of NATO. While such a collective defense organization has been
successful in maintaining peace in Europe for the last half
century, U.S. forward presence--entrenched in the series of formal
bilateral alliances it maintains with several key players in Asia--has prevented wars in this
region. Perhaps more significantly, faced with the unanticipated
insecurities of a new security environment, these bilateral
alliances will provide the cornerstone of future stability and
Strengthening U.S. Alliances
Given the demands of the global war on
terrorism, the United States should maintain and strengthen its
formal alliances, especially those in Asia, by taking concrete
interoperability with alliance partners. The backbone of a
successful alliance is effective interoperability, or the degree to
which alliance partners can operate together militarily to achieve
a common goal. While a formal alliance commitment implies a certain
structure of interoperability, the maintenance of these functions
requires constant attention and effort. Specifically, these areas
include standardization, integration, cooperation, and synergy
between U.S. military forces and those of its allied partners.
Thus, the U.S. Department of Defense, along with its counterparts
in allied countries, should prioritize the meaningful contributions
of allied partners by continuing to work at harmonizing interests
and goals at the strategic, operational, tactical, and
domestic support for the alliances in the United States and
abroad. A challenge to the future vitality of U.S.
bilateral alliances, particularly in Asia, will be the need to
sustain domestic support for these critical relationships at home
and abroad. As the global security environment continues to change,
alliance partners must be committed to making a strong case for the
ongoing necessity of the alliance to their domestic constituencies.
Leaders in the United States and allied governments must focus on
building and maintaining popular support, paying attention to
domestic audiences and justifying the sacrifices that alliance
maintenance requires. This focus will mean launching concerted
campaigns of public diplomacy to further these goals. For example,
the U.S. administration should work more closely with alliance
partners to ease the impact that an overseas U.S. force presence
has on the local communities.
relations among U.S. alliance partners. The future of
stability and prosperity in Asia will continue to depend on the
structure of alliances that exists between the United States and
key players in the region, such as Japan, South Korea, and
Australia. Nevertheless, the United States should not rely solely
on its formal bilateral relationships. Rather, it should work to
broaden this network by pursuing a hub-and-spokes system of
alliances. It should encourage the strengthening of relations
between and among its varied allied partners. For example, Japan
and South Korea should be encouraged to cooperate with each other,
as should Japan and Australia, and Australia and South Korea. Such
a networked system is the only reliable weapon with which the
United States and its allies can successfully deter or do battle
with the asymmetric threats of the future.
speech given during a campaign stop in Simi Valley, California, on
November 19, 1999, then-candidate George W. Bush proclaimed
Alliances are not just for crises summoned
into action when the fire bell sounds. They are sustained by
contact and trust.... [T]o be relied upon when needed, our allies
must be respected when they are not.
Strengthening America's alliance
relationships in Asia does not mean that the United States must
rely solely on them or get their permission before acting to
preserve its vital national interests. Rather, given the lack of
multilateral security organizations in Asia, the key to U.S.
leadership in Asia to promote stability and prosperity is working
through its formal alliances.
flexibility and dependability of alliances is precisely what the
United States requires to combat and vanquish asymmetric threats
that will continue to arise in the post-September 11 environment,
and will be key to a successful strategy in Iraq. Unswerving
alliance support also will provide justification for the effort in
Iraq in answer to charges of unilateralist U.S. foreign policy.
--Paolo Pasicolan is a Policy Analyst, and
Balbina Y. Hwang is Policy Analyst for Northeast Asia, in the Asian
Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.
Allied Contributions to the War on Terrorism
- Granted overflight rights.
- Offered airports and seaports for
refueling and maintenance support.
- Improved the monitoring of borders and
airports and the circulation of money in the banking system.
- Offered "unreserved assistance" to the
- Contributed $329 million to European Union
(EU) operations in Afghanistan.
- Granted overflight rights.
- Shared intelligence.
International Security Assistance Force
- Sent 60-75 soldiers (worth $3.9
- $1 million in emergency aid in
- Established donation campaign for Afghan
refugees, the proceeds of which will be doubled by the Ministry of
- Gave 10 scholarships to Afghan women.
- Extended the route network of Austrian
Airlines to include Kabul.
- Created a financial market intelligence
unit to enhance enforcement of money-laundering laws.
- Established an interdepartmental working
group (involving the Ministries of Finance, Interior, and Justice)
to focus on combating terrorism.
- Committed and deployed 1,550 soldiers to
--Cost of deployment of troops to
Afghanistan reportedly $320 million; additional $19 million
reportedly spent to intercept asylum seekers.
--Deployment of troops is said to cost $5
million per day.
--A detachment from the 16th Air Defense
--4 F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets.
--2 Boeing 707 aerial refueling
--3 guided missile frigates supporting
naval operations and conducting maritime interception operations in
the Arabian Gulf to enforce sanctions on Iraq.
--1 amphibious transport command and
--2 P3-C Orion maritime surveillance
- $53,370 donation to an International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) fund to combat nuclear terrorism.
- 30 Labrador puppies to the U.S. for
- Granted unconditional overflight rights
and the use of airbases.
- Shared intelligence.
- Will provide military forces.
- Froze bank accounts belonging to a trust
the beneficiaries of which include the name of one individual
listed by the United States as a suspected terrorist.
- Sent 1 liaison officer to Central Command
- Serves as the home base for the U.S. Fifth
- 1 frigate to escort aid vessels for
- Granted overflight rights and the use of
airports and seaports.
- Sent 1 officer to the Coalition
Intelligence Center (CIC) at Centcom.
- Sent 1 officer at the Regional Air
Movement Control Center as deputy chief of operations.
- Sent 4 officers to Tinker AFB to support
Operation Noble Eagle.
- 1 C-130 transport aircraft (including 25
aircrew and maintenance personnel).
- Contributed 1 C-130 and 1 A-310 support
aircraft to deliver humanitarian assistance.
- Led largest humanitarian assistance
mission, providing 198,413 pounds of food to starving
- Granted overflight rights.
- Shared intelligence.
- Offered basing on request and provided
basing for 6 KC-135 aerial refueling craft.
- Sent a 40-person nuclear, biological,
chemical (NBC) decontamination unit.
--2 TMM heavy mechanized bridges.
--2 BAT bulldozers.
--2 E-305 BV excavators.
--50 1KW generator sets.
--50 1-45KW generator sets.
--50 8-30KW generator sets.
--1 MAFS filtration system.
--6 ZIL-131 trucks.
- Invested $7.7 billion to combat terrorism
at home and abroad.
- Sent 2,100 soldiers (1,100 land, 200 air,
and 800 naval personnel) immediately; to date, 3,400 personnel have
been deployed, including 1,000-man light infantry unit on seven
- Sent 61 liaison officers to Centcom.
--1 CC-150 Polaris long-range transport
aircraft and 3 CC-130 Hercules transport aircraft conducted
strategic and tactical airlifts, moving 10.4 million pounds of
--Unspecified number of helicopters (930
missions flown, 2,900 hours logged).
--Canadian Naval Forces conducting
maritime interception operations, leadership interdiction
operations, escort duties, and maritime surveillance in the Arabian
--7 ships deployed (October 2001 to April
--Canadian Naval Task Group includes 2
frigates, 1 destroyer, 1 supply ship, 1 frigate integrated in the
U.S. Carrier Battle Group.
--2 CP140 Aurora aircraft employed as part
of the U.S. Carrier Task Force 57 (84 missions and 746 flight hours
--Unspecified number of Special Operations
--Light Infantry Battle Group (828
personnel and 12 Coyote armored reconnaissance vehicles) deployed
to Kandahar for combat and security operations.
- $16 million.
- Long-range patrol detachment for
- 2 CC-130 Hercules transport aircraft.
- Invested $289 million on immediate
measures including enhanced policing, security, and
- Redeployed over 2,000 federal police
officers to national security duties.
- Invested $7.7 billion over the next five
years to improve border security.
- Continued joint participation in North
American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and made unspecified
number of CF-18 fighter jets available to patrol U.S.-Canadian
- Signed Joint Statement of Cooperation on
Border Security and Regional Migration Issues with the United
States (December 3, 2001).
- Integrated Canadian officials within the
U.S. Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force.
- Developing common biometric identifiers
- Developing joint units to assess
information on incoming passengers.
- Expanded Integrated Border Enforcement
- Enacted anti-terrorism legislation
--Anti-Terrorism Act Defined and
designated terrorist groups and activities; tougher sentencing;
made it easier to use electronic surveillance.
--Public Safety Act.
--Amendments to the Aeronautics Act to
improve airport security.
- Cut off terrorist funding.
--Froze $344,000 worth of funds associated
with 100 individuals and groups designated by the United
--Invested $63 million to expand capacity
to identify terrorist funding.
- Accepted 224 diverted planes carrying more
than 33,000 passengers on September 11.
- Strictly enforced anti-money-laundering
- Revising regulations governing cash
management to set up system for reporting suspicious cash
- Developing a center to oversee financial
transactions and payments to prevent money laundering.
- Took action against suspected financiers
- Proposed a new anti-terrorism bill
(currently in Colombian Congress).
- Granted overflight and basing rights.
- Sent 4 officers to Centcom.
- Sent 251 personnel to Camp Doha, Kuwait,
to perform local training.
- 1 TU-154 transport aircraft (45 missions,
transporting 733 persons and 11 tons of cargo).
- Donated 1,000 military uniforms to the
Afghan National Army.
- Runs 6th Field Hospital (including 150
personnel) to provide medical support to ISAF.
- Sent 5 liaison officers to Centcom.
- Sent 30 soldiers to area of
- 1 C-130 transport aircraft (including 77
crew and support personnel).
- 1 F-16 fighter jet; 4 available upon
- Sent 100 Special Operations forces under
- Granted overflight and basing rights.
- Offered seaports to support maritime
interdiction operations (MIO).
- Will send 1 liaison officer to
- Offered French Level III medical
facilities if needed.
- Granted overflight rights.
- Sent 2 liaison officers to Centcom.
- Sent 2 liaison officers to Centcom.
- Granted unconditional overflight and
- Sent 2 explosive-detection dog teams for
- Offered 10 cargo handlers as part of
- Granted overflight and basing rights.
- Sent an unspecified number of liaison
officers to Centcom.
- Sent an unspecified number of liaison
officers to Centcom.
- Sent a civil military cooperation (CiMiC)
unit (50 officers).
- Pledged $9.5 million annually for the next
three years (Tokyo Donors Conference).
- Sent 50 special civilian and military
cooperation units, including liaison officers, to coordinate
- Granted overflight rights, airbase, and
- Sent 4,200 total personnel.
- Sent 15 liaison officers to Centcom.
- Sent 2 officers to serve as air
coordinators at Regional Air Movement Control Center.
--6 Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft.
--2 KC-135 aerial refueling craft.
--2 C-160 transport aircraft.
--2 MPA Atlantique-2 surveillance
--1 aircraft carrier, including 28
--Task Group of 1 guided missile
destroyer, 1 nuclear attack submarine, 2 frigates, 1 oiler, and
--Maritime intelligence of 1 landing
platform dock (LPD), 1 frigate, 1 corvette, 2 support ships.
--Minesweeping team of 2 minesweepers, 1
- Sent 1 battalion, 500 men.
- Sent 501 Special Forces and mine clearance
- Sent 1 squad Special Forces for U.N.
General Secretary special protection.
- Sent 1 squad French officers and
non-commissioned officers (NCOs) to train the Afghan 1st
- Sent 240 soldiers to Mazar-e-sharif for
- Upgrading Kabul Medical Institute (500
- Sent a total of 2,800 military
--1 nuclear, biological, and chemical unit
equipped with Fuchs armored reconnaissance vehicles.
--5 fast patrol boats.
--4 supply ships.
--1 A-310 transport craft as "flying
--Unspecified number of airborne warning
and control system (AWACS) crew.
Training of Afghan police force
--Kabul Multinational Brigade of 1
commander, 1 battalion-sized infantry task force, and an
unspecified number of combat support troops.
- Sent 700 soldiers; 1,200 available.
- Pledged $69.4 million in 2002 and a total
of $278 million for reconstruction efforts in the next four
- Donated $9.4 million to train and equip
the Afghan police force.
- Hosted Bonn Conference, which established
the Interim Authority in Afghanistan.
- Passed new anti-terrorism legislation,
including $1.3 billion in funding to give security and law
enforcement agencies more power to obtain information, to increase
air-traffic security, to tighten laws governing private
associations to increase authorities' powers to act on extremist
organizations, and to allow the prosecution in Germany of terrorist
activities in foreign countries.
- Assigned over 500 officers to a special
commission investigating the September 11 attacks.
- Froze over 200 bank accounts containing
more than $4 million total.
- Set up an independent unit within the
Federal Criminal Police Office responsible for the surveillance of
suspicious financial flows.
- Required banks to set up internal security
- Required banks to use an electronic data
processing system to ensure that clients are properly
- Provided basing; Greek Naval Base and
Airbase Souda, Crete, have been used as forward sites.
--Sent 1 Air Force officer to Regional Air
Movement Control Center.
--Offered 2 unspecified vessels and an
unspecified number of Air Force sorties.
--1 frigate (including 1 S-70 BA Aegean
Hawk helicopter, 1 special forces team, and 210 crew).
--1 frigate, 1 minesweeper.
--Sent 1 Navy liaison officer assigned to
- Deployed 1 Greek Engineer Company (64
engineering vehicles, 112 men).
- 2 C-130 transport aircraft (including 56
- Sent an unspecified number of officers
assigned to ISAF HQ in Britain and Kabul.
- Participated in Tokyo conference on
- Assigned 1 frigate to escort ships through
the Straits of Malacca.
- Offered ports and shipyards for calls and
- Offered to allow troops and equipment on a
- Offered aerial refueling assistance if
- Enhanced aviation security.
- Sent a total of 2,700 soldiers, including
up to 1,000 ground troops.
--Unspecified number of Harrier jump
--1 C-130 transport aircraft.
--1 Boeing 707.
--Aircraft carrier Garibaldi.
--De La Penne Group (1 destroyer and 1
--Sent 1 Engineer Team (43 people) to
repair Bagram airport runway.
- Sent 400 personnel.
- 3 C-130 transport aircraft.
- 1 Boeing 707 transport aircraft.
- 1 AN-124 transport aircraft.
- 1 IL-76 transport aircraft.
- Froze 20 bank accounts of suspected
terrorist individuals or groups.
- 3 destroyers, 2 supply ship Tokiwa, 700
crew (75 at-sea replenishments, 34 million gallons of F-76
- 6 C-130 transport aircraft (51 missions,
166 sorties, 773 tons of cargo, 123 passengers), unspecified number
of U-4 transport aircraft.
- 1,200 military personnel.
- Provided 183,000 kiloliters of fuel worth
- $42 million Overseas Development
Assistance (ODA) package to the government of Afghanistan.
- $143.59 million to U.N. programs devoted
- Hosted Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction
Assistance and pledged $500 million over the next 2.5 years.
- Expanded the constraints of the
constitution and passed the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law to
allow Maritime Self Defense Forces to participate in the war on
terrorism (recently approved a six-month extension).
- Froze the assets of 334 individuals or
groups suspected of terrorist ties.
- Offered overflight and basing.
- 1 Aardvark mine-clearing unit.