U.N. Peacekeeping: Access to Records Concerning the U.S. Decision-Making
Process (Statement/Record, 11/01/2000, GAO/GAO-01-180T).

This testimony discusses GAO's need to access to records concerning the
administration's process for approving United Nations (U.N.)
peacekeeping operations. To complete this study, GAO needs: (1) access
to all records at the Department of State, the Department of Defense,
and the National Security Council that are considered to be relevant to
GAO's study; and (2) independent access to these agencies records for
the U.N. peacekeeping operations covered by this study. GAO received
copies of the requested documents that were so heavily redacted that
they did not provide any useful information. GAO believes the process
employed by State and DOD threatens its independent access to records as
well as the quality and validity of the study. GAO also believes that
the existing process of allowing federal agencies to collect the
relevant documents and edit their contents before releasing them to GAO
must change. must change. The existing process is unacceptable because:
(1) it gives executive branch officials exclusive control to determine
what records are relevant to this study; and (2) concerns of how the
executive branch has dealt with GAO's request for information for this
study. GAO plans to take action to gain access to the records.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-180T
     TITLE:  U.N. Peacekeeping: Access to Records Concerning the U.S.
	     Decision-Making Process
      DATE:  11/01/2000
   SUBJECT:  Interagency relations
	     Auditing standards
	     Records (documents)
IDENTIFIER:  Kosovo
	     East Timor
	     Sierra Leone
	     Congo

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************

GAO-01-180T

[0x08 graphic]
Mr. Chairman:

I am here today to discuss the access to records we need to conduct the
study that you requested concerning the administration's process for
approving U.N. peacekeeping operations. Our study is focused on decisions
made between January 1999 and June 2000 to support operations in Kosovo,
East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To
complete this study, we need two types of access from the State and Defense
Departments and the National Security Council (NSC).

First, we need full and complete access to all records at these agencies
that are considered to be relevant to our study. This includes access to 26
documents relevant to our review identified by the State Department and
controlled by the NSC. (See the appendix for a list of the 26 documents.) We
reviewed copies of these documents at the NSC on Thursday, October 26, but
they were so heavily redacted that they provided little useful information.
One 20-page unclassified document had a note on its cover page that said its
contents could be shared with U.S. allies and the United Nations, yet the
remainder of the document was completely redacted, its pages completely
blacked out. These 26 documents represent 44 percent of the 59 sensitive
records that State has identified over 7 months in response to our
requestsand most have been stripped of all useful information. This is
clearly inappropriate and unacceptable.

Our need for full and complete access to all records relevant to our study
also includes access to additional records needed to fill in gaps in the
information that the State Department has provided. For example, State
identified only one document as relevant to our study in the 4 months prior
to a key US vote in the UN Security Council on East Timor. During this
4-month period, the Department worked with UN officials to develop and
refineand brief congressional staff aboutthe proposed U.N. operation's
concept and mandate. Yet, State has not provided us records showing how
decision-makers applied Presidential Decision Directive 25 during this
period. We believe it is likely that such records existand we need timely
access to them. We cannot afford to wait additional months for access to
these records.

Moreover, our need for full and complete access to records includes access
to records at the Defense Department. We wrote the Department on March 23
and again on April 13 to request its cooperation in arranging access to
relevant records. Because State has lead responsibilities on the process for
approving U.N. peacekeeping operations, Defense officials declined to meet
with us to discuss our study until State had resolved how it would handle
our access to records. It was not until September 15 that Defense officials
agreed to begin searching to identify relevant records. We understand
Defense plans to complete this search by Monday, November 6. However,
Defense officials did not know when or if we could have access to any of the
records. In our view, such an extensive delay in providing us information
cannot be justified.

Second, we need independent access to State, Defense, and NSC records for
the U.N. peacekeeping operations covered by this study. We need independent
access to assure ourselves that we are able to review all records and
information that have a material bearing on our study. Auditing standards
meant to assure the independence of our work state that external
interference that limits or modifies the scope of our auditor interferes
with the selection of information we examinethreatens our ability to form
independent and objective opinions and conclusions. I should note that our
independence is one of the qualities that Congress values most about GAO's
work.

However, we believe the process employed by State and Defense threatens our
independent access to records as well as the quality and validity of our
studyand ultimately its usefulness to this committee and Congress as a
whole. State Department used the following process to respond to our
requests for information to conduct this study: it tasked various bureaus,
offices, and other locations to identify potentially relevant documents and
forward them to the Bureau of International Organizational Affairs. Bureau
officials then reviewed the collected documents and forwarded most of them
to the NSC to obtain its clearance to release them to GAO. The Defense
Department is following a similar process. In our view the existing process
is unacceptable and must be changed.

First, the current process gives executive branch officials exclusive
control to determine what records are relevant to this study. The State
Department is the subject of this review and therefore its officials cannot
be independent and objective. Additionally, State and Defense officials have
told us that searching for records for this study has placed a considerable
burden on already over-worked bureau, office, and embassy staffs. As such,
we cannot be assured that these searches were as thorough and exhaustive as
our standards and policies require. A combination of these factors may
explain the gaps in the information I discussed before. Moreover, relying
completely on the Departments to identify records makes timely completion of
our study conditional on their ability to mobilize adequate staff resources.
As I stated before, this is clearly unacceptable.

Second, we have specific concerns about how the executive branch has dealt
with our requests for information for this study. In two cases, for example,
State officials failed to make us aware of records directly and
significantly relevant to our study. In both cases, State officials said
they did not identify these recordssuch as five Directive 25 analysesbecause
we did not specifically request them by name. Yet in both cases, we made
clear in our discussions and prior letters that these documents contained
the type of information we sought to complete our study. Additionally, the
extensive redaction of the 26 documents controlled by NSC raises questions
about (1) whether the executive branch is actually making efforts to provide
us the information needed to complete this study and (2) whether these
records may contain references to other, as yet unidentified, records that
might be relevant to our work. I should note that we discovered the
existence of the Directive 25 analyses as a result of references made to
them in documents that State initially withheld from us.

Mr. Chairman, we intend to take action to obtain access to the records we
believe are essential to completing the study you requested. Specifically,
we seek

  1. full and complete access to unredacted copies of the 26 documents
     identified by the State Department and controlled by the NSC; and
  2. sufficiently independent access to State, Defense, and NSC records to
     assure ourselves that we have identified all the information that has a
     material bearing on our study.

If we do not receive such access within a weekby noon, Thursday, November
9the Comptroller General of the United States intends to issue a formal
demand letter to the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the
National Security Council.

This concludes my statement for the record. I am happy to answer any
questions you or the Committee may have at this time.

APPENDIX
TWENTY-SIX DOCUMENTS CONTROLLED AND REDACTED BY THE NSC

Documents Concerning U.S. Decisions to Support U.N. Operations in East Timor

  1. Notes, State Department Peacekeeping Small Group meeting, May 4, 1999
  2. Agenda and discussion paper, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, May 11,
     1999
  3. Agenda and discussion paper, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, May 24,
     1999
  4. State Department briefing memorandum, Deputies Committee meeting, May
     27, 1999
  5. Announcement and discussion paper, Deputies Committee meeting, May 27,
     1999
  6. Agenda and discussion paper, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, July 29,
     1999
  7. Summary of conclusions, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, August 11,
     1999
  8. Peacekeeping Core Group memorandum, August 26, 1999
  9. State Department briefing memorandum, Deputies Committee meeting,
     August 31, 1999
 10. Agenda and discussion paper, Deputies Committee meeting, August 31,
     1999
 11. Concept paper, September 1, 1999
 12. State Department action memorandum, September 2, 1999
 13. State Department action memorandum, September 2, 1999
 14. Options paper, September 6, 1999
 15. US Mission to the United Nations e-mail, October 8, 1999
 16. State Department briefing memorandum, Deputies Committee meeting,
     October 12, 1999
 17. State Department briefing memorandum, Deputies Committee meeting,
     October 21, 1999
 18. Discussion paper, Deputies Committee meeting, October 21, 1999

Documents Concerning U.S. Decisions to Support U.N. Operations in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo

 19. Summary of conclusions, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, July 21, 1999
 20. Summary of conclusions, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, January 21,
     2000
 21. Agenda and discussion paper, Deputies Committee meeting, January 26,
     2000

Documents Concerning U.S. Decisions to Support U.N. Operations in
Sierra Leone

 22. Summary of conclusions, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, August 15,
     1999
 23. Discussion paper, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, September 29, 1999
 24. Summary of conclusions, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, September 29,
     1999
 25. Discussion paper, Peacekeeping Core Group meeting, January 8, 2000
 26. State Department action memorandum, January 18, 2000

(320000)

Government Auditing Standards (1994 Revision, Comptroller General of the
United States, June 1994). The publication discusses general standards for
conducting audits, such as qualifications of the staff and independence of
the work. These standards, often referred to as generally accepted
government auditing standards (GAGAS), are to be followed by auditors and
audit organizations when required by law, regulation, agreement, contract,
or policy.

1

1

[0x01 graphic]

  
*** End of document. ***