Our presentation of responses from the commanders of the world's navies, begun in last month's Proceedings, continues with more answers to the question: "What is your Navy doing about the threat of international terrorism?"
Admiral Airton Ronaldo Longo, Brazilian Navy—The terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., on 11 September 2001 aroused a feeling of revulsion from the Brazilian government, which turned to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, and has awoken the solidarity of all American nations in political support for the United States.
Once ethics and decency are not considered by terrorists, no one is entirely safe from their cruelties, and it becomes necessary to adopt preventive measures to reduce feelings of insecurity.
According to the Brazilian Federal Constitution, the police have the responsibility for preventing offenses of a criminal nature, and the armed forces—especially the Navy, which gives support when actions occur in the maritime environment—are responsible for necessary support in intelligence, communication, and logistics.
Brazilian naval power also has been employed in the patrol of Brazil's jurisdictional waters, including the protection of oil platforms, which has been accomplished systematically. The Navy also has been used to discourage unfavorable actions against Brazil, including terrorist actions of any ideological currency in its area of operation.
In fact, after the horrible acts of 11 September, new concerns must be taken into account, drawing attention to the possibility of actions judged completely unlikely before that day. These acts increased the importance, among other aspects, of precise judgment of the current situation by sections of strategic intelligence and the adoption of more rigid safety measures when and where necessary.
Admiral Toru Ishikawa, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force—Directly following the terrorist attacks on 11 September, I talked with Rear Admiral Robert Chaplin, who at the time was Commander, U.S. Forces Japan. During our conversation, I recognized that the reassuring cooperation of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) for the protection of U.S. personnel, their families, and facilities in Japan was indispensable for overcoming the situation, and I hoped to do everything possible to support the U.S. Navy. Shortly after, I conveyed my sincere condolences to the victims to Admiral Vern Clark, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, by e-mail.
On 19 September, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi announced that Japan actively would engage in combating terrorism and announced specific plans that included the dispatch of JMSDF ships. Japan, however, maintains a policy that it cannot exercise the right of collective selfdefense, even though it has. The policy does not allow Self-Defense Forces to participate in frontline offensive operations. This is because of domestic political conditions, but the JMSDF continues to fight against terrorism by supporting the U.S. Navy and its coalition navies.
First, the JMSDF strengthened the guard at bases used jointly with the U.S. Navy, such as Yokosuka and Sasebo. In addition, when the Kitty Hawk (CV-63) battle group got under way, JMSDF destroyers and aircraft patrolled Tokyo Bay to ensure its safe sortie to the Pacific Ocean.
Next, the Japanese Diet enacted a new law, "The Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law," which allows Self-Defense Forces to support foreign armed forces combating terrorism. With this law in hand, the JMSDF dispatched six ships, including two fast combat support ships, to the Indian Ocean. This force conducted 40 replenishments at sea for U.S. and British naval forces, and the total amount of fuel delivered was about 400,000 barrels by the end of February 2002.
The dispatched force has performed splendidly in its assigned missions. I believe the force could not have been successful in support of operations without the mutual understanding and seamanship cultivated between the JMSDF and the U.S. Navy over several decades. In mid-February, the JMSDF sent another three ships to relieve part of the previously dispatched force. We will continue to stand by and support the U.S. Navy and its coalition until the day when our shared mission of the prevention and eradication of terrorism will be accomplished.
Rear Admiral Kjell-Birger Olsen, Royal Norwegian Navy—All through the Cold War, because of Norway's size and geographical location next door to the Soviet Union, the sole task of our armed forces was to fight at home, alongside allied reinforcements. Norway was an importer of security. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Norwegian armed forces changed their focus, so that they now also contribute to multinational peace-support operations abroad. Norway has become an exporter of security.
The contributions of the Royal Norwegian Navy to NATO's standing forces had consisted of one frigate in NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic and a continuous presence with one mine countermeasures vessel and a command ship (including the force commander, on a rotating basis) in NATO's Mine Countermeasures Force North. After 11 September, the Standing Naval Force Atlantic frigate deployment was extended until 2 December 2002. In addition, our contribution was increased by deploying one submarine to NATO's Standing Naval Force Mediterranean and by sending liaison and staff officers to the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Florida, the Allied Forces South Europe headquarters in Naples, Italy, and to Standing Naval Force Mediterranean. For the operations in Afghanistan, the Royal Norwegian Navy has provided special forces and an explosive ordnance disposal element. We also have assigned one submarine, one mine countermeasures vessel, four fast patrol boats, and an auxiliary vessel to NATO's Rapid Reaction Force. So far, NATO has not requested their deployment. For a small navy such as ours, our contribution to the fight against international terrorism is considerable. In addition, units in Norway have been placed on alert to respond to assaults or actions directed at our oil and gas installations, onshore and offshore. This threat is considerable, because Norway is the third-largest oil- and gas-exporting country in the world.
In the Royal Norwegian Navy of tomorrow, the most important units with regard to the fight against international terrorism will be: Navy SEALs who will increase in number and receive state-of-the-art equipment; five new highly capable Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates; six new Skjold-class fast patrol boats; and a sea-mobile Coastal Ranger Command for operations in the littorals.
The lessons learned from 11 September have confirmed that the course charted for the Royal Norwegian Navy is the correct one. The new Norwegian Defense Doctrine for Maritime Operations, the inventory that will be provided to the Navy by the Norwegian Parliament, NATO's Defense Capabilities Initiative, and the ability to perform crisis-response operations all dovetail nicely. The new Royal Norwegian Navy will be characterized by quality, reaction capability, sustainability, deployability, and flexibility.
Admiral Nuno Gonfalo Vieira Matias, Portuguese Navy—Fighting international terrorism did not significandy affect the Portuguese Navy's force structure as much as it did its operational conduct.
There always has been a complementary approach to the overall set of navy missions. The surveillance of coastal, littoral, and inner waters, together with maritime law enforcement tasks, has been the responsibility of small naval vessels or coastal patrol boats. Other responsibilities, including oceangoing or international military commitments, normally have been left to major combatants whose capabilities were not fully exploited in view of the asymmetric threats of terrorist actions.
This philosophy and resulting operational doctrine changed dramatically, not only with the 11 September attacks but, also as a result of the USS Cole (DDG-67) incident. While the latter raised the issue of vessel selfprotection, the former highlighted the value of military capabilities in support of defense and security measures within borders, filling the gap between the roles of different assets.
The built-in characteristics of naval assets, such as their mobility and sustainability, became important features that brought government attention to the need to build long-planned naval capabilities. Covert and special operations regained their full validity in the national debate over defense issues, as new investments—to update Portuguese Navy submarines and reequip the Marine Corps—were introduced in the newly approved procurement law. Marines and major combatant crews trained to operate and survive in nuclear-chemical-biological environments became privileged tools to support security and civilian authorities in the evaluation and decontamination of infected areas. Preemptive arrangements, allowing the prompt deployment of joint teams and enhancing cooperation with other state security agencies, have been put in place—thus strongly reducing reaction times.
A broad approach to Navy personnel training acknowledged the need to introduce new lectures, covering standard procedures for dealing with contaminated materials and bomb threats. At the same time, all units are being provided with individual protective gear and point/standoff nuclear-biological-chemical detection equipment.
Small arms have been introduced into major combatants, and follow-on crew training and alertness against specific terrorist actions have been included in basic training profiles. As NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic, under the command of a Portuguese commodore, prepared for its eastern Mediterranean deployment (Operation Direct Endeavour), this was exercised extensively and later introduced into standing force reaction procedures.
Acknowledging that deterrence, early warning, and in-depth defense play key roles in the fight against terrorism, and that success can be achieved only with an extended set of capabilities, the need for closer cooperation and for the strengthening of ties among allies seems to be the most relevant realization of this process. Compatibility and joint and combined deployment solutions are, therefore, major planning factors driving Portuguese Navy options for the future.
Admiral Francisco Torrente, Spanish Navy—The attack against the United States on 11 September shocked Spanish society as it did people all over the world. The New York and Washington dramas have triggered a requirement for a stronger international commitment against terrorism to preserve the freedom and security of citizens in all our nations. This is of first priority for the Spanish Presidency of the European Union, as Premier Jose Maria Aznar stated in the European Union Presidency turnover ceremony held in Brussels at the end of December 2001.
Several measures against terrorism have been taken in Spain, but the most relevant probably still are to come. At the national level, a more solid and broad cooperation among the armed forces and the security forces can be expected in the future.
The Spanish Navy has increased maritime surveillance operations and protection measures for national and allied ships at Spanish naval bases in coordination with the national security forces, which are responsible for fighting terrorism in Spain. Among initial actions, we are increasing our collaboration with security forces in intelligence and operational matters.
Regarding the international environment, upon NATO's unprecedented invocation of Article 5 (which declares the attacks on the United States to be an attack on all 19 members), the Spanish Navy, through the alliance's response to provide appropriate collective military support to the U.S.-led military operations, has met the requests received and two frigates currently are integrated in NATO Standing Naval Forces Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Because of the high priority given to the terrorism threat by the Spanish Presidency of the European Union, any additional ways of cooperation among European countries should be explored, and its maritime dimension will be especially relevant.
The 11 September attacks showed us how lethal asymmetrical threats can be, and we must prepare ourselves in advance to face any other type of unexpected threat, even if it appears to be improbable. The way to do so is to increase the joint and combined action in this field and to deepen our concentration on essential operational capabilities such as effective intelligence and force protection.
Vice Admiral Jorge M. Sierralta Zavarce, Venezuelan Navy—Terrorism today is considered one of the worst scourges that threatens mankind; it is a cruel and violent fact. It is why the Venezuelan Navy has undertaken forceful actions to arrest this evil throughout its operating commands, which include: Squadron Command, the Marines, Naval Aviation, the Coast Guard, and River Command.
We have been carrying out a number of activities to enable us to respond strongly to this situation. Some recent efforts include: participation in the 4th Special InterAmerican Conference of Intelligence Directors and in the Illicit Arms and Narcotic Traffic Operations event held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, and the continued operations of the Coastal and River Patrol.
In addition, the General Assembly of the International Maritime Organization, which met in its London headquarters on 19-30 November 2001, discussed ways to promote support for countries through the activities of its Technical Cooperation Committee. The major area of concern was terrorism in the maritime and ports sectors. To support these objectives, the Venezuelan Navy gave its operating commands instructions to evaluate their existing plans and update or adapt them to provide effective measures to protect against terrorism in the maritime and port areas.
Today, our country has developed appropriate policies to enable it to respond to various criminal activities and social difficulties, especially those that arise in the area of the Arauca River. To this end, the Navy's organization and equipment aim to address security and development needs along the border with Colombia. In so doing, we foster rapport between different nations and the use of our rivers as means of communication.
The determining factors in the operational deployment adopted by the Navy include:
- The existence of destabilizing groups that violate the territorial integrity of the Venezuelan state, thus obligating the naval commands to maintain high states of operational readiness
- The impossibility of covering large expanses of territory, because of the natural limitations of the area, which are used for the commission of illegal activities
- The presence of national and foreign shipping, and the necessity of protecting the nation's water resources
- The growth of drug trafficking activities in the different water networks
The Venezuelan Navy maintains a high tempo of operations and military training to attend to any aggression from these irregular situations and groups. It continues to improve relationships of exchange with other navies, particularly with the U.S. Navy. Both countries have a great interest in forming a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship. This is as favorable to our armed forces as it is to the country in general, especially now that circumstances have reaffirmed that our good relations allow for more convincing actions against terrorism.
Here is the root importance of our presence: this mode guarantees us security in maritime and river areas in which more than 95% of our country's commerce circulates.