This chapter places U.S. responsibility sharing policy in strategic perspective, describes U.S. security objectives, mutual security arrangements, and forward presence in the three regions most important to vital U.S. security interests: Europe, East Asia-Pacific, and Southwest Asia. The chapter provides a discussion of Alliance and country responsibility sharing contributions, including contributions to the war on terrorism. Detailed assessments of contributions under each responsibility sharing indicator are presented in Chapter III.
One of the fundamental objectives of U.S. national security strategy is to maintain NATO as the preeminent organization for ensuring transatlantic security and the anchor of American engagement in Europe. Over the past decade, the threat of direct invasion of NATO territory has decreased significantly, while other types of threats (including regional conflicts on the periphery of NATO, proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and terrorist attack) have increased considerably.
In 1999, NATO adopted a new Strategic Concept that envisaged a larger, more capable and flexible Alliance to meet current and future challenges. The Strategic Concept reaffirms NATO’s core function of collective defense while also reflecting the willingness to respond to crises that arise from regional or ethnic conflicts. The Strategic Concept provides guidance for developing the military capabilities necessary to carry out new missions and improve interoperability among NATO forces (see Defense Capabilities Initiative discussion below). The Strategic Concept also recognizes the importance of the European Security and Defense Identity (see below).
NATO is pursuing a policy of enlargement into Central and Eastern Europe to strengthen the Alliance and enhance European security and stability. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined NATO in 1999, and nine nations (Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia) are currently seeking admission in a second round of enlargement. NATO is expected to invite one or more of these nations to join the Alliance at its Prague Summit in November 2002. In the wake of the September 11th terror attacks, the U.S. has supported a NATO military transformation agenda that would include a new emphasis on capabilities to counter terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Contributions to the War on Terrorism
NATO responded swiftly to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States. The Alliance invoked Article V of the 1949 Washington Treaty (which states that an armed attack on any ally is considered an attack against all) for the first time in NATO’s history. On October 4, NATO agreed to take eight measures to "operationalize" its invocation of Article V. Beginning October 9, NATO deployed five AWACS aircraft to patrol the skies over the continental United States and free U.S. AWACS aircraft for missions over Afghanistan. This was increased to seven on January 16. The AWACS aircraft returned to Europe in mid-May 2002. The Alliance also sent its Standing Naval Force Mediterranean (a task force comprising eight warships and one auxiliary vessel) to the eastern Mediterranean in order to demonstrate resolve and establish a NATO presence in the region. The other measures were: enhancing intelligence sharing, providing access to ports and airfields, granting blanket overflight clearance, increasing security for U.S. bases on allied territory, ‘backfilling’ selected U.S. and allied military assets withdrawn from NATO’s area of responsibility, and providing assistance to allies and other states that were subject to increased threats due to their support of the war against terrorism.
As of April 2002, more than sixty countries were providing support to the war on terrorism, and thirteen of these were supporting Operation ENDURING FREEDOM with troops on the ground in Afghanistan. For example, the United Kingdom deployed a naval task force comprising the aircraft carrier Illustrious, an amphibious assault ship, two other warships, and seven auxiliary vessels to the Indian Ocean for escort and maritime interdiction operations. The UK also deployed three submarines, two of which struck targets in Afghanistan using Tomahawk Missiles. The Royal Air Force supported the air campaign with tanker aircraft, reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft, C-130 transports, and AWACS aircraft. British special forces participated in critically-important operations within Afghanistan, and Royal Marine Commandos were deployed into the country to secure Bagram airfield. An additional 1,700 Royal Marine Commandos were preparing to deploy in early April 2002 to conduct additional combat operations in Afghanistan.
France contributed strategic reconnaissance aircraft, C-160 transports, aerial tankers, and an electronic intelligence aircraft to the air campaign in 2001. France deployed ground troops into Afghanistan at the end of November 2001 to secure the airfield at Mazar-i-Sharif. In December 2001, France dispatched the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, three frigates, a tanker, and a nuclear attack submarine to reinforce coalition maritime surveillance in the Indian Ocean. French fighter aircraft commenced combat missions inside Afghanistan in early 2002.
Italy participated in coalition maritime surveillance/interdiction efforts in the Indian Ocean, providing the aircraft carrier Garibaldi, two frigates and a tanker. Italy also dispatched six Tornado reconnaissance aircraft to the region. Germany provided three frigates, three logistic ships and a patrol boat flotilla. Canada contributed a destroyer, a replenishment ship, and three frigates one of which, the HMCS Vancouver, was integrated into the U.S.S. John C. Stennis carrier battle group. The Canadians also sent an elite counter-terrorist unit, maritime patrol aircraft, and air transports to the region. In early 2002, Canada deployed a 750-man battlegroup to Kandahar to aid U.S. Army forces in hunting down the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida.
The Netherlands contributed a total of three frigates, one tanker aircraft, one C-130 transport aircraft, four P-3 maritime patrol aircraft, and a submarine, deploying them to the Caribbean, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean. Those deployed to the Caribbean relieved U.S. military assets supporting U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). Denmark, Germany, and Norway deployed special forces units to Afghanistan where they engaged actively in combat operations against Taliban and al-Qaida forces. The Czech Republic contributed a Tu-154 transport aircraft to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, and is deploying a nuclear/biological/chemical (NBC) defense unit to the region.
The NATO allies also contributed military assets to support humanitarian relief efforts in and around Afghanistan, and are leading peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan. As of March 2002, the United Kingdom commanded the sixteen-nation International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul, to which it contributed a total of 1,800 troops. Other nations participating in ISAF include Denmark (48 troops), France (550 troops), Germany (860 troops plus headquarters personnel), Italy (350 troops), the Netherlands (220 troops), and Turkey (260 troops).
The following table provides a more extensive, but not exhaustive, list of allied contributions to the war on terrorism as of April 2002. It includes contributions from Pacific and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies as well as by NATO members.
Allied Military Contributions to Combat, Maritime
The Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI)
Since the late 1990s, the focus of NATO defense planning has shifted to developing capabilities needed to address new and emerging requirements by transforming existing forces through restructuring and the exploitation of advanced technologies. The Alliance has recognized that future conflicts would place a premium on the ability to deploy troops and equipment rapidly both within and beyond NATO territory, including to areas with little or no preexisting support infrastructure. The new focus was also motivated by the realization that the acquisition of long-range missiles, and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons by hostile states could provide asymmetric means of countering NATO’s conventional superiority. Accordingly, in April 1998, NATO launched the Defense Capabilities Initiative (DCI) as the principal vehicle for pursing the military capabilities necessary to meet the challenges of the new security environment. The Allies endorsed a total of 58 short- and long-term DCI objectives in five functional areas: deployability and mobility; sustainability and logistics; consultation, command and control (C3); effective engagement; and survivability of forces and infrastructure. For a more detailed description of the DCI’s origins and progress, please consult the ‘Report to the Congress on NATO’s Defense Capabilities Initiative’ submitted in January 2002.
Mixed Results Thus Far
Since the last Report to Congress, the Alliance has made modest progress in some DCI areas, albeit with an uneven level of effort by its 19 members. Some progress is being achieved in the acquisition of advanced weapons systems. Major allies are seeking to acquire advanced fighters, long-range cruise missiles, medium lift transport aircraft, and attack and transport helicopters. However, most of these systems will not become available in sufficient numbers until the latter part of the decade. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal have commenced aircraft upgrades to increase day/night, all-weather capabilities. A trend towards more cooperative programs, including joint procurement, has also been evident. Such programs promise to deliver cost savings, interoperability improvements, and improved capability.
Nevertheless, in many other respects, progress toward meeting the DCI objectives has been disappointingly slow. The Alliance will continue to suffer from a substantial shortage in strategic and oversized cargo airlift capability until beyond 2006, notwithstanding the United Kingdom's decision in 2000 to lease four C-17 aircraft from the United States. Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom announced their intention to develop and procure a new transport aircraft, the A400M. However their level of financial commitment to the multi-billion dollar project is not clear, and the aircraft are not expected to enter service before 2008. Italy recently canceled its planned acquisition of 16 A400M aircraft, and Germany has obtained funding for only 40 of the 73 aircraft it has committed to purchase. Similarly, the Alliance’s need for secure, deployable C3 capabilities remains unmet, and serious deficiencies remain in the area of NBC defense (with shortfalls in detection systems, and personal and collective protective equipment).
The success of the DCI continues to depend, to a large extent, upon the provision of sufficient resources. Without the necessary investment, neither the Alliance as a whole nor its individual member nations will meet the DCI goals, posing the risk that Alliance capabilities will be eroded over time. However, European defense outlays currently are projected to remain flat over the next few years. Even where some budgetary increases are projected, weapons procurement funds will continue to be squeezed by domestic political constraints, current operations and maintenance expenses, and rising personnel costs associated with the trend toward increasing professionalization of European militaries.
European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI)
NATO established the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) in 1994 to "strengthen the European Pillar of the Alliance while reinforcing the trans-atlantic link and enable the European allies to take greater responsibility for their common security and defense." In 1998, the United Kingdom and France agreed that the EU "must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces" and have the capability "to take decisions and approve military action where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged." In April 1999, Alliance leaders agreed to work with the EU and reinforce NATO’s ESDI through four specific steps (called "Berlin Plus"). These steps included 1) assuring EU access to NATO operational planning, 2) ensuring availability of pre-identified NATO capabilities and common assets for the EU, 3) enhancing the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe role to encompass serving both as the operational commander of an EU-led operation and as ESDI strategic coordinator within NATO, and 4) adapting NATO’s defense planning system to incorporate the availability of forces for EU-led operations. Berlin Plus will help to prevent the creation of an EU counterpart to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and a separate ‘EU’ army, and will ensure that EU operations are conducted in accordance with NATO doctrine via a common defense planning process.
In December 1999, the EU established the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) that included a Headline Goal to develop the capability, by 2003, to deploy a force of up to 60,000 troops within 60 days and sustain that deployment for at least one year. The November 2001 EU Capabilities Improvement Conference resulted in additional pledges by EU members toward meeting the Headline Goal. The EU defense ministers identified capability shortfalls, such as strategic lift, aerial refueling, suppression of enemy air defense, and missile defense, which are consistent with NATO’s Defense Capabilities Initiative.
The EU declared the ESDP "operational" in December 2001, however this only applied to some of the less demanding crisis management tasks. The EU leaders recognized that the various capability shortfalls had to be rectified before the 2003 Headline Goal could be achieved.
NATO and EU members continue to work together to develop an agreement covering the four elements of Berlin Plus. The United States is engaged in a variety of efforts to develop a cooperative, coherent, mutually-reinforcing, and transparent relationship between NATO and the EU.
Cost Sharing in the Alliance
Although most NATO allies do not offset the same percentage of U.S. stationing costs as Japan, they contribute significantly more toward sharing the military roles, as well as the overall political and economic costs, of protecting shared interests.
Under long-standing cost sharing agreements, our NATO allies collectively pay three-quarters of NATO’s common-funded budgets, which totaled $1.4 billion in 2001 (excluding contributions to the NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Program). The U.S.’ one-quarter share of the NATO common-funded budgets (in which all 19 members participate) provides it with significant leverage in Alliance decision-making, and access to NATO facilities that would cost the U.S. far more to build and maintain on its own. NATO’s common budgets also provide a cost-effective means of dealing with large acquisitions, which, if funded separately, would create a heavy burden for any one nation. Within NATO, Allies consult on the goals and priorities for their national defense programs, and engage in a regular peer review process with the aim of increasing effectiveness, improving burdensharing, and anticipating future challenges to the Alliance.Contributions of Selected NATO Allies The remainder of this section describes notable responsibility sharing contributions by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy. These nations collectively host over 90 percent of the U.S. military personnel stationed in Europe, and account for nearly three-fourths of the defense spending of all our European-NATO allies. United Kingdom The United Kingdom is one of the United States’ closest allies, as demonstrated by its participation in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and leadership of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. UK-U.S. military-to-military cooperation has no parallel. The UK also participates actively in NATO and the Partnership for Peace, and is a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. British forces play major roles in NATO's conventional and nuclear force structures, as well as deploying around the world in response to regional crises and national commitments. The United Kingdom’s 2001 defense budget was virtually unchanged from 2000, declining by a marginal 1.4 percent in real terms, and defense spending relative to GDP (2.4 percent in 2001) remains among the highest in NATO. The UK devoted the second highest percentage of defense spending (29 percent) to NATO modernization programs (i.e., procurement, and research and development). The UK provides substantial host nation support for U.S. forces (over $132 million), almost entirely in the form of indirect contributions (i.e., waived taxes, rents and other forgone revenues). British forces form the backbone of the Allied Command Europe (ACE) Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC), and provide the second largest shares of NATO Reaction Forces and total allied naval tonnage. The UK continues to implement changes called for in the 1998 Strategic Defense Review (SDR), creating a more deployable, sustainable, and flexible force. The UK has recently added a "New Chapter" to the SDR to address the new challenges posed by a changed, post-September 11 security environment. The UK contributes about 3,000 troops to KFOR, and is the lead nation in the Multinational Brigade Center (MNB-C) sector of Kosovo. Another 1,800 troops serve with NATO’s Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia. During 2001, the UK acted as lead nation for and contributed 2,200 troops (out of a total of 4,500) to Operation ESSENTIAL HARVEST (the NATO mission to collect arms from ethnic Albanian rebels in Macedonia in August and September 2001). British forces also served in UN peace operations in Bosnia, Cyprus, on the Iraq-Kuwait border, Georgia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and East Timor. The UK continues to assist in implementing the UN Security Council maritime sanctions against Iraq, and is the only ally that joins the United States in using offensive air power to enforce the northern and southern no-fly zones. Finally, it made the third largest financial contributions to UN peace operations in 2001, both in absolute terms ($126 million) and relative to GDP, of all the nations covered in this Report. The United Kingdom provided over $5.0 billion in foreign assistance in 2000 (0.3 percent of GDP), and plans to continue increasing foreign aid to approximately $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2004. The UK spent $469 million on bilateral and multilateral humanitarian aid programs in 2001, and as of January 2002, had contributed an additional $86 million in emergency humanitarian funding for Afghanistan, and $37 million for Pakistan. The UK provides a substantial contribution to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In July 2000, it announced plans to provide $120 million in the years 2001-2004 for nuclear safety and security programs in the former Soviet Union, including plutonium disposition, a ‘nuclear cities’ initiative, and ensuring the safe and secure storage of spent nuclear fuel from over a hundred decommissioned submarines. Furthermore, it announced that it would contribute $18 million over the same three-year period to chemical weapon demilitarization and biological non-proliferation projects in Russia. France France bears an important share of the responsibility of defending Europe’s security and stability. France endorses U.S. calls for European defense spending levels to be raised sufficiently to allow credible self-defense, the development of effective crisis reaction capabilities, and greater participation in international responses to global challenges. While France does not participate in the Alliance’s military command structure, it has consistently demonstrated its willingness to engage in collective responses to common threats. France was among the first allies to seek a role in the war on terrorism, and plays a leading role in other allied operations. France’s military is also undergoing a major restructuring towards a smaller, modernized, and all-professional force that will be both more deployable, and interoperable with U.S. and allied militaries. France’s defense spending in 2001 ($33.6 billion) was the fourth highest of all the nations covered in this Report. In December 2001, an additional $3.1 billion was allocated to defense. While most of these funds were devoted to the A400M transport aircraft project, $398 million was designated for equipment upgrades associated with the war against terrorism. France devoted the sixth highest percentage of defense spending (19.9 percent) to NATO modernization programs (i.e., procurement, and research and development). France is the second largest contributor of peacekeeping personnel in the world after the United States. During 2001, French troops and civilian police participated in UN missions in Sierra Leone, Lebanon, the Republic of Georgia, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Western Sahara, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and on the borders between Iraq and Kuwait, and Eritrea and Ethiopia. At the end of the year, 5,200 French troops were serving in Kosovo, where France assumed command of KFOR in October 2001. France also currently commands SFOR’s sensitive Multi-National Division (Southeast) sector in Bosnia, where it has about 2,200 troops. France contributed an additional 225 troops to NATO’s Task Force Fox in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In addition to the troops serving in multinational peacekeeping operations, France had over 24,000 military personnel stationed abroad in 2000, including approximately 6,100 in Africa. France consistently spends the largest share of GDP on official development assistance of all the Group of Seven (G-7) nations. Between 1998 and 2000, its foreign assistance outlays averaged nearly half a percent of GDP (0.46 percent). Absolute contributions increased in 2000 with total grant aid contributions of over $5.8 billion. France currently serves as administrative point of contact for the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and played an important role in establishing the MTCR’s international code of conduct against proliferation of ballistics missiles in 2001. France participates in the Australia Group for the control of chemicals and technologies related to biological warfare, as well as the Nuclear Suppliers Group for the control of nuclear-related, dual-use technologies and equipment. It also works closely with the United States and other allies on a program for the disposition of Russia's weapons-grade plutonium, and, as a member of the UN Conference on Disarmament, is helping to develop guidelines for a fissile material cutoff treaty regime. Germany Germany’s geographical location, economic strength, defense capability and political influence make it a vital European ally. Its armed forces are among the largest, most modern and best-trained in NATO, and form a major component of Alliance military capabilities. In May 2000, Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping unveiled plans for a major restructuring of the German armed forces. Active-duty military strength is to be reduced from over 300,000 at present to 270,000 personnel by 2006, and the number of Defense Ministry civilian employees reduced by nearly 40,000. Despite these cuts, the future force will be both more professional, as conscript strength will be trimmed from 135,000 to about 80,000, and more capable of conducting crisis response operations. The "readiness forces" configured for rapid deployment shall be tripled to about 150,000 personnel. In 2001, German defense spending was $27.5 billion, or 1.5 percent of GDP -- well below the average of 1.9 percent for all non-U.S. NATO nations. In view of the slowdown in the German economy and Germany’s EU Stability and Growth Pact commitment to limiting budget deficits, defense spending is projected to decline by slightly over one percent, in nominal terms, during 2002. However, in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, the German government introduced new taxes to cover expected cost increases associated with new security measures and the war on terrorism. During 2001, Germany contributed small troop contingents to UN peace operations in the Republic of Georgia and along the Iraq-Kuwait border, and over 450 civilian police to the UN missions in Bosnia and Kosovo. There are 5,200 German troops serving with KFOR in Kosovo, and a battlegroup of over 800 personnel is deployed with SFOR in Bosnia. In August and September 2001, approximately 500 German soldiers participated in NATO’s Operation ESSENTIAL HARVEST in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Germany then assumed the leading role in the follow-on Operation AMBER FOX, which deployed approximately 700 NATO troops (including a German company and supporting elements) to support and provide emergency extraction for international monitors in FYROM. Germany also made very large financial contributions to UN peace operations, ranking second only to the United States in absolute terms ($209 million), and ranking first in contributions relative to GDP. German foreign development assistance contributions totaled over $5.7 billion for 2000, ranking fourth among all the nations covered in this Report. In addition to these contributions, Germany provided extensive financial assistance in the pursuit of shared security objectives in the Balkans, including $133 million through the Southeastern European Stability Pact and $11.9 million for reconstruction projects. Germany has also pledged approximately $280 million over four years to help with Afghanistan reconstruction efforts. Germany contributed $6.3 million to Russia and Ukraine for counterproliferation and nuclear threat reduction in 2001, including chemical weapons destruction, nuclear waste disposal, SS-19 and SS-24 missile silo closure, and nuclear incident emergency planning programs. Germany has also contributed a total of $17.6 million to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization to-date, and is scheduled to provide another $4.7 million each year through 2010. Since September 11, German federal and local governments have allocated considerable resources to enhance force protection for U.S. military personnel and dependents. Bundeswehr troops have been deployed to protect U.S. military facilities and additional support provided by local police. Germany contributed over $1.2 billion in 2000 to offset the costs of maintaining U.S. military forces on its soil, representing about 21 percent of U.S. non-personnel stationing costs in Germany. Almost all cost sharing was in the form of indirect contributions (i.e., waived taxes, rents and other forgone revenues). Italy Italy contributes actively to our security partnership, both through NATO and bilaterally. Italy is a major staging and logistics base for operations in and beyond the immediate region. Italy hosts U.S. forces and contributes significantly to United States power projection capability. NATO air bases in Italy, for example, were essential in the bombing campaign against Yugoslavia during the 1999 Kosovo crisis, and continue to provide essential staging and transportation points for NATO peacekeeping missions in the Balkans. Italian real defense spending shrank by 3.6 percent from 2000 to 2001. As a proportion of GDP, defense spending declined from 2.1 to 1.9 percent over the same period. The ongoing transition to a smaller, fully professional military of 190,000 troops by the end of 2005 promises to create more proficient and deployable forces, but places additional pressure on the defense budget, and greatly complicates efforts to fund vital modernization programs. Italy ranks third (after the United States and France) in personnel contributions to multinational peace support operations. At the end of 2001, Italy had roughly 6,000 Army and Carabinieri troops serving with KFOR (including about 1,400 in Albania), and is the lead nation in Multi-National Brigade (West). Another 1,000 Italian troops were serving with SFOR in Bosnia. During 2001, Italy also had 317 personnel serving in UN operations in Jerusalem, Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Western Sahara, Guatemala, and on the Iraq/Kuwait, India/Pakistan and Eritrea/Ethiopia borders. It also made the second largest financial contribution to UN peace support operations, relative to its share of total GDP, of all the nations in this Report. Italy provides the third highest share of NATO Reaction Forces. Italy's foreign assistance spending in 2000 was over $1.8 billion. The majority of Italian foreign assistance efforts are in support of poverty reduction strategies in sub-Saharan Africa. Italy is active in a number of initiatives that complement U.S. efforts to strengthen collective security arrangements both in Europe and globally. The Army’s Julia Mountain Brigade forms the framework of the Multinational Land Force, a brigade-sized tri-national formation incorporating Italian, Hungarian, and Slovenian units. Italy also contributes signals and C3I assets, and an infantry battalion to the Multinational Peace Force South-Eastern Europe, which is dedicated to enhancing regional security in the Balkans (Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Turkey and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia also contribute). Finally, Italy contributes troops to the 14-nation UN Stand-by Forces High Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG), which gives the United Nations a rapid-reaction peacekeeping capability. When SHIRBRIG deployed for the first time ever in November 2000 (as the core peacekeeping element of the UN Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea), Italy contributed four transport and reconnaissance aircraft, two helicopters, and 200 personnel.
Italy contributed over $364 million in 2000 to offset the costs of maintaining U.S. military forces on its soil, representing about 37 percent of U.S. non-personnel stationing costs in Italy. Almost all cost sharing was in the form of indirect contributions (i.e., waived taxes).
Contributions to the War on TerrorismJapan provided swift and significant support for U.S. actions in the war against terrorism. This support has been on the diplomatic, military, force protection/intelligence-sharing, financial, and humanitarian fronts. Perhaps most significantly, elements of the Japanese Self Defense Forces have deployed overseas for the first time in history to support an ongoing combat operation. On October 29, 2001, the Diet passed legislation authorizing the military to provide logistical support to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. Since then, Japan's Maritime Self Defense Force has used three destroyers and two supply ships to support at-sea replenishment needs. The Japanese Air Self Defense Force is providing airlift support to U.S. forces and the Ground Self Defense Forces have exercised with U.S. Forces Japan to enhance security at U.S. military bases in Japan. Japan provided significant emergency financial assistance, including to U.S. victims of the terrorist attacks, Pakistan, and other countries neighboring Afghanistan. Japan provided significant humanitarian relief assistance through relief agencies working in Afghanistan and in surrounding countries, and co-hosted international meetings on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, notably the January 21-22, 2002 ministerial conference in Tokyo. Since September 11, the Republic of Korea has engaged in information sharing on terrorist issues, provided substantial humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and neighboring countries, and increased force protection for Americans in-country. It offered -- and the United States accepted -- a military support package that included a 150-member mobile medical unit, C-130 aircraft and an LST (Landing Ship, Tank) naval craft to transport military personnel and supplies in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. The ROK has contributed substantial aid to refugees in Afghanistan and adjoining countries, and has pledged to provide long-term, open-ended support to the coalition effort and humanitarian assistance. Japan Our bilateral alliance with Japan (the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States of America and Japan) is the key to our security strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, and is crucial to the forward deployment of U.S. forces there. Japan is expanding its cooperation with the United States and is taking an increasingly active role in international affairs. Although Japan spends a smaller proportion of GDP on defense (1 percent), than any other ally except Luxembourg, the size of its economy is such that it ranks second in absolute defense expenditures among all the countries in this Report. Furthermore, Japanese annual defense spending has grown by 20 percent since 1990, compared to a decline of just under 20 percent for all nations covered in this Report combined during the same period. Cost sharing in support of U.S. forces stationed on its territory remains Japan’s most significant responsibility sharing contribution. Indeed, its host nation support is the most generous of any U.S. ally, and consists of funding covered under both the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) and the Facilities Improvement Program (FIP). Japan’s cost sharing support for U.S. forces in 2000 was $5.0 billion, covering 78.9 percent of U.S. basing costs. A new five year (2001-2006) bilateral SMA went into effect on 1 April 2001. The new SMA will provide approximately $7.3 billion over five years. Under the SMA, Japan pays virtually all of the costs of local national labor employed by U.S. forces, as well as a portion of the costs of public utilities on U.S. bases. In addition, the SMA covers the costs of transferring U.S. training activities from U.S. bases to other facilities in Japan when the Government of Japan requests such transfers. United States Forces Japan (USFJ) reports that in 2000 Japan provided over $1.6 billion under the SMA. Under the separate FIP, Japan voluntarily provides substantial funding for quality-of-life projects, including housing, community support and recreation facilities, and utilities upgrades. In recent years Japan has also shown increased flexibility under the FIP in constructing direct operational facilities, such as hangars and hardened aircraft shelters. In 2000, Japan provided over $780 million for the construction, restoration, and maintenance of facilities under the FIP. In addition, Japan also provided over $800 million in rents and $566 million for other vicinity improvements in 2000. The Department estimates that under the new SMA and other labor cost sharing arrangements, the value of Japan's direct labor cost sharing (using 2000 exchange rates) will be approximately $1.3 billion per year through 2006, or $6.5 billion of the $7.3 billion SMA total. Over the same five-year period, Japan’s direct and indirect cost sharing, including forgone taxes, rents, and revenues, will continue to be $4.0 to $5.0 billion per year, depending on exchange rate fluctuations. Japan’s evolving international role means greater involvement in multinational efforts to promote regional and global stability. Japan has the largest foreign assistance budget of any nation in this Report ($13 billion or 0.32 percent of its GDP in 2000). Japanese aid focuses on poverty reduction programs and emergency situation assistance and is primarily targeted to low-income and least developed countries. Japan’s monetary contributions to UN peace operations during 2000 ($118 million) were greater than all other nations in this Report except the United States, Germany, and the UK. The formal U.S.-Japan cooperative research and development projects, valued at $243.5 million, continued to show progress during 2001. Three of the seven formal cooperative projects were successfully completed, while the remaining programs will conclude by 2003. The Republic of Korea (ROK) The Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea remains central to the stability of the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. U.S. forces stationed in the Republic of Korea contribute significantly to the security and territorial integrity of the country, and demonstrate U.S. support for peaceful change and democratic evolution in the region. The Republic of Korea makes major contributions to regional security by maintaining strong, modern, and proficient armed forces. In 2001, the ROK devoted 2.8 percent of its GDP to defense. ROK annual defense spending has grown by over 36 percent since 1990, compared to a decline of almost 25 percent for the U.S. and just under 20 percent for all nations in this Report combined over the same period. Furthermore, the Republic of Korea provides the second largest percentage of total allied ground combat capability, the third largest percentage of total allied active-duty military personnel, and the fourth largest percentage of combat aircraft capability. The U.S. and South Korean governments recently concluded a new three-year, Special Measures Agreement (SMA) (2002-2004). The new agreement represents ‘real and meaningful growth’ in the Korean contribution to U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) non-personnel stationing costs. The ROK pledged $490 million for 2002. This represents a 15 percent increase over the 2001 contribution of $425 million and the biggest single increase in eight years. Under the new agreement, the ROK will be contributing 50 percent of stationing costs by 2004. Another contribution to USFK is the Korean Augmentees to the United States Army (KATUSAs), which are funded by the Republic of Korea. In 2001, 4,882 KATUSAs were assigned to the U.S. Eighth Army, filling many positions that would otherwise have to be filled by U.S. military personnel. The KATUSAs provide a substantial level of assistance to the U.S. forces. While the Republic of Korea has begun a subtle but definite shift in its security focus from a North Korean view to a broader Northeast Asian and worldview, Seoul’s defense efforts in 2001 continued to focus on military readiness. However, during 2001, the ROK provided 444 troops to serve with the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), the follow on to the International Force for East Timor (INTERFET), in which the Republic of Korea also participated. It also sent military observers to India/Pakistan, Georgia, and Western Sahara. Korea’s total troop contribution to major multinational peace operations in 2001 numbered 473.
Economic constraints limit the Republic of Korea’s ability to allocate funding for foreign assistance, but its contributions nonetheless totaled $224 million in 2000. The ROK is also making a major investment in support of shared nonproliferation goals under the United States-North Korea Agreed Framework. It is committed to playing a central role in funding the cost of constructing light water reactors in North Korea
The United States seeks to sustain and adapt security partnerships with key states throughout this critical region, broaden the economic and cultural underpinnings of these relationships, and promote peaceful settlement of regional disputes before they erupt into conflicts that could threaten our interests. Collective efforts are essential, as neither the United States nor its partners in the region can ensure the security of Southwest Asia alone. Our principal security partners in this region are the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). By July 2001, all but Qatar and the UAE had ratified the joint defense pact signed by the six member states in December 2000. This pact calls for the GCC’s defense resources to be pooled, and stipulates that an attack on any member would be considered an attack against all the states. In June 2001 the Saudi Arabian Chief of Staff General Saleh bin Al-Muhaya, speaking on behalf of the GCC nations’ chiefs of staff, stated that expansion of the Peninsula Shield Force to approximately 20,000 personnel will be completed by mid-2003. In early 2001, the GCC nations began operating their multinational air defense command and control network, allowing the states to share air surveillance capabilities. The security framework in Southwest Asia is strikingly different from those in other regions of vital interest to the United States. The U.S. has no formal bilateral or multilateral defense treaties, and instead relies upon a range of executive agreements for military access, status of forces, and prepositioning of equipment and supplies. Contributions to the War on Terrorism The GCC member states provided immediate and robust support to the war on terrorism and continue to serve as important coalition partners in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. While the GCC member states have not been directly involved in combat operations, they have provided significant assistance critical to coalition operations including basing and over flight rights to a large contingent of U.S. forces. Additionally, host nation military bases, civilian airports, and other facilities have been used for the bed down and storage of U.S. aircraft, equipment, and personnel. The majority of GCC nations are providing troops and equipment for increased force protection requirements as well as additional air traffic control, and fuel storage. The GCC nations were generous in their support to humanitarian operations in Afghanistan. Their contributions included the establishment of refugee camps in Pakistan, financial assistance and other humanitarian aid for Afghan refugees. Some of the member states have been involved in providing generous economic assistance packages to Pakistan. The GCC nations have also been key partners in the effort to block terrorist financing, including the seizure of assets associated with al-Qaida’s financial network. Other Responsibility Sharing Contributions The GCC nations continue to spend above-average percentages of GDP on defense, noting that many have per capita GDPs that are lower (and in some cases, much lower) than the average for all the nations in this Report. A reduction in oil prices over 2001 had an adverse impact on GCC government budgets, however the UAE was the only GCC country to experience a decline in defense spending. Saudi Arabia’s defense spending increased by 50.8 percent in 2001, reversing a 30 percent decrease between 1998 and 2000. Qatar increased defense spending by 5.3 percent in 2001 and Kuwait increased defense spending by 4.0 percent. After declining in both 1999 and 2000, Oman’s defense spending increased by 40.1 percent in 2001. In general, the GCC nations have large numbers of active-duty military personnel relative to their total labor force and their shares of total allied ground and air combat capability continued to far exceed their corresponding shares of total GDP. Relative to its share of total GDP, Bahrain contributes the largest shares of ground and air combat capability, and the third largest share of naval tonnage of all the nations addressed in this Report. Saudi Arabia contributes the largest share of tanker aircraft and the second largest share of military transport aircraft capacity, relative to its GDP, of all the nations covered in this Report. Kuwait provides significant grant aid and humanitarian assistance to lesser-developed countries, primarily in the Arab world, but also to nations in Southeast Asia, Africa and the Balkans. In 2000, Kuwait contributed $155 million, a decline of nearly 10 percent over 1999 assistance levels. The UAE increased foreign assistance levels to $153 million in 2000, primarily to Arab and Islamic countries through the Shabir Fund for Development. This represents a 43 percent increase over 1999 contributions and nearly doubles the amount provided in 1998. The GCC nations provide a major contribution to regional security by allowing U.S. forces the use of military facilities, transit rights, and other forms of access. In 2001, the United States had defense cooperation agreements permitting access and prepositioning with Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE. Kuwait continued to house the bulk of U.S. ground troops in the region (Operation DESERT SPRING) and much of our air power assigned to two Air Expeditionary Groups. Saudi Arabia provided access to U.S. forces enforcing the no-fly zone over southern Iraq (Operation SOUTHERN WATCH). Since 1995, Bahrain and Qatar have hosted several Air Expeditionary Force deployments in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. Bahrain has provided port facilities to U.S. naval forces for 50 years, hosts the headquarters for U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (USCOMNAVCENT), furnishes facilities for prepositioned equipment, and has granted rapid access for U.S. military aircraft when needed. The U.S. Air Force recently established a limited prepositioning facility at Qatar’s Al-Udeid Airbase, where U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is in the process of negotiating an enduring, expandable presence for all types of U.S. military aircraft. Qatar also hosts prepositioned U.S. Army assets at As-Saliyah airfield. The UAE provides access to U.S. forces and hosts more U.S. Navy ships than any port outside the United States. The UAE also provided the U.S. Navy with a highly valuable dedicated deepwater berthing space in the Jebel Ali port complex that can accommodate aircraft carriers. Oman likewise allows the United States to preposition equipment on its territory, and has granted access to its military bases since 1980. Saudi Arabia covered approximately 80 percent of U.S non-personnel stationing costs in 2000 and contributed substantially to offset the costs of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. Kuwait contributed 47 percent of non-personnel stationing costs in 2000 and also offset U.S. prepositioning and exercise costs. Oman and Qatar offset 40 and 47 percent of stationing costs respectively. Bahrain offset around 18 percent of non-personnel stationing costs, however this is expected to increase to over 40 percent in 2001. In September 2001, the UAE began redeploying its forces from Kosovo, where they had supported peacekeeping operations since 1999. It had deployed a mechanized infantry battalion in the French sector and special forces and an Apache helicopter squadron in the U.S. sector.
In spite of the efforts described above, there remains a substantial disparity between the military forces of the GCC states and those of their principal antagonists in the Persian Gulf. Due to this imbalance, the U.S. continues to urge the Gulf countries to work closely with other moderate Arab states to enhance their collective ability to defend the region.
The United States plays a leading role in promoting and defending shared security interests worldwide. Our armed forces are sized, equipped, and trained for the full range of conflict, from global warfare to regional contingencies and special operations on land and sea, air and in space. Our capabilities are unsurpassed across nearly the entire spectrum of military power, and are particularly notable in the areas of strategic intelligence, power projection, and nuclear deterrence. The United States promotes and defends shared security interests first and foremost by maintaining military forces at bases in Europe, the Persian Gulf, and Northeast Asia. These forward-based units strengthen peace and stability within their respective regions, and enhance the ability to project U.S. influence and military power worldwide (particularly the forces permanently stationed in Europe). The presence of significant numbers of U.S. forces in Europe underpins the U.S. commitment to transatlantic security and the military effectiveness of the Alliance. They also provide a platform for the projection of power and influence well beyond the region that is more immediate, credible, and cost-effective than bases in the continental United States. The United States spent approximately $306 billion on defense during 2001. This represents a real decrease of 1.4 percent from 2000, although the percentage of GDP devoted to defense remained stable at three percent. Defense spending increases approved in the wake of the September 11 attacks will be depicted in the 2003 edition of this Report. The U.S. contributed more military personnel for multinational peace operations than any other nation during 2001. During 2001 U.S. military personnel served with UN peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, East Timor, the Republic of Georgia, the Western Sahara, and on the Israeli, Iraq-Kuwait and Ethiopia-Eritrea borders. In addition, U.S. personnel served with NATO’s Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia (about 3,000 personnel at the end of 2001), Kosovo Force (KFOR) (over 5,500 personnel at the end of 2001), and in the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) on the Sinai Peninsula. Furthermore, the U.S. contributed more funding for UN peace operations than any other nation during 2000 ($514 million). The United States provided over $12.7 billion in foreign assistance during 2000 the second largest contribution after Japan’s, and just over a fifth of the total contributed by all the nations covered in this Report combined. Furthermore, the U.S. ranks first in all of the remaining responsibility sharing indicators and U.S. defense spending, modernization spending, naval tonnage, combat aircraft capability, NATO air reaction forces, military transport aircraft capacity, and tanker aircraft contributions are greater than all other allies combined. The United States hosts NATO forces training in the United States, including the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program, German F-4/Tornado training at Holloman Air Force Base, and German air defense missile training at Fort Bliss. The United States also facilitates extensive officer and some unit exchanges with NATO allies and partner nations at locations such as Fort Leavenworth and the Combat Maneuver Training Center in Germany. The United States offers the Defense Resource Management Study (DRMS) Program to Central European and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) governments interested in acquiring the analytical methodologies necessary to improve the allocation of scarce defense resources. This program also encourages greater transparency in defense planning and increased democratic control of the military.
Table of Contents | Intro | Chapter I | Chapter II | Chapter III | Annex | ... page top