Posted on 10/05/2001 4:21:37 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Nations responded differently in the crucial first days after the Sept. 11 attacks. Many countries backed the United States to the hilt. The rest were forced to choose sides.
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” With those words before a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, President George W. Bush radically changed the foreign policy and national strategy of the United States. And Bush added, “We ask every nation to join us.”
The world is responding positively to Bush. Some nations joined the United States without reservation well before the president made his determined and resolute speech. The day after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, in a solidarity not seen since the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, the 19-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) implemented Article 5 of its charter, declaring that the attacks on New York City and Washington, if hatched from abroad, were an attack on all members of the alliance. It was the first such implementation in NATO’s 52-year history.
One by one, the nations of the world pledged support for Bush’s declared war against terrorism. Many needed no prompting. Australia offered to place its troops under U.S. command. Britain, Canada, Italy and New Zealand committed their forces. India, breaking with years of precedent, invited Washington to use its military bases and offered to share its extensive intelligence on terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Brazil called on the Organization of American States (OAS) to invoke the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty of 1947), which like the NATO charter declares that an attack on one member is an attack on all. Remarkably, all 34 OAS members, some grudgingly, voted to act. South Korea pledged its full support under a 1954 mutual-defense treaty. In West Africa, the tiny state of Senegal — 92 percent Muslim — stood tall to exhort African leaders mutually to prevent any country on the continent from sheltering or aiding terrorist groups.
And, for the first time since World War II, Japan offered to send warships. It proposed to come to the aid of the United States, breaking more than a half-century of taboo against using its Self-Defense Forces for anything but territorial defense.
Other countries backed the United States reluctantly or with conditions, and Washington pushed them hard. “This has become a new benchmark,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said three days after the attacks. Cooperation on terrorism is “a new way of measuring” a country’s relationship with the United States.
Not all cooperation can be public and, indeed, say administration officials, much of it by its nature must be secret. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld notes, “We understand that countries we consider our friends may help with certain efforts or be silent on others, while other actions we take may depend on the involvement of countries we have considered less than friendly.” Some regimes have aided terrorism for ideological or geopolitical reasons; others have been afraid to confront the terrorists. “The Saudis tolerate terrorism out of fear and weakness, hoping thereby to deflect them on to other potential victims,” says Richard Perle, a key Rumsfeld adviser who chairs the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.
Terrorist kingpin Osama bin Laden’s Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda network alone stretches to 50 or 60 countries, according to Rumsfeld. Uprooting that network member by member requires a massive diplomatic effort. Senior State Department and Pentagon officials fanned out around the world in intensive lobbying campaigns. Powell and Bush have spent countless hours on the telephone with foreign leaders. As Insight went to press, Rumsfeld was in the Middle East to shore up support.
Some key allies quickly showed signs of weak resolve. French Defense Minister Alain Richard proclaimed that the attacks were “not an act of war.” German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping agreed. Perle notes that despite the solid position of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “There is an air of Vichyite defeatism about some of the commentary in Britain on the current war on terrorism.”
Insight has surveyed how governments around the world responded to the attack. The accompanying map is color-coded to show how the surveyed governments chose to take sides in the days immediately following. Many sided with the United States of their own free will. Others, such as Pakistan, reluctantly joined but only under relentless U.S. pressure, and even then Islamabad attempted to dictate terms and demand the equivalent of cash payment in the form of debt relief. Weighing its support for the Taliban, its dependence on Western aid and its fear of an attack from the United States or India, Pakistan allowed U.S. troops to use its territory, opened its airspace and shared crucial intelligence on the al-Qaeda network.
To view a larger version of the map, click here or directly on the map.
Russia appears to have demanded cash as well, even though destroying militant Islamic forces is in Moscow’s interest. President Vladimir Putin, like the Taliban itself, immediately denounced the Sept. 11 attacks, but his motives at first were unclear. When the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan offered the United States their territory, Putin forced them to back off, coincidentally until Washington agreed to reschedule Moscow’s multibillion-dollar debt and to look the other way during the Kremlin’s next offensive against Islamic separatists in Chechnya. But White House sources tell Insight there was no quid pro quo and praise Putin for his “bravery.”
Terrorist regimes, apparently realizing that this time the United States was going to get them, rushed to denounce terrorism. Even the Taliban condemned the attacks on the day they occurred. A visibly shaken Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat announced he would donate blood for the victims and called for all Arabs to help the antiterrorist struggle. North Korea issued an unusual statement, offering to scrap its nuclear-missile program if only the United States would act in a friendly way toward the regime. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi acknowledged Washington’s right to retaliate and mused that the Arab and Islamic worlds should unite in a common antiterrorist front.
Survival instincts set in. Sudan, which is on the State Department’s terrorist list, suddenly found itself willing not only to share vital intelligence with the United States but also to smash al-Qaeda and other terrorist rings operating on its territory. The anti-U.S. regime of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, a close ally of Cuba and Libya and a facilitator of narcoterrorists in neighboring Colombia, surprised critics by pledging to help keep world oil prices low in the event of a disruption in the Middle East.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Egypt publicly obstructed U.S. efforts, saying they would support action only under U.N. sponsorship. Beijing said any cooperation would have to be in the context of U.S. recognition of the PRC’s own separatist problem in the Muslim Xinjiang province and in the occupied territory of Tibet, as well as its desire to take Taiwan. Egypt, faced with an aggressive Muslim fundamentalist movement, is believed to be helping from behind the scenes.
Several Persian Gulf states tried to sit on the fence. So did Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who denounced both terrorism and any U.S. response.
Bush reinforced his warning in a speech to Congress: “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
Mexican President Vicente Fox showed his true colors. He apparently forgot his words of everlasting friendship with the United States proclaimed just a week before the attack, when Bush hosted him as his very first state visitor in the White House. Unlike most of America’s other friends and neighbors,Mexico made no official observation of mourning. Fox refused to take sides on the terrorist question despite calls from his foreign minister — ironically, a veteran Marxist — to stand by his northern neighbor. Fox did not make a pilgrimage to Washington to make amends until more than two weeks after the attack.
Rumsfeld and other senior administration figures are quick to say the coalition being assembled is not intended to last, that various coalitions will come and go and that “the mission will define the coalition — not the other way around.” Several of the regimes the State Department is courting have been state sponsors of terrorism themselves. Quips one Pentagon official, “The coalition looks too much like our target list.”
J. Michael Waller is a senior writer for Insight.
Afghanistan: Ruled by the Taliban militia that has a symbiotic relationship with Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network. Most of the world recognizes Afghanistan’s exiled government, and most anti-Taliban resistance forces are certain to be military allies in a U.S. action.
Australia: Strongly supported the United States from day one; offered to place its armed forces under U.S. command to fight terrorism.
Brazil: In a historic move, invoked the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty), which requires the 34 signatory states to aid the United States.
Canada: Shows deep and emotional solidarity with the United States; provides immediate security and intelligence support, but its decrepit military is of little use.
China: Tries to obstruct U.S. multilateral action.
Colombia: Unofficial military sentiment to send special-forces units to fight alongside the United States, as it did in the Korean War.
Cuba: Fidel Castro made a statement opposing both the terrorism and any U.S. military response to it.
Ecuador: Quickly rolled up suspected domestic al-Qaeda networks in cooperation with the U.S.
Egypt: Dependent on the United States for its survival as Washington’s second-largest aid recipient, Cairo may be providing covert support, but openly it equivocates and says any attack should be under U.N. command.
European Union: Provides diplomatic support, including attempts to secure help from nations hostile to the United States; extends strong intelligence and law-enforcement support; offers financial support to affected countries such as Pakistan.
France: Offers rhetorical support and intelligence, and later gives naval and logistical support.
Germany: Coalition government is split on the matter. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder backs the United States and provides logistical and intelligence assistance; Berlin rolls up domestic al-Qaeda networks and cracks down on terrorist finances in close cooperation with the United States.
India: An early, enthusiastic backer of the United States. In historic break with its pro-Moscow past, invites the United States to use its military bases and refueling facilities. Provides intelligence support.
Indonesia: Gives crucial diplomatic support as the world’s largest Islamic country.
Iran: Condemns Sept. 11 attacks but closes airspace to U.S. aircraft and refuses to join any U.S.-led coalition; condemns any U.S. military response but tells Britain it will support the coalition.
Iraq: Declares the United States deserved to be attacked.
Israel: Provides massive intelligence support and aids the United States through its diplomatic silence.
Italy: Offers every form of support, including troops.
Japan: Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi breaks more than 50 years of precedent by offering Japanese warships for U.S. logistical support; cracks down on terrorist financial networks and provides intelligence support.
Jordan: King Abdullah pledges solidarity, while Bush responds with economic payoff.
Malaysia: The predominantly Islamic country strongly sides with the United States.
Mexico: Days before the attack, Mexico proposed to scrap the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, calling it “obsolete and useless” and hinting it would pull out. Mexico reluctantly voted to continue observing the treaty under U.S. pressure. President Vicente Fox was one of the last U.S. “allies” to step forth and support the antiterrorist effort.
New Zealand: Immediately invoked ANZUS alliance and offered troops.
Norway: Its socialist government tried to worm its way out of NATO’s collective defense provisions.
Pakistan: A longtime supporter of the Taliban, Pakistan agonized for at least a week before siding with the United States. Washington offered Pakistan massive economic incentives and may have threatened to attack the country and its nuclear-missile program in the event of nonsupport.
Paraguay: Opened itself up to U.S. investigators following al-Qaeda leads.
Philippines: Very strong early supporter. Works closely with U.S. intelligence and FBI to break up local al-Qaeda networks.
Russia: President Vladimir Putin immediately recognized U.S. right to retaliate. After hesitation and deal-cutting, he allowed U.S. military overflights and assented to let the United States use former Soviet bases in Central Asia from which to launch strikes. Putin said Russia will provide the United States with intelligence and will arm anti-Taliban Afghan opposition forces. He is likely to get a high price from the U.S.
Saudi Arabia: Reluctantly cuts ties with the Taliban; probably provides intelligence support, but denies the United States use of bases from which to launch strikes on Muslim countries.
Senegal: President Abdoulaye Wade rallies African countries to snuff out state support for terrorism. “Beyond verbal declarations, African countries should engage in direct actions in the global fight,” said Wade.
Singapore: Backs the United States despite the internal troubles it could bring to the city-state.
South Korea: Pledges “all necessary cooperation” under 1954 mutual-defense pact.
Sudan: Officially a state sponsor of terrorism, it wins high marks from the United States for its rapid cooperation to root out terrorist networks within its own country.
Taiwan: President Chen Shui-ban offers all possible help for the United States, but his diplomats fail to make his message heard in Washington.
Turkey: This staunch NATO ally is an unflinching partner in all respects but begins to falter in its once-enthusiastic support for missile defense.
United Kingdom: Its “special relationship” with the United States continues; Prime Minister Tony Blair declares “war” on terrorism and commits combat forces and all other instruments of state to the cause.
Uzbekistan: Former Soviet republic offered the United States the use of old Soviet military bases on its territory to attack Afghanistan targets, but Russia reined it in before allowing it to make good on its offer.
Venezuela: Though ruled by an anti-U.S. strongman, Venezuela offers to help stabilize oil prices in the event Middle East crisis sparked war against terrorism.
— JMW
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.