Iraq: International Attitudes to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Reconstruction

Iraq: International Attitudes to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Reconstruction

Order Code RL31843
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Iraq: International Attitudes to Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Reconstruction
Updated December 18, 2003
name redacted
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Jeremy Sharp
Analyst in Middle East Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
name redacted, name redacted, name redacted
Research Associates
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Iraq: International Attitudes to
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Reconstruction
Summary
On May 1, 2003, President Bush announced the end of the combat phase of the
U.S.-led war in Iraq. President Bush referred to the war as a “victory” and claimed
that “in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
(“President Bush Announces that Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended,” White
House Press, May 1, 2003). In the aftermath of the war, the U.S. military presence
in postwar Iraq persists. Approximately 130,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and are
partaking in the reconstruction and stabilization of the country. Under UNSC Res.
1483, the Administration’s current objective in Iraq is to secure and rebuild the
country and fulfill the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. However, restoring law
and order and delivering basic services continues to be threatened by lawlessness and
violence by a variety of Hussein loyalists, ex-soldiers, criminal elements, and
possibly international fighters.
Numerous countries are contributing to reconstruction and stabilization forces
in Iraq. The United Kingdom governs the southern part of the country, where there
are nearly 12,000 British troops. Meanwhile, Poland — with some logistical
assistance from NATO — oversees the central-southern region and leads a force
consisting of 9,200 troops from Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Still, other
countries that have not contributed troops, such as Saudi Arabia and China, have
offered monetary pledges and humanitarian aid.
There has been an increase in international cooperation between the United
States and the countries that opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq in the postwar period.
On October 16, 2003, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved UNSC Res.
1511. This resolution authorized a multinational force under unified command
(article 13), welcomed countries to pledge substantially to Iraq’s reconstruction needs
(article 24), and signaled an overall greater role for the United Nations in postwar
Iraq. The spirit of international cooperation was also evident at the Madrid
International Conference on Reconstruction in Iraq on October 24, 2003. The
conference garnered close to $13 billion in aid pledges from countries and donors
other than the United States. Some analysts suggest, however, that foreign
governments are still hesitant to contribute peacekeeping troops and financial
assistance out of fear of appearing to sanction the Iraq war.
Concerns over (1) the deteriorating security situation and troops’ safety, (2) the
accuracy of prewar intelligence on Iraq, including the unproven assertion of a large-
scale program to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and (3) the
timetable and design for establishing an internationally recognized, “legitimate” Iraqi
government, however, have rekindled the prewar debate over the use of military
action against Iraq and predictions about the ease of “regime change” in Iraq. In light
of the latter concerns, the U.S. government has recently announced that it may seek
an additional U.N. resolution to back its proposal for turning over authority to a
sovereign Iraqi government. Presumably, such concerns might affect the extent of
foreign support toward postwar Iraq reconstruction.

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
International Cooperation and Disagreement Before the War . . . . . . . . . . . 1
International Cooperation and Disagreements in Postwar Era . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Regional and International Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map and List of Coalition of the Willing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Foreign Military-Related Support: Troops & Equipment
(Offered or Provided) for a U.S.-Led War on Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 2. Foreign Military-Related Support: Access & Facilities
(Offered or Provided) for a U.S.-Led War on Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 3. Foreign Contributions to Relief and Reconstruction in Postwar Iraq . . 37
Table 4. Countries To Which Iraq May Owe Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 5. How the Security Council Voted: Selected Votes in 2002
and 2003 Addressing Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 6. Countries Eligible to Bid on Primary Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 7. Madrid International Donor Conference Reconstruction Pledges . . . . 46

Iraq: International Attitudes to Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Reconstruction
Overview
Although there was widespread international disagreement in the period leading
up to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, forty-nine countries demonstrated support for the
coalition’s actions in Iraq by publicly agreeing to be included in the Bush
Administration’s “coalition of the willing.” See Figure 1 for a map and detailed list
of countries listed in the coalition Their support varied from military-related to
diplomatic support. Military support included, but was not limited to, access to
foreign bases and ports, forward deployed U.S. material, the granting of overflight
rights, and transit permission through any number of territorial waters or waterways.
See Table 1 and Table 2 for a description of military support provided by individual
countries. Several countries not officially listed as members of the coalition of the
willing have also provided financial and humanitarian support to postwar Iraq by
providing bilateral aid to U.N. agencies or to a joint UN/World Bank administered
trust fund. See Table 3 for a comprehensive list of financial and personnel
commitments in postwar Iraq. Many other countries rebuffed U.S. actions in Iraq
and deplored the support the United States received from members of the coalition.
Although new divisions have emerged over the timetable and design for turning
authority over from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to an internationally
recognized, “legitimate” Iraqi government, increased international cooperation to
fulfill Iraq’s humanitarian and reconstruction is also evident. In this vein, this report
tracks countries’ current political stances on the postwar situation, as well as major
foreign monetary and military contributions to postwar Iraq. Where applicable, this
report will also discuss the issue of debt forgiveness for Iraq. See Table 4 for a range
of current estimates of debt held by the international community. This overview
combines historical information about the war and other issues concerning the
current situation in Iraq.
International Cooperation and Disagreement Before the War
In November 2002, the Bush Administration successfully garnered unanimous
support within the U.N. Security Council for a resolution (UNSC Res. 1441) that
called on Iraq to “comply with its disarmament obligations” or “face serious
consequences.” See Table 5 for countries that voted on this Security Council
Resolution. For several months, the Bush Administration sought to persuade the
international community of the necessity of disarming Iraq. During this diplomatic
campaign, the Bush Administration accused Iraq of noncompliance with 17 U.N.
Security resolutions. Bush alleged that Iraq was in “material breach of its

CRS-2
longstanding United Nations obligations.”1 He argued that stronger action in Iraq
was necessary because Iraq’s failure to declare and eliminate its WMD posed a grave
and imminent danger to the national security of the United States and that of its
allies.
In February 2003, the United States introduced a second resolution that would
have authorized military action in Iraq.2 Although members of the U.N. Security
Council generally agreed that Iraq failed to fully comply with the United Nations and
to cooperate with weapons inspectors, the Council was unable to agree on the use of
force. Seemingly, the U.S. draft resolution would not have passed because of sharp
divisions within the Security Council. On March 17, 2003, the United States
withdrew its draft resolution. See Table 5 for countries that were eligible to vote on
this resolution.
When diplomatic efforts to obtain U.N.-backing for the war in Iraq broke down,
the U.S. led a preemptive3 strike on March 19, 2003 to disarm Iraq and overthrow
Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime,4 whose end was seen symbolically on April
9, 2003. On May 1, 2003, President Bush announced the end of the combat phase of
the U.S.-led war in Iraq. President Bush referred to the war as a “victory,” and
claimed that “in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”5
International Cooperation and Disagreements in Postwar Era
In the first sign of renewed cooperation after the war, the U.N. Security Council
unanimously endorsed resolution 1483 on May 22, 2003, mandating the removal of
sanctions against Iraq and granting broad authority to the United States and Britain
to administer Iraq until the establishment of a “legitimate” government. The
resolution also calls for the use of Iraqi oil revenues to fund reconstruction. Such
proceeds will be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq under auditing controls by
an appointed International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB). The Heads of
the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, the International Monetary
Fund, the United Nations, and the World Bank established the IAMB on October 24,
2003. A United Nations appeal for international assistance in Iraq also generated
1 “President Bush: Monday ‘Moment of Truth’ for World on Iraq,” White House Press
Release, March 16, 2003.
2 Some analysts assert that UNSC Res. 1441 could have, by itself, authorized the use of
force by the United Nations.
3 For the purposes of this report, a preemptive use of military force is considered to be the
taking of military action by the United States against another nation so as to prevent or
mitigate a presumed imminent military attack or use of force by that nation against the
United States. (For further reading, see CRS Report RS21311, U.S. Use of Preemptive
Military Force, by (name redacted).)
4 In October 2002, Congress had authorized the President to use the armed forces of the
United States to defend U.S. national security against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce
all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq (P.L. 107-243).
5 “President Bush Announces that Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended,” White House
Press, May 1, 2003.

CRS-3
nearly $1 billion in financial commitments and donations for humanitarian relief and
reconstruction in Iraq.
On October 6, 2003, the U.N. Security Council also unanimously approved
UNSC Res. 1511. This resolution authorized a multinational force under unified
command (article 13), welcomed countries to pledge substantially to Iraq’s
reconstruction needs (article 24), and signaled an overall greater role for the United
Nations in postwar Iraq. The spirit of international cooperation was also evident at
the Madrid International Conference on Reconstruction in Iraq on October 24, 2003.
The conference garnered close to $13 billion in aid pledges from countries and
donors other than the United States. Some analysts suggest, however, that foreign
governments are still hesitant to contribute peacekeeping troops and financial
assistance out of fear of appearing to sanction the Iraq war
Concerns for the security of Iraqi citizens, coalition troops, and aid workers,
however, persist in the postwar era. The immediate aftermath of the war witnessed
lawlessness, violence, and widespread looting, causing destruction to critical
infrastructure and disrupting delivery of basic services and food distribution.
According to a defense official, “the postwar looting, violence and guerrilla-style
resistance in Iraq was ‘to some extent unexpected’.”6 In the months following, troops
and aid workers have also come under attack in a series of high profile bombings and
attacks on coalition forces. The bombing of the Jordanian Embassy on August 7,
2003; the U.N. headquarters bombing in Baghdad on August 19, 2003; and the truck
bombing of the International Red Cross Headquarter on October, 27, 2003 led to the
temporary closure of U.N. and International Red Cross offices in Baghdad. A
possible missile attack on U.S. helicopters on November 2, 2003 that resulted in
deaths of 15 U.S. soldiers7, an attack on the Italian military headquarters in Nasiriya
on November 12, 2003, that killed nineteen soldiers, as well as other attacks on
international coalition forces, however, have not led to a reduction in personnel from
countries with troops on the ground. This environment may, however, bear upon
nations’ decisions to contribute to the stabilization and reconstruction of postwar
Iraq.
Since the end of the war, the Administration has actively sought foreign support
for stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This diplomacy has resulted in
military and peacekeeping commitments from several countries. On the ground,
individuals may be playing multiple, or non-traditional roles in the fields of
stabilization, reconstruction, and humanitarian assistance. As of November 30, 2003,
a total of almost 40 countries have pledged personnel to support security, logistics,
and reconstruction. These countries include:
Australia, Albania, Armenia Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, El Salvador, Fiji, Georgia, Honduras,
Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia,
6 Robert Burns, “Pentagon Officials Says Iraq Stabilization Proves ‘Tougher and More
Complex’ than Expected,” The Associated Press, June 10, 2003.
7 The event is still under investigation. Initially reports attributed the tragedy to a missile
attack, but latter reports have questioned this initial assessment.

CRS-4
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, the Philippines, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Turkey,
Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
Starting August 25, 2003, Poland began to lead 9,200 troops from countries
representing Europe, Asia and Latin America. With some logistical assistance from
NATO, Poland will oversee the central-southern region and a multinational force
comprised of countries mainly from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The cost of
this effort is estimated at $230-$240 million; Poland is expected to pay for $30-$40
million, while the United States is expected to cover the rest.8 The United Kingdom
will govern the southern part of the country, where there are already 12,000 U.K.
troops.
There are various reasons why some countries are hesitant to send troops into
Iraq today. Several countries such as Russia, India and Germany indicated before the
passage of UNSC Res. 1511 that they would only send troops under a U.N. mandate
authorizing a peacekeeping force in Iraq. Although the passage of UNSC Res. 1511
may meet this criterion, only Singapore pledged to send troops following the
passage of this resolution. Some countries have also expressed disapproval with the
proposed time line and design for turning over authority to a sovereign Iraqi
government. Other countries have said that “they remain dubious about the
legitimacy of the unprovoked U.S. war” and do not want to appear to have supported
the war by engaging in postwar efforts.9 Still others have said that they are not able
to finance a military operation. Finally, some countries have said that their troops are
already committed in conflicts in other regions such as Afghanistan, the Balkans,
Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.10 Some countries that have been
unwilling or unable to send troops have still been willing to send humanitarian aid
(relief supplies and monetary aid) to Iraqi civilians.
Iraq and its people suffered for decades under the Hussein regime. Many believe
that the road to stability will be long and that substantial work and finances are
needed to restore Iraq’s security, stabilize its economy, and rebuild its infrastructure.
A World Bank assessment estimated that $36 million dollars will be needed for
reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in 2004-2007; the Coalition Provisional
Authority estimated that an additional $20 million dollars will be needed for sectors
not covered in the World Bank assessment such as oil, security, and police.11 The
culmination of the United State’s diplomatic efforts to obtain international financial
support to offset this cost occurred at the Madrid International Conference on
Reconstruction in Iraq in October, 2003. See Table 7 for a list of pledges made at
this conference. The conference raised close to $33 billion in grants and loans to
finance Iraq’s reconstruction from the international community. This figure includes
8 Vernon Loeb, “U.S. to Fund Polish-Led Peacekeeping Force; Costs Expected to Be More
Than $200 Million, Washington Post, July 29, 2003.
9 Peter Slevin, “Policing of Iraq to Stay U.S. Job,” Washington Post, June 22, 2003.
10 Ibid.
11 “UN/World Bank Present Iraq Reconstruction Needs to Core Group,” World Bank Press
Release October 2, 2003.

CRS-5
the U.S. contribution of $18.6 billion. The Bush Administration continues to seek
foreign support for the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq through bilateral
discussions. In some cases, the U.S. government has also urged countries to forgive
Iraq’s debt burden to facilitate Iraq’s economic recovery. The State Department has
estimated that Iraq owes between $100- $125 billion, excluding claims from the Iran-
Iraq war and Kuwait reparations.12 As a special presidential envoy for this matter,
Former Secretary of State James Baker III obtained assurances from France,
Germany, Italy, and Great Britain to reschedule and possibly forgive much of this
debt through Paris club mechanisms.
Response
Regional and International Organizations
European Union. Before and during the combat-phase of the U.S.-led war
in Iraq, European Union (EU) members were divided over the question of Iraq.
Although the EU supported UNSC Res. 1441, members were divided over its
implementation. States such as France and Germany opposed war but supported an
extension of U.N. arms inspections. States such as Spain and the United Kingdom
believed that further inspections were proving futile and that force was necessary.
In addition to having different views on the justification for military action in
Iraq, EU countries continue to express different views on the exact timetable for
turning over authority from the Coalition Provisional Authority to an internationally
recognized Iraqi Government. EU members did agree that the provisions under
UNSC Res.1483, which lifted sanctions on Iraq, are part of a viable plan for Iraq’s
reconstruction and stabilization.13 Furthermore, European Commissioner for Foreign
Affairs Chris Patten indicated that an important step has been taken by setting up a
broadly representative Governing Council, as recognized by the UNSC Res 151l. On
November 17, 2003, the European Union also welcomed plans to accelerate the
handover of power in Iraq from the US-led coalition and stressed the “vital role” of
the United Nations in rebuilding the country.14
The European Union has stated that it is “committed to upholding the territorial
integrity, the sovereignty, the political stability, as well as the respect for rights of the
Iraqi, people, including all persons belonging to minorities.”15 The EU is one of the
main sources of external humanitarian assistance in Iraq. Since the beginning of the
conflict in March 2003, the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO)
12 Efron, Sonni, “Donor’s Unlikely to Bridge the Funding Gap for Iraq; White House Offers
No Estimates for next Week’s Conference; Debt Relief Is Also a Concern,” Los Angeles
Times, October 18, 2003.
13 Ibid.
14 “EU Welcomes Accelerated Handover of Power in Iraq,” [http://www.eubusiness.com]
accessed November 17, 2003.
15 The official website of the European Union, [http://www.europa.eu.int/], accessed
November 14, 2003.

CRS-6
has provided $110 million in aid, $80 million of this for emergency assistance.
ECHO assistance has focused on medical emergencies, including the rehabilitation
of hospitals and other facilities, emergency relief for displaced people, food aid,
demining activities, and restoration of essential services such as water and electricity.
At the Madrid International Conference on Reconstruction in Iraq, the EU pledged
an additional $230 million for reconstruction purposes in 2004. The EU pledge is the
main vehicle through which some Western European nations, such as Germany and
France, are providing financial support to reconstruction in Iraq. Financial decisions
about commitments for 2005 and 2006 may depend on the security situation in Iraq,
the country’s ability to absorb aid, financial commitment to Afghanistan and
elsewhere, as well as the speed with which authority is transferred to a sovereign,
Iraqi government. EU’s reconstruction and humanitarian aid will support the work
of organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, CARE, and
UNICEF. The largess of pledged funds will be directed through the World
Bank/United Nation’s administered trust fund..
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In an
effort to help the United States economically during the war against Iraq, OPEC
agreed to maintain price stability by increasing oil production by 6.5%, or about 1.5
million barrels a day.16 In the postwar era, Iran’s OPEC governor Ardebili said Iraq
would be absent from OPEC until it has an internationally recognized government.17
OPEC, however, welcomed Dr. Ibrahim Bahr Alohom as the head of Iraq’s
Delegation on September 24, 2003. In addition to seeking the ability to participate
as a full member of OPEC, Iraq has also reportedly met with representative from the
OPEC fund, the philanthropic endowment of the organization, in order to secure
resources for reconstruction and rehabilitation.18
NATO Members and Aspirants. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson
characterized the period leading up to the U.S.-led war in Iraq as “difficult.”19 During
this period, NATO members were sharply divided regarding NATO’s role in the war.
A U.S. proposal to use NATO forces to protect Turkey from a possible attack from
neighboring Iraq proved controversial and also incited debates among NATO
members. The proposal called for deploying NATO Patriot anti-missile batteries,
AWACS surveillance planes, and chemical-biological protection units to Turkey.20
France, Belgium, and Germany opposed the U.S.- proposed role for NATO, arguing
that they did not want to begin any military planning regarding Iraq for fear of
sending the signal that diplomatic channels had been abandoned. Although the three
countries initially vetoed a move to further consider the proposal, Germany and
Belgium subsequently accepted the possibility of a NATO presence in Turkey with
16 Eric Pfanner,”OPEC Agrees to Increase Its Oil Production Quotas by 6.5%,” New York
Times, January 13, 2003.
17 “Iraq Not Acceptable at OPEC until New Govt — Iran,” Reuters News, June 11, 2003.
18 Safur Rahman, “Gulf News-Iraq to Explore New Funding Possibilities,” Gulf News,
September 22, 2003.
19 Speech by NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, May 26, 2003.
20 Michael Thurston, “NATO in deadlock over Iraq before UN meeting,” Agence France-
Presse, February 13, 2003.

CRS-7
the understanding that the mission was solely defensive in nature. Although France,
Belgium, and Germany rebuffed the proposal, eight NATO members (the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United
Kingdom), six future NATO members (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia) and three NATO hopefuls (Macedonia, Albania,
and Croatia), affirmed their support for the U.S. position on Iraq.
After the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NATO leaders affirmed that NATO’s unity
remained firm despite divisions on the Iraq issue. According to NATO Secretary
General: “Some pundits have argued that the Iraq crisis undermined [NATO] unity.
I say: look again.”21 During a two-day summit in Madrid in June 2003, NATO
nations vowed to put the divisions aside and to coalesce with the future of the
Alliance at heart.
On May 21, 2003, the 19 NATO countries unanimously agreed
to support Poland in leading a multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq. NATO
Secretary General Lord Robertson emphasized “we are not talking about a NATO
presence in Iraq...we’re talking purely and simply about NATO help to Poland.”22
NATO’s support is seen as a move to heal the divisions in the alliance before the Iraq
war. NATO will provide communications, transport, intelligence and logistical help
to the Polish peacekeeping group. NATO also offered to provide logistical support
to Turkey if Turkish troops should enter Iraq, but this offer is expected to be
unfulfilled because Turkey officially rescinded its offer of troop support on
November 7, 2003.23 Although NATO spokesman Jamie Shea indicated that NATO
may be willing to do more in Iraq if asked, Shea qualified his remarks noting that
“the challenge for NATO is not Iraq, the challenge for NATO is making an success
of Afghanistan.”24
United Nations. In November 2002, the U.N. Security Council passed a
resolution (UNSC Res. 1441) that called for Iraq to “comply with its disarmament
obligations” or “face serious consequences.” Although this resolution passed
unanimously, it proved difficult for the United States to obtain support for a second,
stronger U.N. resolution authorizing force against Iraq. While the United States,
Spain, and the United Kingdom pushed for military action against Iraq — arguing
that Iraq was in breach of its U.N. obligations on disarmament — France, Russia and
Germany strongly opposed military force and instead urged the continuation of the
inspections process. On March 17, 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom
withdrew the resolution when it apparently became evident that it would not pass.
On March 20, 2003, the United States began its first air strikes on Baghdad without
this second UN resolution of support, arguing that the first resolution was sufficient.
The air strikes were quickly condemned by the France, Russia and China.25
21 Speech by NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, May 26, 2003.
22 “Iraq-NATO Update (Robertson Comments),” Broadcast News, May 21, 2003.
23 “NATO Can Do More in Iraq, But Afghanistan Priority, “ Reuters, Oct. 28, 2003.
24 Ibid.
25 “Time Line: Iraq,” Guardian Unlimited.

CRS-8
After the war, on May 22, 2003, the Security Council unanimously voted for
resolution 1483. This resolution adopted several key measures: it lifted economic
sanctions on Iraq, phased-out the Oil-for-Food program, expressed support for an
Iraqi interim administration that will transition into an internationally recognized
government, and established the position of a U.N. representative in the
reconstruction process.26
The international community also joined together to approve unanimously
UNSC Res. 1500 on August 14, 2003 and UNSC Res. 1511 on October 6, 2003.
UNSC Res. 1500 authorized the establishment of the United Nations Assistance
Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) and welcomed the establishment of the Iraqi Governing
Council as an important step towards creating an internationally recognized,
representative, and sovereign government in Iraq. UNSC Res. 1511 authorized a
multinational force under unified command (article 13), welcomed countries to
pledge substantially to Iraq’s reconstruction needs (article 24), and signaled a greater
role for the United Nations in postwar Iraq. Although the passage of the latter
resolution was perceived by some countries as a necessary condition to legitimize
contributions to postwar Iraq security and reconstruction, some skeptics suggest that
foreign governments are still hesitant to contribute peacekeeping troops for fear of
appearing to sanction the Iraq war. Others remain unsatisfied with the timetable and
design for turning over authority to an independent, sovereign Iraqi government.
At the onset of the war, the United Nations actively tried to prevent and mitigate
humanitarian crises in Iraq. On March 28, 2003 — several days after the start of the
war — the United Nations launched an international fund-raising campaign for Iraq.
The United Nations called for $2.2 billion to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi
population. Within three months, the international community had contributed or
pledged $870 million toward this effort. Another $1.1 billion was funneled from the
Oil-for-Food program. On June 24, 2003, the United Nations again appealed to the
international community to raise the remaining $259 million. Humanitarian funds
have been used to buy food, medical, and emergency supplies. U.N. agencies also
repaired hospitals and water and sewage systems; cleared mine fields, and
distributed school-in-the-box kits to 400,000 primary school children.27
As the international community makes the transition from providing short-term
humanitarian relief to medium and long-term reconstruction aid, the United Nations
continues to play an important role in the assessment of Iraq’s needs and
administering financial donations from other countries. The United Nations
Development Group (UNDG) and the World Bank, with assistance from the IMF,
prepared a Joint Iraq Needs Assessment on October 2, 2003. This assessment
covered fourteen priority areas in the economy, excluding security and oil, and
estimated that reconstruction will cost approximately $36 billion dollars for the
26 “U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 Lifts Sanctions on Iraq,” State Department Press
Releases and Documents, May 22, 2003.
27 “United Nations Agencies Appeal for $259 Million in Emergency Assistance for Iraq,”
M2 Presswire, June 24, 2003.

CRS-9
period of 2004 - 2007.28 The Coalition Provisional Authority assessed the financial
needs for security, the oil sector, and other sectors not covered in the World
Bank/UN assessment and estimated that $19 billion more will be needed for a grand
total of $55 billion for 2004 - 2007.29 At the Madrid International Conference on
Reconstruction in Iraq on October 23-24, 2003, the World Bank and UNDG agreed
to administer a joint trust fund where countries could provide assistance to
rehabilitate the fourteen priority areas covered within World Bank/ UN assessment.
The CPA will be consulted to ensure that there is not an overlap in projects funded
by the U.S. donations, but the CPA will not have authority over funds allocated to the
World Bank/UN trust fund.
Countries
Descriptive accounts of country support are provided for countries that have 1)
pledged personnel or monetary assistance to the coalition 2) had a powerful or
strategic voice in channeling international opinion within the United Nations, or 3)
are of regional significance to Iraq. Members of the coalition of the willing are
denoted by an asterisk (*). See Figure 1 for a complete list of publicly announced
coalition members.
*Albania. Albania demonstrated its support for the war in Iraq through several
avenues. On March 20, 2003, the Albanian Prime Minister Fatos Nano pledged his
country’s “unconditional support in terms of additional troops, ports, bases and air
fields.” Albania has also provided troops to the Polish-led division in the post-war
era.
*Armenia. Although a member of the coalition of the willing, Armenia’s
ambassador to the United States has said that Armenia’s “peacekeeping resources are
‘very limited’.”30 However, Armenia is providing some noncombat personnel and
medics.31
*Australia. Australia provided military support during the war and has
continued to provide financial and personnel support to Iraq in the postwar era. One
of Australia’s major claims of military success during the war in Iraq is that
Australian troops successfully captured al-Asad air base west of Baghdad.32
Although Australia began withdrawing its 2,000-strong combat force in June 2003,
Australia maintains about 900 personnel in Iraq and theater to provide logistics
28 “UN/World Bank present Iraq Reconstruction Needs to Core Group,” World Bank Press
Release October 2, 2003.
29 Ibid.
30 Nathan Hodge, “In Caucasus, U.S. Finds ‘Willing’ Coalition Members,” Defense Week,
June 2, 2003.
31 Statement by with Deputy Chief of Ministry Yedigarian, September 11, 2003.
32 “Australians Release Details of Iraq Role,” AP Online, May 9, 2003.

CRS-10
support.33 Officials indicated that Australian forces may be used to train local
security forces to facilitate the shift to Iraqi self-government in the future.34 At
present, approximately 300 Australians provide inspection and monitoring support
from an Australian Navy ship in the gulf, while other Australians are involved with
air traffic control and logistics in Iraq.35 Australia has spent $480 million on the
U.S.-led war in Iraq; it is likely that defense spending will increase for this effort.36
Australia has also contributed financial and in-kind assistance, such as food aid,
to humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Iraq. At the Madrid International
Conference on Reconstruction in Iraq, Australia pledged an additional $14 million
dollars to the already $70 million dollars the government had allocated for
reconstruction aid.37 Australia also provided direct bilateral aid to U.N. agencies
immediately following the declaration of the end of hostilities.
*Azerbaijan. According to a special report on the White House’s Operation
Iraqi Freedom website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Azerbaijan stated on
March 21, 2003 that Azerbaijan expresses its “readiness to take part in the
humanitarian rehabilitation in post-conflict Iraq.” Azerbaijan has committed troops
to act as peacekeepers in the Polish-led division starting in 2004.38
Bahrain. The Bahraini government quietly supported the United States in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Since the war, the absence of an internationally recognized
Iraqi government has delayed restoring commercial and diplomatic ties. Banks in
Bahrain are reluctant to invest in the reconstruction of Iraq until an agreement can be
settled over unpaid loans. The Arab Banking Corporation (ABC) made loans to Iraq
for the purchase of essential goods and services.
Belgium. As a NATO member, Belgium was among four countries (along
with France, Germany, and Luxembourg) that opposed planning within NATO for
an Iraq war declaring that it saw no justification for military action against Iraq at that
time. Belgium will provide $5.89 million in bilateral funds for reconstruction in
Iraq, and it will provide $9 million more to reconstruction through its share of the
EU pledge. Belgium has also indicated that it is ready to support concrete projects
with a direct impact on Iraqi people through bilateral aid to UNICEF and the
33 Lincoln, Wright, “Iraq Bound Troops are Not Peacekeepers,” Canberra Times, May 2,
2003. “Howard Warns of Danger,” Geelong Advertiser, November 1, 2003.
34 Allard, Tom, “Australian Troops Switch to Get Iraqis Up to Speed”, Sydney Morning
Herald, November 17, 2003.
35 Ibid.
36 “australian Treasurer Puts Dollar Figure on Iraq War Role,” Agence France-Presse, May
11, 2003.
37 “Australia Says Commit Another $20 Million to Iraq,” Reuters News, October 23, 2003.
38 “Poland Said Ready to Command Iraq Zone into 2005” Reuters News, November 8, 2003.

CRS-11
UNDP.39 Belgium allocated $4.7 million in Spring 2003 for humanitarian aid in Iraq
and will provide an additional $6 million for law enforcement and police training.40
Brazil.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva opposed the U.S. led
war in Iraq. In statements made shortly after taking office in January, President da
Silva voiced his concern over use of force without U.N. endorsement.41
Bosnia. The government of Bosnia indicated that it would be willing to send
troops to Iraq and host U.S. bases.42 The country currently relies upon 12,000
NATO security forces to maintain its own internal security.
*Bulgaria. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell lauded Bulgaria for its
steadfast support of the U.S.-led war in Iraq as an elected member of the U.N.
Security council, saying that “Bulgaria is playing a major role in modern transatlantic
processes.”43 Bulgaria has made a substantial commitment to the stabilization and
reconstruction operation in Iraq. Beginning on September 1, 2003, approximately 483
Bulgarian peacekeepers were deployed to central-southern Iraq to participate in the
Polish-led stabilization force as a patrol unit near Karbala. An additional 289 troops
have been pledged.44 In October 2003, however, Bulgaria moved its diplomatic
mission from Baghdad to Amman Jordan due to growing security concerns. See
Table 5 for selected votes Bulgaria cast as an elected member of the U.N. Security
Council.
Cameroon. Cameroon has been one of ten non-permanent members serving
on the U.N. Security Council from January 1, 2002 until December 31, 2003.
Although it voted with the unanimously approved UNSC Res. 1441 and 1443,
Cameroon was noncommittal regarding the U.S. effort to secure a second, stronger
U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq to authorize war. See Table 5 for selected
votes Cameroon cast as an elected member of the U.N. Security Council.
Canada. Although Canada did not support the war in Iraq, it has taken steps
to participate in the reconstruction effort. Canada has pledged $244 million for
reconstruction aid and provided an addition $30 million in direct humanitarian relief.
According to Canada’s International Development Agency, these funds will be
funneled primarily through international relief agencies, such as the Red Cross and
UN agencies. Despite these contributions to the transitional administration efforts,
Canada supports a wider role for the United Nations in Iraq reconstruction. During
39 Telephone conversation with Belgium Foreign Affairs Ministry official, November 14,
2003.
40 Ibid.
41 “France Supports Brazil for a Non-Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council,” Agence
France Press, April 2, 2003.
42 “Bosnia Offers to Send Troops to Iraq, U.S. Bases,” Agence France Presse, November
7, 2003.
43 “Powell Thanks Bulgaria for Support in Iraq War,” Xinhua News Agency, May 15, 2003.
44 “List of Countries with Troops in Iraq, AP, November 13, 2003.

CRS-12
a Canada-EU summit held in late May, Prime Minister Chrétien urged the EU to join
him in the pursuit of a wider UN role in the reconstruction phase.45 In late May,
Minister Graham rejected a U.S. request for troops.46 Canadian officials reportedly
stated that Canada’s troop commitment in Afghanistan prevented it from taking
peacekeeping responsibilities in Iraq.47
Canada’s decisions not to support the U.S.-led peacekeeping effort and the
earlier military campaign apparently have given rise to increased tensions between
Canada and the United States. Even though it has welcomed Canada’s reconstruction
initiatives, the United States has expressed disappointment with Chrétien’s
unwillingness to back military action. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice
said in May 2003 that it would take “some time” before the disappointment could go
away.48 Canadian authorities have tended to downplay allegations of embittered
relations with Washington however.49
Chile. Chile started its two year term on the U.N. Security Council on January
1, 2003, and supported the U.S. sponsored resolutions 1483, 1500, 1511 during its
tenure on the council. Chile did not back the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq nor express
explicit support for the “second resolution” that was submitted and withdrawn by the
United Kingdom, United States, and Spain before the war. Chile has been an
advocate of strong U.N. involvement in the Iraq reconstruction effort. See Table 5
for selected votes on Iraq that Chile cast as an elected member of the U.N. Security
Council.
China. See People’s Republic of China.
Croatia. Croatia has expressed a willingness to send up to 80 engineering and
demining personnel to Iraq.50 Croatia has provided approximately $2.8 million worth
of humanitarian assistance in the form of medicines, food aid, and relief supplies.51
Cyprus. During the combat phase of the war, Cyprus offered several military
facilities. Cyprus agreed to provide the United Nations with facilities for conducting
interviews of Iraqi scientists as provided for in UNSC Res. 1441.
45 “EU/Canada: Leaders Discuss Iraq, Peacekeeping and Cutting Red Tape,” European
Report, May 29, 2003.
46 “Canada Will Not Send Troops to Iraq,” Reuters News, May 29, 2003.
47 Ibid.
48 Peter Morton, “‘It Will Take Some Time’ to Mend this Fence,” National Post, May 31,
2003.
49 Shawn McCartney, “PM and Bush ‘Chit-chat’ after Months of Tensions,” Globe and
Mail, June 2, 2003.
50 “Bosnia Offers to send Troops to Iraq, Host U.S. Base,” Agence France Presse,
November, 7, 2003.
51 Kole, William J. “Ex-Communist Nations Send Food Aid to Iraq,” AP, October, 24, 2003.

CRS-13
*Czech Republic. The Czech government has allocated approximately $19
million over a period of three years for postwar reconstruction in Iraq. The Czech
government also approved a proposal to allow 400 Czech troops participate in the
Iraq Stabilization Force.52 Approximately 280 personnel are operating a field
hospital and providing medical care to Iraqis in Basra. The hospital officially opened
on May 18, 2003 although Czech medical personnel have been providing services
there since April 25, 2003.53 The Czech contingent also consists of 50 military
personnel who will serve as police officers and 15 soldiers who will protect civilian
aid workers.

*Denmark. In a speech to the nation in June 2003, Danish Prime Minister
Anders Fogh Rasmussen remarked that Denmark participated in the U.S.-led war in
Iraq in part to demonstrate its solidarity with the United States. He recalled that ‘the
USA has helped us in Europe to secure freedom and peace several times.’54 In spite
of some public opposition to the war, Prime Minister Rasmussen continues to justify
Denmark’s support of the U.S.-led effort, arguing that it was necessary to depose
Saddam Hussein. “The world is a better place to live when there is one less
dictator,”55 the Prime Minister said on Danish radio on May 30, 2003.
In terms of reconstruction in Iraq, Denmark has made significant monetary and
military pledges. On April 9, 2003, the Danish Parliament approved $56 million for
Iraq through 2004. The monetary pledge for reconstruction totals $26 million.56 As
part of the military pledge, Denmark approved the deployment of 410 troops
including light infantry, medics, and military police. On November 13, 2003,
Denmark’s Defense Minister decided to not to augment the size of the force in Iraq,
rejecting a push by two Danish soldiers unions to send 100 more troops.57
Djibouti. During the war in Iraq, Djibouti provided military and other facilities
to CIA paramilitary forces. Djibouti has been a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.
*Dominican Republic. In late May 2003, Dominican Armed Forces Minister
José M. Soto Jiménez affirmed that his country was ready for the deployment of 250
troops to assist in the Iraq reconstruction effort.58 The contingent’s size was increased
to 300 in June 2003. The troops are supporting the Polish-led peacekeeping force.
Dominican Foreign Minister Hugo Tolentino Dipp resigned from his post shortly
52 “Government Approves Czech Participation Iraq Stabilisation Force,” CTK B business
News, May 28, 2003.
53 “Czech Hospital in Basra Opens to Patients,” CTK Business News, May 18, 2003.
54 “Danish Premier — Country Entered War out of Solidarity with the USA,” BBC, June 5,
2003.
55 Transcript, Danmarks Radio P1, May 30, 2003.
56 “Denmark Opens Iraq Office to Secure Rebuild Orders,” Reuters, June 2, 2003.
57 “US Allies Rethinking Roles in Iraq,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, November 13,
2003.
58 “Dominican Republic: Government Sending 250 Troops to Help in Iraq’s
Reconstruction,” Associated Press, May 28, 2003.

CRS-14
after his government’s expression of support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, stating that
he could “not contradict the position of the government [he] served.”59
Egypt. Although popular opposition60 to the Iraq war apparently precluded the
Egyptian government from publicly supporting the United States, Egypt granted
overflight permission for U.S. aircraft (but not for aircraft attacking Iraq, such as off
carriers in the Mediterranean for flights to attack Iraqi aircraft) and waived the 30-day
prior notification to pass nuclear-armed ships through the Suez canal.61 E g y p t
welcomed the adoption of UNSC 1483; it had long supported the lifting of sanctions
against Iraq. Egypt has not publicly provided financial assistance or personnel.
*El Salvador. El Salvador is contributing approximately 360 troops to assist
with the Iraq reconstruction effort. President Francisco Flores pledged this
contribution of troops during a visit by U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Dov
Zackheim in June 2003.62 The troops were deployed in September 2003, to conduct
engineering and sanitation operations for a six-month period. The Salvadoran force
will serve under the command of the Spanish contingent (in the Polish sector). The
President’s position faces resistance from opposition parties, particularly the ex-
armed-revolutionary group and current political party, the Farabundo Martí para la
Liberación Nacional (FMLN). Some legislators, including members of the FMLN,
sought to block the deployment in parliament, but a measure of approval passed with
48 out of 84 possible votes.63
*Estonia. On March 19, 2003, the Estonian President said he supported a
military resolution to the crisis in Iraq and that he believed that UNSC Resolution
1441 stipulated a legal basis for using force.64 Estonia has authorized 55 troops to be
sent as peacekeepers.
Fiji. Fiji offered to send 700 troops to participate in stabilization, the Fiji’s
government has indicated that they would be unable to finance the cost of this
59 “World Briefing Americas: Dominican Republic: Minister Quits Over Iraq War,” The
New York Times, May 27, 2003.
60 Most Egyptians did not favor the war in Iraq. The period before and during the war in
Egypt was marked by many violent street protests, in which protestors condemned U.S.
actions in Iraq. On March 30, 2003, more than 15,000 Egyptian students rallied in
Alexandria, Egypt and called for a boycott of U.S. products.
61 Telephone conversation with Egyptian Embassy official, Washington, DC, March 21,
2003.
62 “Central American Countries May Help U.S. in Iraq,” Associated Press, June 11, 2003.
63 Armadeo Carrera and Ruth Melanie Cruz, “Envío de tropa a Irak sin respaldo,” La Prensa
Gráfica, July 8, 2003; “Legislators in El Salvador approve sending 360 special forces troops
to aid Iraq,” Associated Press Newswires, July 10, 2003.
64 “Estonia Backs Iraq War Despite Possible Economic Obstacles,” Interfax News Service,
March 19, 2003.

CRS-15
commitment. Thus far, Fiji has been unable to garner international contributions to
fund this deployment.65
France. France was the most vocal opponent of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
French President Jacques Chirac repeatedly stressed France’s commitment to a
peaceful solution to Iraqi disarmament. Prior to the onset of the war, France
threatened to veto any U.N. Security Council resolutions sanctioning a war in Iraq.66
The French government further believed that any military action taken outside of
specific UN Security Council support would be “viewed as an aggression.”67
France’s position strained relations with the United States, which was
traditionally perceived as a French ally with shared interests. In spite of this awkward
and shaky period in U.S.-France relations, both Presidents Bush and Chirac agreed
at the G8 summit in June 2003 to overcome these differences and move forward
together in the reconstruction of Iraq: the common vision is ‘a free Iraq, a healthy
Iraq, a prosperous Iraq,’ said President Bush.68
France, a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, voted
in favor of a U.S.- proposed resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iraq in May 2003.
Although the resolution grants authority to the United States and the United Kingdom
in post-war Iraq, France continues to call for a central role for the United Nations in
the reconstruction and relief efforts in Iraq, and warns of a dominant American power
in the world.69 France did vote in favor of UNSC Res 1500 and 1511 which
established a greater role for the United Nations in Iraq, established a unified
command, and welcomed financial support for reconstruction. See Table 5 for more
information on selected votes France cast in the U.N. Security Council.
In terms of reconstruction assistance, France is providing assistance through its
share of the European Union pledge and it does not “see any additional aid at this
stage either in terms of financial aid or in cooperation in the miliary domain.”70 On
November 13, 2003, French Foreign Minister de Villepin declared that France was
prepared to help with the reconstruction of Iraq once sovereignty was awarded to a
provisional Iraqi government.71 He also said that the American goal of setting up a
provisional government by mid-2004 was too distant and that a UN representative
should be appointed to work alongside Paul Bremer with the aim of electing a
65 “Funding to Influence Fiji’s Decision on Sending Troops to Iraq,” BBC Monitoring Asia
Pacific, June 3, 2003.
66 “Rice Repeats U.S. complaints about France,” Reuter’s, May 31, 2003.
67 NATO, “Iraq,” SHAPE News Morning Update, December 3, 2002.
68 “Bush, Chirac ‘In Agreement’; Presidents Meet, Seem to Patch up Discord over Iraq,” The
Washington Post, June 3, 2003.
69 “Chirac Seems Intent on Challenging U.S.; French Leader Expected to Pursue Policies
Based on Multipolar View,” Washington Post, May 31, 2003.
70 “Officials Gather in Madrid for Iraq Donors Conference,” Los Angeles Times, October 23,
2003.
71 “France Urges Policy Shift on Iraq,” BBC News, November 13, 2003.

CRS-16
representative assembly of Iraq by the end of 2003.72 France did state that it would
be willing to significantly forgive Iraq’s debt burden through the Paris Club
mechanisms in a joint statement issued with Germany and the United States on
December 16th, 2003.
*Georgia. Georgian is currently providing approximately 70 personnel to assist
in reconstruction and stabilization. Of these 70 Georgian servicemen, 34 belong to
a special-purpose brigade, 20 are medics, and 15 are military engineers. A staff
officer and an interpreter round out the deployment.73
Germany. Germany consistently and strongly opposed a preemptive strike
against Iraq and U.S. unilateral action. The German government believed that
Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to international security. Germany ruled
out its participation in an Iraq war, even if it had U.N. Security Council endorsement.
On the eve of the war, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder affirmed that Germany
could not and would not “support any resolution legitimizing war.”74 Germany has
also rejected a military role in postwar Iraq due to commitments in Iraq and
continued reservations about the timetable for turning over authority to Iraqi.75
Germany has pledged to expand its peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan and
theater, where it already has 1,800 troops.76
In terms of post-war reconstruction, Germany has made a limited commitment
to aid Iraq. In its role as an elected member of the U.N. Security Council, Germany
voted in favor of UNSC Res. 1483 that lifted sanctions on Iraq. Chancellor
Schroeder stressed the timeliness of removing sanctions and thought it a necessary
step to a prosperous and self-sustaining Iraq. In some circles, Germany’s vote
symbolized a gesture demonstrating cooperation with the United States in spite of
differing views on the war. Germany also voted for the subsequent resolutions
UNSC Res. 1500 and 1511 that broadened the scope for U.N. involvement in Iraq.
According to the German government, these resolutions began to address important
concerns of postwar order in Iraq.77 However, German officials also indicated that
they would have wished for an speedier transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people and
clearer guidelines regarding the time line for establishing the new government.78
Also in terms of reconstruction, Germany has provided approximately $58
million for direct emergency and humanitarian aid and $27.4 million for training
72 Ibid.
73 “Georgian Troops Await Parliamentary Go-Ahead for Iraq Deployment,” BBC, June 16,
2003.
74 “Germany Restates Anti-War Stance on Iraq,” Agence France-Presse, March 16, 2003.
75 “Berlin Contradicts EU’s Solana on Iraq,” Deutsche Welle, November 15, 2003.
76 Cook, Lorne, “German Parliament Approves Expanded Military Presence in Iraq,”Agence
France Presse, October, 24, 2003.
77 “Security Council Action Unanimously Calls for Power to Be Returned to Iraqi People
as Soon as Practical,” United Nations Press Release SC/798, October 10, 2003.
78 Ibid.

CRS-17
Iraqi police.79 Germany is also indirectly providing assistance by financing its share
of the $230 million EU commitment; the German share is estimated at $52 million.
Germany also indicated that it would donate an additional $52 million to the World
Bank if Iraq qualifies for IDA loans.80 These loans, however, are usually reserved for
the poorest developing countries. Domestically, the Christian Democratic Union
(CDU) party and Free Democratic Party (FDP), the main opposition parties in
Germany, have called upon the government to assume more responsibility for Iraq’s
stabilization. These parties have also called for greater financial commitments for
reconstruction and a cancelling of Iraq debts. Although the German government
initially indicated that it would not consider forgiving Iraq’s debts,81 the government
has recently eased its stance on this issue indicating a broader willingness to forgive
some percentage of Iraq’s debt.82 Germany stated that it would be willing to
significantly forgive Iraq’s debt burden through the Paris Club mechanisms in a joint
statement issued with France and the United States on December 16th, 2003.
*Honduras. Honduras was the first Central American country to approve the
deployment of personnel to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq. On May 29, 2003, the
Honduran Congress approved the deployment of 370 troops proposed earlier by
President Ricardo Maduro.83 The contingent is expected to include mine removal
experts, engineers, doctors and nurses that will serve for a six month term.84 A recent
news report says that the Honduran government will provide $384,000 for the
operation.85
*Hungary. As part of the reconstruction and stabilization efforts, the Hungarian
government sent 300 troops to join the Polish-led multinational peacekeeping force
in August 2003. Hungary will also deploy a transportation unit to assist peacekeeping
operations in Iraq. Prior to Operation Iraqi freedom, Iraqi exiles were being trained
in Hungary by the United States. This training was intended to provide the exiles
with the skills they might need to replace Saddam Hussein and to equip them to aid
U.S. soldiers during the war. Although no military training was being provided, as
stipulated by Hungary, the Iraqi exiles receive instruction in translation, providing
logistical support, and civil and military administration. Hungary agreed to host the
training for six months.

79 “Germany says no plans for further contributions towards Iraq’s reconstruction,” AP,
October 22, 2003.
80 “German assistance for Iraq-Donor’s Conference in Madrid,” German Government,
October 24, 2002, official website of German federal government, [http://www.bundes
regierung.de/], accessed November 12, 2003.
81 “Berlin Says No Iraq Debt Forgiveness, Free Possible,” Reuters News, October 27, 2003.
82 Champion, Marc, “Germany Backs Iraq Debt Relief by Paris Club,”Wall Street Journal,
November 24, 2003.
83 “Congreso de Honduras aprueba el envío de tropas de paz a Iraq,” Reuters - Noticias
Latinoamericanas, May 29, 2003.
84 Ibid.
85 “Tropas hondureñas viajan a finales de julio a Iraq,” Associated Press, July 8, 2003.

CRS-18
India. Prime Minister Vajpayee affirmed in early June 2003 that India was still
firm on its non-aligned position regarding the war in Iraq. Foreign Minister Yashwant
Sinha said, “India has cordial and good relations with both the U.S. and Iraq.
Therefore, the stand taken by India is the middle path.”86 However, U.S. and British
officials mounted pressure on India to deploy troops to postwar Iraq. In late-June
2003, a special team from the Pentagon attempted to persuade India to participate in
the multinational force in Iraq.87 On July 14, 2003, India announced that it would not
send troops to Iraq without a U.N. mandate. After the passage of UNSC. 1511,
which some countries may have interpreted as the mandate they needed to provide
peacekeepers, India continued to refuse to send troops and indicated that hostilities
in Kashmir have precluded their participation in stabilization efforts elsewhere. India
did pledge $10 million in aid for Iraqi reconstruction.
Iran. Torn between its enmity toward Saddam Hussein’s regime and its fear of
a more assertive U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf, Iran remained neutral during
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Although Iranian officials did voice their opposition to the
use of force against Iraq, behind the scenes, Iran did not stand in the way of the U.S.-
led war against Iraq, as they pursued a policy of “active neutrality.” In post-war Iraq,
more pragmatic Iranian officials have been supporting moderate elements of the Iraqi
Shia clerical establishment. Iran also pledged $300 million in export credits and $5
million in reconstruction aid to facilitate Iraq’s economic recovery. Iran has also
been in negotiations with Iraq to set up an oil-swap scheme to speed Iraq’s ability to
gain export revenues from its oil.
Israel. The Israeli government fully supported ousting the regime of Saddam
Hussein because of the major threat he was believed to have posed to Israeli national
security. In order to counter such threats, Israeli government officials discussed
openly the use of Israeli nuclear weapons should Iraq choose to attack Israel.88
However, Israel believed that its use of deterrence must be balanced with the needs
of the United States, which sought the good will and cooperation of Arab states in
maintaining a coalition against Hussein. Besides these remarks, Israel largely kept
silent on the Iraq issue, indicating only that it reserved the right to counter attack.89
*Italy. As a member of NATO, the EU and the G-8 group of industrialized
countries, Italy is a vocal European supporter of the U.S.-led operation in Iraq.
Italian Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, has stated that Italy is in “complete
86 Rachelle Younglai, “South and East Asian Countries — Where They Stand,” CBC News,
March 11, 2003.
87 David Rohde, “Officials in India Divided on Sending Troops to Iraq,” Peace Force, June
26, 2003.
88 Roger Hardy, “Israel Nuclear Strike on Iraq Possible,” BBC News Online, August 15,
2002.
89 Some observers have speculated that Israel will retaliate only if it suffers casualties as a
result of an Iraqi attack. See Michael R. Gordon, “Israel Tells U.S. it will Retaliate if Iraqis
Attack,” New York Times, September 21, 2002.

CRS-19
agreement” with the United States.90 During a visit to Rome in early June 2003,
Secretary Powell said “we’ve had no better friend in recent months than Italy.”91
Italy is one of the most generous contributors of personnel to the Iraq
reconstruction and stabilization efforts. In June 2003, 2,400 Italian troops, including
400 Carabinieri police officers, were deployed to Iraq to take part in the UK-led
multinational force in southern Iraq. The contingent is responsible for the Dhi Qur
province; the Carabinieri officers are training local police. Specialized troops are
also involved in de-mining operations, rebuilding bridges, biochemical clean-ups,
and protecting the humanitarian aid mission. To finance its mission in Iraq for 2004,
the Italian government estimates the cost will total $238 million every six months.92
Italy’s forces suffered a serious blow, however, on November 12, 2003 when
18 Italian soldiers were killed in a suicide-attack on the Italian headquarters in
Nasiriya. Although Italy’s main opposition party initially called for troops to be
withdrawn, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi affirmed his commitment to
maintaining forces in Iraq by noting “No intimidation will budge us from our
willingness to help that country rise up again.”93 Immediately following the attack,
Italian polls estimated that 60% of the population supported maintaining troops in
Iraq.94
Italy has also provided monetary assistance to reconstruction and relief in Iraq.
At the Madrid International Conference on Reconstruction in Iraq, the Italian
government announced that it will provide $238 million in financial aid for 2004-
2007. In 2003, Italy’s contributions and pledges for relief and reconstruction were
approximately $340 million. Italy also agreed to reschedule and possibly forgive
Iraqi debt through the Paris Club mechanisms.
*Japan. In spite of popular opposition to the Iraq war, Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi said that Japan should act as a “responsible ally” to the United States.95
Since the end of the war, Japan has emerged as a key player in U.S.-led postwar
efforts in Iraq. Japan pledge $1.5 billion in grants and a further $3.5 billion in loans
for reconstruction in Iraq for 2004-2007. Although Japan had expressed some
hesitation to fulfill earlier pledges of personnel due to growing security concerns and
domestic opposition, the Japanese Cabinet formally approved a dispatch of up to
1,000 noncombat troops on December 9, 2003.
90 “Powell, Italian Foreign Minister Discuss U.S.-Europe Ties, Iraq, Mideast - Leaders See
Progress in Healing U.S.-Europe Fissures,” State Department Press Releases and
Documents, June 2, 2003.
91 Ibid.
92 Statement of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, October 24, 2003,
[http://www.esteri.it/attualita/2003eng/statint/i031024a.htm].
93 Bruni, Frank, “With his Policies Facing A Major Test, Berlusconi Insists the Troops will
Stay in Iraq,” New York Times, November 13, 2003.
94 Ibid.
95 “Japan PM in a Pinch over Support for U.S. on Iraq,” Reuters News, February 12, 2003.

CRS-20
In July 2003, Japanese legislators voted in favor of sending noncombat troops
to Iraq, including up to 1,000 engineers and other troops.96 Although Japan delayed
this proposed deployment several times due to perceived instability in Iraq, the
Japanese Cabinet officially approved a dispatch of up to 1,000 troops on December
9, 2003. Within the plan, 600 Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force troops would
provide medical services and supply water in southeastern Iraq. Although no specific
start date was set, the dispatch could occur anytime after December 15, 2003 and last
from six months to one year. On December 18, 2003, the Japanese defense agency
chief also announced that Japan would send an advance air force unit by the end of
the year to rally support among a skeptical public.97 The advance unit would operate
mainly from Kuwait to assist with humanitarian and reconstruction logistics.98
Some officials have suggested that Japan is only authorized to send personnel
to noncombat situations and that Iraq fails to meet this criterion at present due to the
frequency of attacks on aid workers, soldiers, and civilians. The death of two
Japanese diplomats on their way to an aid conference in northern Iraq in November
increased domestic concern about the safety of sending troops to Iraq.99 According
to several Japanese polls, public opinion remains largely negative towards sending
troops to Iraq.100 Although these concerns persist, some Japanese have also
expressed resistance to relying upon “checkbook diplomacy”, or simply providing
financial rather than personnel assistance.101 During the first Gulf war in 1991, Japan
received international and domestic criticism for providing $13 billion to finance the
cost of the war, but failing to provide personnel.102
Jordan. Although some Arab leaders expressed opposition to intervening in
Iraq, Jordan quietly assisted the American-led campaign. Jordan granted overflight
rights to coalition planes, and hosted U.S. troops carrying out search and rescue
operations in western Iraq.103 In the postwar era, however, Jordan’s Embassy in
Baghdad was targeted by a truck bomb on August 19, 2003, killing 17 individuals.
In terms of assistance to Iraq, Jordan contributed a mobile field hospital to
assist in relief efforts in Iraq.104 Jordan also agreed to train 30,000 Iraqi military
police. The United States has demonstrated its appreciation for Jordan’s low-profile
96 “Japan Votes to Send Troops to Iraq,” Associated Press, July 25, 2003.
97 “Japan to Send Advance Air Unit by Year End to Start Iraq Deployment,” Agence France
Presse, December 18, 2003.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid.
101 Onishi, Norimitsu, “Japan Heads to Iraq, Haunted by a Taboo Bred in Another War,”
November 19, 2003.
102 Ibid.
103 “Countries Offering Support for War Against Iraq,” Reuters News, April 2, 2003.
104 Thom Shanker, “About $1.7 Billion Raised for Relief in Iraq,” The New York Times,
April 22, 2003.

CRS-21
but critical support of the war in Iraq. Jordan is now the United States third-largest
recipient of aid.
Kazakstan. Kazakstan did not lend any public (diplomatic or material) support
to the war in Iraq. However, in May 2003, Kazakstan’s Foreign Ministry announced
that it was ready to participate in the rehabilitation of Iraq. Kazakstan has sent a 25-
member unit of engineers and civil specialists who will repair Iraq’s infrastructure,
particularly water mining projects.
*Kuwait. Kuwait was the most receptive Arab government to the U.S.-led
coalition to depose the Iraqi regime. Kuwait has hosted hundreds of thousands of
U.S. troops and was part of the “coalition of the willing.” Kuwait’s Defense Minister,
Sheikh Jabir al-Mubarak al-Sabah, put Kuwaiti bases and training camps at the
disposal of the U.S. military. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Camp Doha has served as a
critical U.S. facility for Gulf deployments. The U.S. Air Force continues to use Ali
Salem and Ahmed Al- Jaber airbases to station combat aircraft. To facilitate
reconstruction and stabilization, Kuwait pledged an addition $500 million in aid in
addition to the reported $1 billion worth of humanitarian assistance it has contributed
to Iraq in the past several years. Kuwait has remained noncommital as to whether it
would forgive Iraq’s debt although much of the 1991 reparations have been resolved
in the intervening decade.
*Latvia. Latvia’s commitment to the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq
includes a military pledge of 150 servicemen.105 These individuals are serving under
the multinational division led by the Polish.
*Lithuania. Lithuania indicated that it will contribute up to 130 troops to the
international reconstruction and stabilization force in Iraq. On June 4, 2003,
Lithuania deployed 44 peacekeepers who will be stationed in the U.K.-controlled city
of Basra. Their major tasks include conducting security patrols and guarding check
points.106 In early-August, Lithuania deployed 45 more troops to the Polish-led
sector.107
Luxembourg. Luxembourg was among four countries (along with Belgium,
France, and Germany) that opposed the U.S. suggestion to begin planning within
NATO for possible military action in Iraq, maintaining that it saw no justification for
military action.108 In the postwar era, Luxembourg pledged $1.18 million for
reconstruction in Iraq at the Madrid Donors Conference; $1.18 million in grants
would be provided in 2005 if UN and NGO staff are able to operate in Iraq.109
105 Aija Rutka, “Latvian National Armed Forces Mission to Be Stationed in Northern Iraq,”
Latvian News Agency, May 20, 2003.
106 “Troops Iraq Departure,” Lithuanian News Agency, June 4, 2003.
107 “Lithuanian Servicemen Arrive in Iraq to Ensure Law and Order,” Itar-Tass, June 12,
2003.
108 “Western Leaders’ Iraq Rift Grows,” CNN, January 23, 2003.
109 Telephone conversation with Luxembourg Embassy Official, Washington, DC,
November 17, 2003.

CRS-22
*Macedonia. Macedonia is participating in the reconstruction of postwar Iraq.
On June 6, 2003, Macedonia deployed 28 troops to a town north of Baghdad, where
they will remain until December 2003. The troops are responsible for securing
facilities and roads.
Mexico. As a non-permanent member of the Security Council, Mexico
supported resolution 1441, but remained “noncommittal” on the “second resolution”
submitted and withdrawn by the United Kingdom, United States, and Spain. Several
analysts assert that Mexico sought to reconcile its interests to maintain good relations
with the United States and appease local public opposition to the war in Iraq.110
Mexico’s position leaned generally toward a stronger U.N. role in the prewar phase.
In a March 2003 interview, Ambassador Aguilar Zinser said that Mexico deplored
and regretted that military action had been taken without the approval of the Security
Council.111 After hostilities were declared over, Mexico backed UNSC Res. 1483,
which lifted economic sanctions and recognized U.S.-UK authority over Iraq’s
administration. After the resolution’s approval in May 2003, the Mexican
Ambassador to the United Nations, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, stressed the document’s
importance in creating a role for the UN in the reconstruction phase. See Table 5 for
more information on key U.N. Security Council votes in 2002 and 2003.
*Mongolia. Mongolia supported U.S. actions in Iraq and was one of the first
countries to pledge to send peacekeepers to the stabilization efforts. Mongolia sent
180 peacekeepers in September. Their responsibilities include guarding pipelines
and working on construction projects under the Polish Command.112 The United
States and Mongolia secured a bilateral free trade agreement later in September.
*Netherlands. The Netherlands has played a significant role in the
stabilization force in Iraq. It has dispatched 1,100 noncombat troops to southern Iraq
where it will relieve a U.S. contingent of similar size. The team includes 650
marines, a logistic team, a commando contingent, military policy, medics and a unit
of 230 military engineers. Additionally, the Netherlands has also provide three
manned Chinook transport helicopters. The Dutch government has promised $21
million for Iraqi relief and reconstruction efforts.113 Amid security concerns in
August, 2003, the Netherlands moved its diplomats from Baghdad to Amman,
Jordan.
110 Domestic political tensions were undoubtedly a factor in President Fox’s decisions as
July legislative elections neared. Nick Miles, “Mexico’s Iraq Vote Dilemma,” BBC News
World Edition, March 2, 2003; Ivan Briscoe, “Un Vote-hunting Provokes Fear and
Frustration among Minor Players,” El País, March 5, 2003; “Mexico - Market Strategy -
Decision Time for Fox,” Emerging Markets Daily News, March 5, 2003.
111 Verónica Sanz, “México dice que “potencias ocupantes” deben asumir reconstrucción,”
Agencia EFE - Servicio General, March 24, 2003.
112 Brooke, James “Allies: Mongolians Return to Baghdad, this time as Peacekeepers,” New
York Times, September 22, 2003.
113 Thom Shanker, “About $1.7 Billion Raised for Relief in Iraq,” The New York Times,
April 22, 2003.

CRS-23
*Nicaragua. Nicaragua has expressed its commitment to assist with the
reconstruction effort. President Enrique Bolaños said after a June 2003 meeting with
U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Dov Zakheim and Spanish Defense Secretary
Fernando Diez Moreno that Nicaragua would contribute troops to conduct anti-
personnel-mine removal tasks.114 A divided legislature approved the deployment of
230 troops in August. The Nicaraguan force are serving under the command of the
Spanish contingent in the Polish Division.
Norway. As a member of NATO, Norway supported Iraqi disarmament
through UNSC Res. 1441 and regretted the use of force. According to Norwegian
Foreign Minister Jan Peterson, Norway would have preferred to “solve this conflict
through peaceful means.”115 In the postwar era, Norway has pledged both economic
and military aid for the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq. The Norwegian
government has promised $60 million and 150 soldiers toward the effort to rebuild
and relieve Iraq.116 The troops will be under British command in southern Iraq,
although some may be under Polish command.117 They will be responsible primarily
for clearing mines, repairing roads and revitalizing the health sector. Norway has said
that its soldiers will not partake in the ongoing policing effort in Iraq. Fifteen
Norwegian troops left for Iraq on June 26, 2003, and 104 joined them on July 9,
2003.
Oman. Reportedly, Oman was one of several key Gulf States who made
arrangements with the United States to allow use of military facilities in the region.118
As early as December 2002, the United States moved several B-1 bombers from
Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to Oman in order to be closer to Iraq.119 Oman not
only offered its military facilities, but hosted 100 elite British Special Air Service
forces. Several major airlift hubs and supply depot provided substantial support for
the U.S. military buildup in the region.120 Significant air refueling capabilities at Seeb
were used to support the no-fly zone in Iraq. Oman also pledged $3 million for
reconstruction in Iraq.
Pakistan. Pakistan did not favor unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq. On
April 2, 2003, Pakistan’s senate passed a resolution deploring the military attack and
114 “Bolaños recibe a altos cargos de defensa de España y EEUU,” Agencia EFE - Servicio
General, June 11, 2003.
115 Thom Shanker, “About $1.7 Billion Raised for Relief in Iraq,” The New York Times,
April 22, 2003.
116 “Norway Sends Aid, Peacekeeping Forces to Iraq,” IPR Strategic Information Database,
June 5, 2003.
117 Ibid.
118 For more information, see also CRS Report RL31701, Iraq: U.S. Military Operations,
by (name redacted).
119 Arkin, William, “U.S. Military Building a War: As Some Argue, Supply Lines Fill Up,”
The Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2002.
120 Center for Defense Information, “Terrorism Project: U.S. Forces in the Middle East,”
[http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/forcesinthemideast5.cfm], December 31, 2002.

CRS-24
demanded that the UN Security Council take immediate action to stop hostilities.121
President Pervez Musharraf ruled out U.S. military use of Pakistani bases for war in
Iraq, except for possible logistical support. As an elected member of the U.N.
Security Council since January 1, 2003, Pakistan did not offer support to the “second
resolution” submitted and withdrawn by the United States, United Kingdom, and
Spain, but has supported subsequent resolutions 1483, 1500, and 1511, which lifted
sanctions and signaled a greater role for the United Nations in reconstruction and
stabilization.
Following the war, the United States asked Pakistan to contribute troops to the
multinational peacekeeping forces in Iraq.122 On May 27th, 2003, President Musharraf
said Pakistan was “in principle ready”to send troops to Iraq under the umbrella of the
United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Conference or any shared arrangement
among the Islamic States.123 On October 26th, 2003, Pakistan’s state news agency
reported that Pakistan would not send troops, and the Information Minister Sheikh
Rashid Ahmed was quoted in an AP report stating that “Pakistan would not send
troops to Iraq at any cost.”124 Pakistan did, however, pledge $2.5 million for
reconstruction aid in Iraq.
As a non-permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and its symbolic
status as one of the world’s largest majority Muslim nations, Pakistan is viewed as
an important strategic partner to the United States. Pakistan was considered a pivotal
ally in the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan and the war on terror. Pakistan was awarded
an economic assistance package of $3 billion during talks between Presidents
Musharraf and Bush at Camp David in June 2003.125
People’s Republic of China (China). China insisted that the Iraq crisis be
resolved politically through the United Nations, and it supported giving weapons
inspectors more time to disarm Iraq. PRC leader Jiang Zemin affirmed: “The door
of peace should not be closed. As long as the slightest hope remains, we should seek
a political solution and endeavor to avoid war.”126
Although China has kept a low-profile with regard to U.S. military action in
Iraq, Chinese officials continue to say that the United Nations, not the United States
or the United Kingdom, should be the central player in the reconstruction process.127
121 “Pakistan’s Senate Passes Resolution Against War on Iraq,” Agence France-Presse, April
2, 2003.
122 “Pakistan Asked to Join Iraq Peacekeeping Force,” Financial Times, May 16, 2003.
123 “Pakistan Ready to Send Troops to Iraq — President Musharraf,” BBC Monitoring South
Asia, May 27, 2003.
124 “Iraq Will Not Sent Troops to Iraq - Report,” Reuters News, October 26, 200.
125 Carlotta Gall, “Pakistanis Protest Offer of Iraq Force,” Islamabad, June 27, 2003.
126 John Pomfret, “China Backs Europeans on Iraqi Inspections,” Washington Post, March
7, 2003. “Chinese Leader Tells French President China Opposes New Resolution on Iraq,”
Associated Press Newswires, March 6, 2003.
127 “China Pushes for Post-War Role,” CNN News, April 10, 2003.

CRS-25
China voted in favor UNSC Res. 1483 in view of urgent postwar reconstruction
needs in Iraq, even though some of China’s specific concerns had not been addressed
satisfactorily in the resolution.128 China also pledged $25 million to the
reconstruction of Iraq at the Madrid Donors conference held October 23-24, 2003.
*Philippines. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has repeatedly expressed her
“support of the U.S. actions against Iraq,” and was one of the first and most
vociferous supporters of the U.S.-led war against terrorism.
The Philippines’
peacekeeping mission to Iraq includes 196 troops, 75 of whom are military police
peacekeepers and 100 are medical and social workers.
*Poland. The United States views Poland as one of its “staunchest allies” in
its efforts to disarm and rebuild Iraq.129 During a May 2003 visit to Krakow,
President Bush thanked Poland for its steadfast support of the U.S.-led war, saying
that “America will not forget that Poland rose to the moment.”130 During the combat
phase of the war, Poland contributed 200 troops to the coalition, both special forces
and non-combat personnel.
Poland is playing a substantial role in the reconstruction and stabilization of
Iraq. Polish soldiers have been leading a 9,500-strong multinational force in the
south-central region of Iraq in a zone between the U.S. and U.K.-led areas since
September. Reconstruction tasks include securing the war-torn area and “helping
establish new civilian authorities.” NATO forces, too, are providing support to the
Polish unit by providing expertise in intelligence, communications, and logistics.
After Poland sustained its first casualties in November, Prime Minister Lesek Millers
affirmed that Poland would continue to support the mission and added that their
reasons for stabilizing Iraq were moral, and not only political.131
*Portugal. After the end of major military operations, Portuguese Prime
Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso offered to deploy 120 National Guard troops
to help with the maintenance of security in Iraq, but to the disappointment of U.S.
officials, Portugal has since modified this commitment to include paramilitary police
— not regular soldiers.132 128 elite police officers were sent to Iraq to join Italian
paramilitary forces, but were temporarily rerouted to Basra after the bombing of the
Italian headquarters in Nasiriya. Portugal also pledged a total of $20.7 million in
bilateral aid.
Qatar. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Qatar played a key role in housing and
supplying U.S. combat forces and providing command and control facilities for
CENTCOM personnel. Like many small Gulf states, Qatar was cautious in
128 “China Expects UN to Play Due Role in Reconstruction in Iraq,” Xinhua News Agency,
May 22, 2003.
129 “U.S.-Europe Spat Threatens to Isolate Britain,” The Times (London), January 25, 2003.
130 Ibid.
131 “Polish PM Rallies Troops in Iraq,” BBC News, November 13, 2003.
132 Tom Squitieri and Dave Moniz, “Allies Balk at Sending Troops,” USA Today, July 10,
2003.

CRS-26
expressing its support for U.S. policy in Iraq, although it did not attempt to hide its
burgeoning relationship with the United States. In terms of assistance to Iraq
reconstruction, Qatar pledge $100 million in reconstruction aid to the World
Bank/U.N. trust fund. Qatar Airways also carried nine tons of food and medicine in
the first commercial flight to Iraq since the start of the U.S.-led invasion.133 Qatar
Airways will maintain weekly flights schedules to support international relief
organizations.
*Romania. Romania has sent 734 peacekeepers to Iraq, including medical,
engineering, and military police personnel.134 Most of the peacekeepers will be
under British and Italian command, but the engineers will be under Polish command.
Romania has also provided in-kind assistance of food, water, and medicines.
Russia. Russia opposed and criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq. At the heart of
Russian attitudes toward military action in Iraq lies Putin’s focus on protecting
Russian economic interests in Iraq, restraining U.S. unilateralism, and maintaining
good relations with the United States. The latter was deemed essential to Putin’s
economic agenda. Putin’s foreign policy can be viewed in light of his efforts to
balance these competing objectives.
Although Russia opposed the war in Iraq, saying that U.S. actions in Iraq
bypassed the U.N. Security Council, Russian Foreign Minister reaffirmed after major
military operations ended that “[Russia] is now oriented towards [future] steps and
actions in Iraq.”135 In concert with France and Germany, who also rejected U.S.
actions in Iraq, Russia voted in favor of UNSC Res. 1483 in May 2003, to aid Iraq.136
Russia has declined, however, to send peacekeepers to Iraq, saying that a U.N.
mandate would be necessary first.137 See Table 5 for more information on selected
security council votes pertaining to Iraq. Russia has also indicated a reluctance to
forgive the estimated $8 billion in loans owed by the Iraqi government or provide
financial assistance for reconstruction.
Saudi Arabia. Although Saudi Arabia ultimately did not oppose Operation
Iraqi Freedom, it was not as fervent a supporter of U.S. operations as was its smaller
neighbors in the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia had little sympathy for Saddam
Hussein’s regime, but had consistently opposed the war against Iraq until the last few
weeks prior to the start of hostilities. In the end, Saudi Arabia provided private
assurances that the United States would have access to Saudi airspace, air bases, and
a Combined Aerospace Operations Center at Prince Sultan Air Base. Officially,
Saudi Arabia did not allow the U.S. military to launch a ground attack against Iraq
133 “Update 1-Italian Troops, Qatari Plane Landed in Basra,”Reuters, June 10, 2003
134 “Romania to Send Some 650 Troops to Iraq in Early July,” Agence France Presse, June
5, 2003.
135 “Russia, France, Germany to Vote for U.S.-British Draft Security Resolution on Iraq,”
Interfax News Service,May 22, 2003.
136 “Russia To Provide 7.0 Mln Euro Aid to Iraq,” Dutch News Digest, May 15, 2003.
137 “Russia Not Planning to Send Peacekeepers to Iraq,” FBIS Document
CEP20030701000008, July 1, 2003.

CRS-27
from Saudi territory.138 The Saudis are extremely sensitive to allowing an outside
power use their facilities in an attack against another Arab state. Al- Qaeda’s
criticism of the regime for permitting the U.S. presence on Saudi soil has only
heightened Saudi Arabia’s unwillingness to return to the levels of military
cooperation reached during the 1991 Gulf War.
Recognizing the potentially
destabilizing effects of energy price rises on the international economy, Saudi Arabia
kept world energy prices stable during and after the war by manipulating its daily oil
production. The desert kingdom also replaced the 90,000 barrels a day of reduced-
price oil Jordan was receiving from Iraq.
The Kingdom has also pledged $500 million in loans and $500 in export credits
to assist with reconstruction in Iraq. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Saudi
Arabia delivered over 400 tons of relief supplies to Iraq, including food, water, and
medicine. In addition, Saudi Arabia donated six-fully equipped ambulances to Iraqi
hospitals and 10 water purification plants to Iraq. Nearly 180 Saudi medical staff
operate a field hospital and treat as many as 800 Iraqi patients a day.139
*Singapore. At the signing of the U.S.-Singapore free trade agreement on May
6, 2003, President Bush said Singapore “has been a vital and steadfast friend in the
fight against global terror. Singapore worked hard to secure the passage of [UNSC
Res.] 1441”140 The Singaporean government also pledged to send 192 military
personnel to assist in stabilization and reconstruction in mid-late November.141 A
landing ship tanker will carry a crew of 161 to perform logistics and inspect ships in
the gulf. An additional 31 military personnel will arrive by plane. This two-month
deployment follows an earlier two month deployment of a police team to train Iraqi
military.142
*Slovakia. Slovakia has actively supported the coalition during and after the
war. During the combat phase of the war, Slovakia deployed 75 anti-chemical
warfare troops to assist Czech forces in monitoring radiation levels and chemical
contamination, and in making available decontamination services.143 Slovakia
allowed the United States use of its railways and roads to transport military personnel
and machinery. The United States was also permitted to use Slovakia’s airspace for
138 Some analysts believe that Saudi Arabia quietly approved the presence of U.S. ground
troops in the Kingdom.
139 Saudi Embassy Press Release, [http://www.saudiembassy.net], accessed July 30, 2003.
140 Remarks by US President George Bush at the Signing of US-Singapore Free Trade
Agreement at the White House, Tuesday, 6 May 2003, Washington, D.C.,” Singapore
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release, May 8, 2003.
141 “Singapore Dispatches 192 Military Personnel to Iraq,” BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific,
October 28, 2003.
142 Ibid.
143 “Defense Minister on Deployment of Slovak Chemical Unit for Iraq,” SITA Slovenska
Tlacova Agentura, February 4, 2003.

CRS-28
military flights.144
During the reconstruction phase of the U.S.-led effort in Iraq,
Slovakia has supplied an engineering unit consisting of 85 soldiers whose primary
task will be to repair infrastructure damaged in the war and clear mines and
ammunition from public areas.145
*South Korea. South Korea supported the war in Iraq. President Roh Moo-
Hyun said “I believe that to support the U.S. efforts benefits our national interest,”
South Korea has pledged a total of $260 million in humanitarian and reconstruction
aid for Iraq. The government initially provided approximately 650 noncombat troops
to Iraq to assist with reconstruction and relief.146
The South Korean Cabinet also approved a measure to send 3,000 troops,
including 1,400 combat and 1,600 noncombat forces on December, 17, 2003.
Noncombat forces will be composed of engineers and medics, and the combat forces
will allow the new division to take responsibility for its own security. Due to mixed
domestic opinion on the war, National Security Advisor Ra Jong-yil emphasized that
the combat forces would support the reconstruction and peace efforts.147 The measure
approved by the cabinet must be formally approved by the parliament, but analysts
predict that the measure will be approved easily.148 The pledge of 3,000 troops was
significantly less than the initial U.S. request of 5,000 troops, but would make South
Korea fifth largest contributor of forces after the United States, United Kingdom,
Italy, and Poland. The cabinet approval occurred amid increased security concerns
following the killings two South Korean contractors in Iraq on November 30, 2003.
A week after these killings, 60 South Korean contractors working on Iraq’s electrical
power grid left Iraq.
*Spain. As an elected, non-permanent member of the UN Security Council,
Spain has been one of the strongest supporters of the U.S. led intervention in Iraq. In
May 2003, Spain joined the United States and the United Kingdom in cosponsoring
UNSC Res. 1483, which legitimizes the authority of the “occupying powers” in
Iraq.149 See Table 5 for more information on selected security council votes
pertaining to Iraq. Some suggest that Spain’s position in support of the war —
widely opposed domestically — was influenced by President José María Aznar’s
hopes for a more influential Spain on the world stage and for increased U.S. support
144 “Slovakia Accepts U.S. Request for Assistance in Case of War Against Iraq,” Associated
Press Newswires, February 13, 2003.
145 “Slovak Govt Votes to Send Army Engineers to Iraq,” Reuters, June 5, 2003.
146 “South Korea Backs Iraq War Move,” BBC News, April 2, 2003.
147 Chandra, Amit “Government Announces Plans to Send 3,000 South Korean Troops to
Iraq,”WMRC Daily Analysis, December, 17, 2003.
148 “Seoul Finalizes Troop Plans - 3,000 Forces Likely to Be Stationed in the Northern
Region,” Korea Herald, December 18, 2003.
149 “Passages from Security Council Resolution Ending UN Sanctions on Iraq,” The New
York Times, May 23, 2003.

CRS-29
for his government’s fight against separatist terrorist groups such as ETA.150 On May
8, President Bush announced that the U.S. would include ETA’s political wing
(Batasuna) in its list of terrorist organizations, and that it would take measures to cut
the group’s financing.151 However, President Aznar has justified his Iraq position
asserting that the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction presented a
“certain threat” to global security.152
Spain has been one of the principal contributors to the reconstruction and
stabilization efforts in Iraq. The Spanish government has pledged $300 million in
economic aid to Iraq until 2007. Included in this pledge is: $210 million in grants,
$75 million in concessional loans, and $15 million for Spanish companies that carry
out work in Iraq. On the peacekeeping front, Spain has dispatched 1,300 troops that
are mostly assigned to police duties in south-central Iraq under the Polish-led
division. Although Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has reiterated Spain’s
commitment to Iraq, Spanish authorities have withdrawn many diplomatic staff and
liaisons to the Coalition Provisional Authority under growing security concerns.153
Syria.
As an elected member of U.N. Security Council since January 1, 2002,
Syria called on Iraq to disarm while acting to prevent a war in Iraq in early 2003.
The Syrian government strongly denounced U.S. intervention in Iraq. On March 30,
2003, in a speech to the Syrian Parliament, Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said
“Syria has a national interest in the expulsion of the invaders from Iraq.” Two days
earlier, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accused Syria of allowing military
supplies to be transported through its territory to Iraq, an act he called “hostile.”154
The U.S. has reportedly warned Syrian government of interference into Iraq.
Taiwan. President Chen Shui-bian declared support for the U.S. position on the
war on March 21st, 2003.155 Taiwan is not listed on the U.S. “coalition of the willing”
list, presumably because it does not have diplomatic relations with the United States.
As part of its plan to develop ties with Middle East countries, Taiwan hopes to
establish a connection with Iraq and open a trade representative office. Taiwan has
pledged up to $4.3 million in relief aid for postwar reconstruction of Iraq, including
150 Carla Vitzthum and Keith Johnson, “Aznar Raises Spain Profile, at a Price,” Wall Street
Journal, May 21, 2003.
151 “Bush coloca a Aznar entre sus más estrechos amigos y aliados,” Agencia EFE - Servicio
General, May 8, 2003.
152 Pilar Marcos “Aznar mantiene que Irak pudo “hacer desaparecer” sus armas de
destrucción masiva,” El País, June 5, 2003.
153 “Bomb Kills American in Bagdad, Spain Recalls Staff,” Reuters, November 4, 2003.
154 Neil MacFarquhar, “Syria Wants U.S. to Lose War, Its Foreign Minister Declares,” The
New York Times, March 31, 2003.
155 “Taiwan President Reiterates Support for US Military Action in Iraq,” BBC Monitoring
Asia-Pacific, March 21, 2003.

CRS-30
5,000 tons of rice.156 Taiwan’s parliament also approved an additional $8.6 million
for reconstruction aid.
Thailand. A close and long-standing U.S. ally, Thailand took a neutral position
and kept a low profile during the Iraq war mainly because of sensitivities toward its
Muslim minority. Thailand is the only U.S. ally in Asia that did not back Washington
publicly on the Iraq war.157 Some analysts believe that the Prime Minister played
down his cooperation with the U.S.-led war on terrorism and the war in Iraq to
safeguard the Thai tourism sector, reportedly hurt by fears of possible terrorist attacks
and the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Asia.158
In the postwar era, however, Thailand sent approximately 443 troops to support
stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq and donated approximately $238,000 to the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Thailand to support
humanitarian assistance efforts in Iraq. The Por Tek Teung Foundation also donated
$71,300 to the ICRC.
*Turkey. Although relations between Turkey and United States suffered as a
result of the Turkish parliament decision to deny the United States rights to use
Turkey as a northern front in the war against Iraq in March, Turkey demonstrated
support to the U.S. led-coalition by pledging 10,000 peacekeepers to stabilization
in Iraq. Turkey later rescinded its offer after the Iraqi Governing Council announced
that it would reject Turkey’s offer on November 5, 2000. Although some skeptics
have suggested that the Bush administration approved a $8.5 billion loan package to
Turkey to purchase support in Parliament, U.S. officials deny that loans amounted
to a quid pro quo for the pledge of peacekeepers.159 A U.S. official did suggest that
the loans were linked to Turkey’s pledge to refrain from unilateral military action in
northern Iraq.160
In June 2003, Turkey announced a new policy to promote enhanced trade
relations and economic cooperation between Turkey and Iraq and more amiably
relations with the Kurds in the North.161 Turkey is also considering an invitation from
156 Monique Chu, “Ministries to Talk about Iraqi Aid: Having Already Promised to Donate
up to NT $150 million in Aid, the Government Will Further Discuss how the Government
Can Help After the War,” Taipei Times, April 2, 2003.
157 “U.S. Might Punish Thailand,” The Nation [http://www.nationmultimedia.com], April
29, 2003.
158 “Thai Prime Minister Denies U.S. Military Aid Report,” Dow Jones Newswires, June 8,
2003.
159 Entous, Adam”US- Dollar Diplomacy May Have Paid off in Turkey Vote,” Reuters
News, October 7, 2003.
160 Bentley, Mark, “Turk Loan Linked to Iraq Donations - U.S. Official,” Reuter News,
October 2, 2003.
161 “Turkey Adjusts Policy Regarding Northern Iraq,” Xinhua News Agency, June 5, 2003.

CRS-31
Kurdish groups to open Turkish consulates in the region.162 On June 24, 2003, Turkey
also announced that it would open its bases for humanitarian aid en route to Iraq; in
addition to the transport of food and other supplies, Turkey will allow transit of
military personnel.
*Ukraine. Over the course of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, the Ukraine was
acknowledged as a steadfast ally of the United States. It deployed an anti-chemical
weapons battalion of 450 soldiers to Kuwait. Beginning in late August 2003, 1,647
Ukrainian peacekeepers joined the Polish-led multinational stabilization force in Iraq.
The peacekeepers are responsible for patrolling a section of Iraq’s border with Iran,
protecting Iraqi officials and guarding important government facilities.
United Arab Emirates. After trying to arrange a peaceful abdication of power
for Saddam Hussein prior to the war, the United Arab Emirates was resigned to
quietly supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. The U.A.E. allowed U.S. ships to dock
in its port, and it allowed the basing of U.S. aerial refueling aircraft at the large Jebel
Airport, but it was reluctant to broaden defense ties to the United States beyond these
steps. U.A.E. President Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan is seen as a traditional
Arab nationalist who, despite forging strong defense relations with the United States
over the past ten years, does not want U.S. influence in the Gulf or broader Middle
East to increase. Since the end of the war, the U.A.E. has pledged $215 million in
reconstruction aid and has set up a hospital and a water purification system in Iraq.163
*United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has been the strongest supporter of
the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair gave his full backing to the
United States despite strong dissent from within his own Labour Party and the
general public. Prime Minister Blair considered Iraq’s responses to be non-
cooperative and in breach of the U.N. resolutions. He believed this breach constituted
just cause for military action.164 Blair repeatedly attempted to persuade European
leaders that Iraq posed an immediate threat to international security. During the
combat phase of the war, the U.K. committed 42,000 troops to the Gulf and
dispatched at least 26,000 ground troops, a quarter of its army. The United Kingdom
has also made financial commitments approaching $923 million for reconstruction
in Iraq for 2003-2006. The largess of these funds will be channeled into the World
Bank/UN administered trust fund. This funding does not reflect the cost borne by the
United Kingdom to finance is stabilization forces.
Prime Minister Blair’s unwavering support of the U.S.-led war in Iraq has come
at some cost to his domestic standing, especially since the United States has yet to
uncover weapons of mass destruction. Two British Cabinet members resigned from
their positions and testified against the Prime Minister in parliamentary inquiries.
They accused Blair of misleading the British people by allegedly fabricating
162 “Foreign Minister: Turkey Considering Opening Diplomatic Mission in Northern Iraq,”
AP, May 18, 2003.
163 Thom Shanker, “About $1.7 Billion Raised for Relief in Iraq,” The New York Times,
April 22, 2003.
164 “Blair Stand Puts Strain on Coalition,” Guardian (London), January 22, 2003.

CRS-32
intelligence and exaggerating claims of illicit weapons in Iraq.165 The Prime Minister
steadfastly justifies the war in Iraq: ‘I stand absolutely, 100 percent behind the
evidence, based on intelligence.... The idea that we doctored intelligence reports ...
is completely and totally false.’166
The United Kingdom plays a central role in the post-war period of the U.S.-led
operation in Iraq. Along with the United States and Spain, the United Kingdom
drafted a U.N. Security Council Resolution that would pave the way for the
reconstruction process in Iraq. On May 9, 2003, the three countries introduced UNSC
Res. 1483 which, among many other things, ended international sanctions on Iraq and
divided Iraq into three sectors, for which the United States, United Kingdom and
Poland each assume responsibility. The United Kingdom has temporary command
of southern Iraq, where its priorities are to improve security and provide
humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. Countries working with the United Kingdom
include Italy, the Netherlands, Romania the Czech Republic, and New Zealand.
Despite 53 British casualties since onset of the war as of November 20, 2003, Prime
Minister Tony Blair has rebuffed suggestions that the U.K. should pull out of Iraq.167
After the bombing of the Italian base in southern Iraq on November 12, 2003, British
officials affirmed that they were prepared to send more troops if necessary.168
In its post-war efforts, the United Kingdom has tried to establish some political
normalcy in Iraq. On May 5, 2003, the United Kingdom reopened its embassy in
Iraq. However, the diplomatic mission will not have official status until Iraq forms
an internationally-recognized central government. On the same note, the United
Kingdom appointed Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former British ambassador to the United
Nations, as the new special envoy to Iraq.169 In late-May 2003, Prime Minister Blair
visited Iraq, becoming the first Western leader to do so.
*Uzbekistan. The government of Uzbekistan pledged support for a U.S.-led
war against Iraq. Uzbekistan was included in the “coalition of the willing” announced
by Secretary of State Powell on March 18, 2003.
165 “British Government Exaggerated Iraq Threat, Former Ministers Tell Inquiry,”
Associated Press, June 17, 2003.
166 “Blair Says He Stands ‘100 Percent’ Behind Iraq Weapons Allegations,” Agence France
Presse, June 2, 2003.
167 “UK Could Send More Troops to Iraq,” BBC News, November 13, 2003.
168 Ibid.
169 “Britain Names UN Ambassador as Iraq Envoy,” Agence France Presse, June 16, 2003.

CRS-33
Figure 1. Map and List of Coalition of the Willing
List of Publicly Announced Coalition Members
Afghanistan
Dominican Rep.
Japan
Palau
South Korea
Albania
El Salvador
Kuwait
Panama
Spain
Angola
Eritrea
Latvia
Philippines
Tonga
Australia
Estonia
Lithuania
Poland
Turkey
Azerbaijan
Ethiopia
Macedonia
Portugal
Uganda
Bulgaria
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Romania
Ukraine
Colombia
Honduras
Micronesia
Rwanda
United Kingdom
Costa Rica
Hungary
Mongolia
Singapore
United States
Czech Republic
Iceland
Netherlands
Slovakia
Uzbekistan
Denmark
Italy
Nicaragua
Solomon Islands
Source: White House Press release [http://whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030327-10.html].

CRS-34
Table 1. Foreign Military-Related Support: Troops & Equipment
(Offered or Provided) for a U.S.-Led War on Iraq
Country1
Combat Troops
Non-Combat Units
Military Equipment
Albania*
70
Australia*
2,000 personnel;
2 navy frigates; navy transport vessels;
150 special forces
transport aircraft;
up to 14 FA-18 fighters
Bahrain
Up to 3 naval vessels
Bulgaria*
150 (for chem/bio
decontamination
assistance)3
Canada
31 attached to allied units as
part of a military exchange
Czech
430 from the 4th NBC
Republic*
Defense Company4
Denmark*
150 personnel
70 (medical team)
Submarine and corvette
Estonia*
55 post-war peacekeepers
(split with Lithuania)
Lithuania*
55 post-war peacekeepers
(split with Estonia)
Poland*
Unknown number
200
Supply ship
of special forces
Romania*
278 made available
(includes an NBC unit,
military police, and medical
and engineering
detachments)
Slovakia*
75 (for chem/bio
decontamination assistance)
South Korea*
600 military engineers; 100
medical personnel
Spain*
900 naval personnel (for
Fighter jets; aircraft carrier; hospital
medical, mine-clearing, and
ship; frigate; oil tanker
chemical decontamination
purposes)
Ukraine*
550 (49 to assist NBC
battalion)
United
45,000 personnel,
100 fixed-wing aircraft2 (additional
Kingdom*
including 11,000
bomber squadrons on notice -
Royal Marines,
60 aircraft); 27 Puma and Chinook
26,000 land
helicopters;
forces, and 8,000
120 Challenger tanks;
Royal Air Force
150 Warrior armored personnel carriers;
16 warships
Note: 1. An asterisk ‘*’ indicates those countries listed among the “coalition of the willing.”
2. British aircraft in the Gulf include Hercules transport aircraft; Tornado GR4 bombers and Tornado F3 air defense
aircraft; Harrier jets; Jaguar bombers; other air defense aircraft; reconnaissance aircraft; VC10 air refueling tankers;
Tristar tankers; c-17 Globemaster transport aircraft; and C-130 Hercules aircraft (for transfer of troops and equipment).
3. President Parnavoval asserted that “Bulgaria should not take part in direct action,” meaning that Bulgarian troops
would not be engaged in direct combat and would not be deployed into Iraq.
4. Czech troops were stationed in the region to reinforce U.S. anti-chemical warfare capabilities. The Czech government
did not authorize Czech troops to engage in any attack on Iraq that was not authorized by the United Nations Security
Council.

CRS-35
Table 2. Foreign Military-Related Support: Access & Facilities
(Offered or Provided) for a U.S.-Led War on Iraq
Overflight
Country1
Basing Rights
Maritime Access2
Other Facilities3 and Post-war Aid
Rights
Albania*
X
X
X
X
Bahrain
Shaikh Isa Air Base
U.S. 5th Fleet in
Manama
Belgium
X
Bulgaria*
Sarafovo Air Base (along Black Sea)
X
Cyprus
2 British military bases located in
Interview space (to interview Iraqi
Cyprus
scientists)
Egypt
Use of the Suez
X
Canal, including for
nuclear armed ships4
Ethiopia*
X
?
X
France
X
Georgia*
X
X
Use of military infrastructure
Germany
X
X
Greece
Soudha Base
X
X
Hungary*
Taszar Air Base (U.S. has rented for
X
Training space for 3000 Iraqi exiles
past seven years)
Israel
Possible intelligence sharing
(unconfirmed)
Italy*
Use of bases for technical purposes such
X
as refueling
Japan*
Will provide refugee relief and
economic assistance to countries
bordering Iraq; will provide
logistical assistance in postwar
peacekeeping
Jordan
?
?

CRS-36
Overflight
Country1
Basing Rights
Maritime Access2
Other Facilities3 and Post-war Aid
Rights
Kuwait*
Ali Salem, Ahmed Al- Jaber, and Camp
X
X
Doha bases
Oman
Masirah, Seeb, and Thumrait Air Bases
X
Pakistan
Possible use of interview space - for
interviewing Iraqi scientists
(unconfirmed)
Portugal*
Air Bases in Azores Islands
Romania*
Black Sea Mihail Kogalniceanu military
Port of Constanta
X
Use of infrastructure
airfield in Constanta (plus others)
Saudi Arabia
Prince Sultan Air Base
Singapore*
X
Slovakia*
X
Use of railways and roads
Spain*
Moron Air Base; Rota Naval Base
X
X
Thailand
?
Turkey*
X
United Arab
X
X
Emirates
United Kingdom*
X
X
X
Notes: 1.An asterisk ‘*’ indicates those countries listed among the “coalition of the willing.”
2. Includes passage through nationally controlled canals, territorial waters, and use of ports for transshipment of ocean borne cargo.
3. Allowing use of the country’s infrastructure and other assets, including training and interviewing facilities.
4. Egypt normally allows access through the Suez Canal, except for those at war with Egypt. For U.S. vessels, Egypt has waived the 30-day prior notification
to pass nuclear-armed ships through the canal.

CRS-37
Table 3. Foreign Contributions to Relief and Reconstruction in Postwar Iraq
Country
Personnel
Monetary Donations
Material Resources
Andorra
$65,000 in bilateral aid to the United
Nations
Albania
70 peacekeepers
Armenia
13 non-combat medics and emergency
personnel
Australia
900 non-combat personnel assisting
$85.8 million in aid to the World
Restoration of water and sewer
with logistics and air traffic control
Bank/U.N. administered
systems; Food aid; Relief supplies
reconstruction trust fund; $56.27
million bilateral relief aid to the U.N.
Austria
$962,000 in bilateral aid to the United
Nations
Azerbaijan
150 peacekeepers
Belgium
$5-$6 million to the World Bank/U.N.
administered reconstruction trust
fund; $3.34 million for relief aid to
the U.N.
Bulgaria
500 peacekeepers
Relief supplies
Canada
$244.1 million to the World
Food aid
Bank/U.N. administered
reconstruction trust fund; $30 million
for relief aid to the U.N.
Chile
$15,000 for bilateral aid to the U.N.
China
$25 million to the World Bank/U.N.
administered reconstruction trust fund
Croatia
80 engineers and demining specialists
Food aid; Relief Supplies

CRS-38
Country
Personnel
Monetary Donations
Material Resources
Czech Republic
400 troops, including 280 medics, 50
$19 million for reconstruction aid;
military police and 15 soldiers to
$203,000 for bilateral relief aid to the
protect aid workers
U.N.
Denmark
390 peacekeepers
$49.3 million for reconstruction aid;
Food aid
$158.2 million in export credits
Dominican Republic
300 peacekeepers
El Salvador
360 sanitation and engineering
personnel
Estonia
47 peacekeepers
$74,000 for bilateral relief aid to the
U.N.
Fiji
500-700 peacekeepers (Under
consideration)
Finland
$5.9 million to the World Bank/U.N.
administered reconstruction trust
fund; $1.27 million in bilateral aid to
the U.N.
France
$9 million in bilateral aid to the U.N.
Humanitarian aid, including medicine,
for humanitarian relief; financing a
water, blankets
share of the EU commitment for
reconstruction
Georgia
70 troops, including 34 special-
purpose brigade, 20 medics, and 15
engineers
Germany
$58 million in bilateral aid to the U.N.
Food aid
for emergency humanitarian relief;
financing a share of the EU
commitment for reconstruction

CRS-39
Country
Personnel
Monetary Donations
Material Resources
Honduras
370 mine removal experts, engineers,
doctors, nurses
Hungary
300 peacekeepers
Iceland
$1.04 million in bilateral aid to the
Food aid
UN for emergency relief
Italy
2500-3000 peacekeepers
$238 million to the World Bank/ U.N.
Food aid, Relief Supplies
administered reconstruction trust fund
Ireland
$2 million in bilateral aid to the U.N.
for emergency relief
Japan
1,000 noncombat troops; will be sent
$1.5 billion in grants and $3.5 billion
in 2004 for six months to one year
in concessional loans for
reconstruction. Pledges will be
administered by the World Bank/U.N.
trust fund.
Jordan
Mobile field hospital
Kazakhstan
25 engineers
Kuwait
$500 million in aid for reconstruction;
Relief aid, including food, cleaning
$26.46 in bilateral aid to the U.N.
materials, house ware, blankets, shoes,
oxygen cylinders, and medicine
Latvia
150, including 6 field engineers, 30
$96,207 in bilateral aid to the U.N.
freight specialists, and peacekeepers
to patrol and convoy streets
Liechtenstein
$760,000 in bilateral aid to the U.N.
Lithuania
130 peacekeepers
$560,000 in reconstruction aid to the
World Bank/U.N. administered trust
fund; $68,000 in bilateral aid to the
U.N. for emergency relief

CRS-40
Country
Personnel
Monetary Donations
Material Resources
Macedonia
38, including 28 peacekeepers and 10
medics
Mauritius
$37,000 in bilateral aid to the U.N. for
emergency relief
Mongolia
180 peacekeepers and health care
personnel
Netherlands
1,100, including 650 marines, 230
$21 million for reconstruction aid
3 manned Chinook transport
engineers, and medics
helicopters
Nicaragua
230 troops to remove mines
Norway
150 soldiers
$30 million for reconstruction aid;
$30 million in bilateral aid to the U.N.
for emergency relief
Pakistan
$3.3 million
Relief supplies, including water, food,
medicine and surgical equipment
People’s Republic of China
$25 million in reconstruction aid
Philippines
196 personnel including 75 military
police/peacekeepers, 100 medical and
social workers
Poland
2,300 peacekeepers
Portugal
120 paramilitary police
$16.5 million in reconstruction aid to
Food aid
the World Bank/U.N. administered
trust fund; $861,000 bilateral aid to
the U.N. for emergency relief
Qatar
$15 million in bilateral aid to the U.N.
Relief supplies, including food and
for humanitarian assistance
medicine
Romania
734 peacekeepers
$194,000 in bilateral aid to the U.N.
Relief supplies, including water, food,
for humanitarian assistance
and medicine
Russia
$8 million in reconstruction aid
Medical care to Iraqi children; relief
supplies, including food

CRS-41
Country
Personnel
Monetary Donations
Material Resources
Saudi Arabia
180 medical staff
$500 million in concessional loans for
Relief supplies, including food, water,
reconstruction; $500 million in export
medicine, fully-equipped ambulances.
credits; $10.8 in bilateral aid to the
Operate field hospital
U.N. for emergency relief
Singapore
192 military personnel to assist with
$1.7 million
Relief supplies, including tents, cots,
logistics and training
blankets
Slovakia
85 soldiers to clear mines and repair
$290,000 in reconstruction aid to the
infrastructure
World Bank/U.N. administered trust
fund
South Korea
3,000 troops approved by the cabinet;
$260 million in reconstruction aid to
1,400 combat troops and 1,600 medics
World Bank/U.N. administered trust
and engineers
fund
Spain
1300 peacekeepers
$210 million in grants and $75 million
Relief supplies, including food and
in loans to World Bank/U.N.
water
administered trust fund; $32.41
million in bilateral aid to the U.N. for
emergency relief
Sweden
$30 million in reconstruction aid to
the World Bank/ U.N. administered
trust fund; $3.27 million in bilateral
aid to the U.N. for emergency relief
Taiwan
$8.6 million for reconstruction aid
Relief supplies, including food
Thailand
443 troops
$283, 000
Turkey
$5 million
Relief supplies, including food
Ukraine 1,647
peacekeepers
United Arab Emirates
$215 million for reconstruction aid to
Constructed hospital and water
the World Bank/ U.N. administered
purification system
trust fund
United Kingdom
12,000 troops, including peacekeepers
$923 million for relief and
Food aid; Relief Supplies
reconstruction aid

CRS-42
Table 4. Countries To Which Iraq May Owe Debt
Creditor
Range of Bilateral Debt Estimates
Australia
$.5 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
Austria
$.8 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003))
Belgium
$.2 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
Brazil
$.2 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003
Bulgaria
$1 - $1.7 billion (Source: CSIS, January 23, 2003; Exotix, April
2003)
Canada
$.6 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
China
>$2 billion (Source: CSIS, January, 23, 2003)
Czech Republic
$.06-$1 billion (Source: Boston Globe, April 4, 2003)
Denmark
$.03 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
Egypt
unknown (Source: CSIS, January 23, 2003)
Finland
$.2 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
France
$1.7-$8 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003; Exotix, April
2003)
Germany
$2.1- $5.2 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003; Reuters News
November 22, 2003)
Hungary
$.017 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
India
$1 billion (Source: The Hindu, April 14, 2003)
Italy
$1.3-$1.7 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
Japan
$4.1-$7.02 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003; Japan Bank for
International Development, June 11, 2003)
Jordan
$.295 -$1.3 billion (Source: CSIS, January 23, 2003; Minister of
Finance, Michael Manto, July 15th, 2003)
South Korea
$.05-$1.1 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003; Dow Jones
3/29/03)
Kuwait
$17 billion in dispute and excludes reparations from 1992 Gulf War.
Iraqis claim that the bulk of this amount was provided as grants to fund the Iraq-Iran
war. (Source: “Kuwait MPs reject call to drop Iraq Debt Demands,” Reuter News,
September 28, 2003)
Morocco
$.0312 billion (Source: CSIS, January 23, 2003)
Netherlands
$.1 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)

CRS-43
Creditor
Range of Bilateral Debt Estimates
Poland
$.5-$.7 billion (Source: CSIS, January 23, 2003; Boston Globe
4/20/03)
Romania
$1.7 billion (Source: Bucharest Business Week, April 21, 2003)
Russia
$3.4- $12 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003; CSIS, January
23, 2003)
Saudi Arabia
$25 billion in dispute. Iraqis claim that the bulk of this amount was provided as grants
to fund the Iraq-Iran war. Saudi Officials claim that it was a loan. (Source: “IMF Says
not Paris Club Iraq debt $62 billion, Reuters News, October 23, 2003).
Serbia
$1.8-$ 2 billion (Sources: Minister of Economy, World Bank
Press Conference April 18, 2003)
Spain
$.3 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
Sweden
$.1 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
Switzerland
$.1- $.7 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003; Exotix, April
2003)
Turkey
$.8 billion (Source: CSIS, January 23, 2003)
United
$.9 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003)
Kingdom
United States
$2.1-$5 billion (Source: Paris Club, July 11, 2003; Dow Jones
3/29/03
Note: Most estimates reflect only the principal owed and ignore interest and arrears on the sovereign debt. Table
excludes debts/reparations under contest from the Iran-Iraq War and contested reparations from the Gulf war in
1992. Information obtained from [http://www.jubileeiraq.org/debt_today.htm].

CRS-44
Table 5. How the Security Council Voted:
Selected Votes in 2002 and 2003 Addressing Iraq
UNSC Res.
“Second Resolution”
UNSC Res.
UNSC
UNSC Res.
1441
withdrawn due to a
1483
Res.1500
1511
supposed lack of support
Angola
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bulgaria
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cameroon
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Chile
Yes
Yes
Yes
China
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Colombia
Yes
France
Yes
Threatened Veto
Yes
Yes
Yes
Germany
Voiced Opposition
Yes
Yes
Yes
Guinea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ireland
Yes
Mauritius
Yes
Mexico
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Norway
Yes
Pakistan
Yes
Yes
Russian Federation
Yes
Voiced Opposition
Yes
Yes
Yes
Singapore
Yes
Spain
Co-sponsored Resolution
Yes
Yes
Yes
Syrian Arab Republic
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abstain
United Kingdom
Yes
Co-Sponsored Resolution
Yes
Yes
Yes
United States
Yes
Co-Sponsored Resolution
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note: Security Council voting records obtained from UN website [http://www.un.org].

CRS-45
Table 6. Countries Eligible to Bid on Primary Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction Contracts

Afghanistan
Moldova
Albania
Mongolia
Angola
Morocco
Australia
Netherlands
Azerbaijan
New Zealand
Bahrain
Nicaragua
Bulgaria
Norway
Colombia
Oman
Costa Rica
Palau
Denmark
Panama
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Egypt
Poland
El Salvador
Portugal
Eritrea
Qatar
Estonia
Romania
Ethiopia
Rwanda
Georgia
Saudi Arabia
Honduras
Singapore
Hungary
Slovakia
Iceland
Solomon Islands
Iraq
South Korea
Italy
Spain
Japan
Thailand
Jordan
Tonga
Kazakhstan
Turkey
Kuwait
United Arab Emirates
Latvia
Uganda
Lithuania
Ukraine
Macedonia
United Kingdom
Marshall Islands
United States
Micronesia
Uzbekistan
Note: As of November 25, NSA, per Defense Policy Information cited from
memo written by Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Department of
Defense, dated December 5, 2003. Excerpt of the memo was posted on the
State Department’s Information on International Programs website
[http://usinfo.state.gov].

CRS-46
Table 7. Madrid International Donor Conference
Reconstruction Pledges
(in USD millions)
Unspecified
All Pledges
2004
2005-2007
Total Pledges
by Year
Australia
$45.59
0
0
$45.59
Austria
$1.94
$3.53
0
$5.48
Belgium
$5.89
0
0
$5.89
Bulgaria
$0.64
0
0
$0.64
Canada
0
0
$187.47
$187.47
China
0
0
$25
$25
Cyprus
0
0
$0.12
$0.12
Czech Republic
$7.33
$7.33
0
$14.66
Denmark
$26.95
0
0
$26.95
European Community
$235.62
0
0
$236.62
Estonia
$0.08
0
0
$0.08
Finland
$5.89
0
0
$5.89
Greece
0
0
$3.53
$3.53
Hungary
$1.24
0
0
$1.24
IMF
$850
$1700
0
$2,550 - $4,250
India
$10
0
0
$10
Iran
$5
0
0
$5
Ireland
$3.53
0
0
$3.53
Iceland
$1.5
1
0
$2.5
Italy
0
0
$235.62
$235.62
Japan
0
0
$4914
$4,914
South Korea
0
0
$200
$200
Kuwait
0
0
$500
$500
Luxembourg
$1.18
$118
0
$2.36
Malta
0
0
$0.27
$0.27
Netherlands
$9.42
0
0
$9.42
New Zealand
$3.35
0
0
$3.35
Norway
$4.29
$8.58
0
$12.87
Oman
0
0
0
$3
Pakistan
0
0
$2.5
$2.5
Qatar
0
0
$100
$100
Saudi Arabia
$120
$380
0
$500
Slovenia
$0.27
$0.15
0
0.42
Spain
$80
$140
0
$220
Sweden
0
0
$33
0
Turkey
0
0
$50
0
United Arab Emirates
0
0
$215
$215
United Kingdom
$235.48
$216.85
0
$452.33
United States
0
0
$18,649
$18,649
World Bank
$500
$2,500
0
$3,000 - $5,000
Totals
$2155.90
$4,958.6 -
$25,118.5
$32,232.33 - $35,932.33

CRS-47
Note: Most donors could not specify whether the pledge wold be in loans or grants. Pledge
information obtained from World Bank website as of December 18, 2003, available online at
[http://www.worldbank.org].

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.