NATO: U.S. Assistance to the Partnership for Peace (20-JUL-01,
GAO-01-734).
After the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact
in 1991, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and the
United States sought new ways to cooperate with the political and
military leadership of their former adversaries. In January 1994,
NATO established the Partnership for Peace to increase defense
cooperation with former Warsaw Pact members and other former
communist states in Central and Eastern Europe. Supported by the
United States through the Warsaw Initiative, the Partnership
plays a key role in developing the capabilities of those states
and reforming their defense establishments. Given the key role
the Partnership for Peace has played in the transformation of
NATO's relationship with these states, the significant U.S.
involvement and investment in this program through the Warsaw
Initiative, and the impending debate on potential NATO members
drawn from the Partnership, this report (1) provides an historic
overview of previous NATO accessions, (2) describes the cost and
content of the Warsaw Initiative, and (3) describes the results
and benefits of Warsaw Initiative programs.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-734
ACCNO: A01412
TITLE: NATO: U.S. Assistance to the Partnership for Peace
DATE: 07/20/2001
SUBJECT: Foreign governments
International agreements
International cooperation
Federal aid to foreign countries
International organizations
Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense and
Military Contacts Program
Czech Federal Republic
DOD Warsaw Initiative
Hungary
NATO Partnership for Peace Program
Poland
Warsaw Pact
Germany
Greece
Turkey
Spain
Soviet Union
******************************************************************
** 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-01-734
Report to Congressional Committees
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
July 2001 NATO U. S. Assistance to the Partnership for Peace
GAO- 01- 734
Page i GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 3 NATO Has Expanded Four Times Since Its
Inception 6 Warsaw Initiative Funds Support Five Key Programs and Target
Aspirant Countries 8 Warsaw Initiative and PfP Programs Have Had Important
Results
and Benefits 12 Scope and Methodology 19 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
21
Appendix I Other Warsaw Initiative Interoperability Programs 22
Appendix II Other U. S. Security Assistance Provided to Partner Countries,
1994 Through 2000 25
Appendix III Comments From the Department of State 26
Tables
Table1: Major Warsaw Initiative Program Categories by Cost, Fiscal Years
1994 Through 2000 (millions of dollars) 9 Table 2: Regional Peacekeeping
Units Formed With Assistance
From Warsaw Initiative Programs 15
Figures
Figure 1: Membership in NATO, EU, MAP and PfP 5 Figure 2: Accessions to NATO
by Date, 1949 Through 1999, MAP
Countries and Other PfP Members 7 Figure 3: Distribution of $590 Million in
U. S. Warsaw Initiative
Funds by Region, 1994 Through 2000 11 Figure 4: Partner Troops as a
Percentage of All Troops in NATO- led
Peacekeeping Forces in the Balkans, 1996 Through 1999 13 Figure 5:
Effectiveness of Selected Defense- and State- Funded
Warsaw Initiative Programs in 12 Central and Eastern Contents
Page ii GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
European Partner States, as a Percentage of Total Cost of Programs Assessed,
1994 Through 2000 17 Figure 6: Effectiveness of Defense- Funded Warsaw
Initiative
Programs in Nine New Independent States, as a Percentage of the Total Cost
of Programs Assessed, 1994 Through 2000 18
Page 1 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
July 20, 2001 The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Chairman The Honorable
Jesse A. Helms Ranking Minority Member Committee on Foreign Relations United
States Senate
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman The Honorable Tom Lantos Ranking
Minority Member Committee on International Relations House of
Representatives
After the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991,
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and the United States
sought new ways to cooperate with the political and military leadership of
their former adversaries. In January 1994, NATO established the Partnership
for Peace (PfP) to increase defense cooperation with former Warsaw Pact
members and other former communist states in Central and Eastern Europe.
Supported by the United States through the Warsaw Initiative, 1 the
Partnership plays a key role in developing the military capabilities of
those states and reforming their defense establishments. The Partnership
also helps prepare aspirant countries for NATO membership. In 1999, the
partner states of Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic- three former
Warsaw Pact members- joined NATO. In 2002, NATO is expected to again extend
invitations for alliance membership to partner countries. While NATO?s
decisions largely will be driven by political considerations, these
decisions also will be affected by the military capabilities and
contributions of aspiring states.
Given the key role the Partnership for Peace has played in the
transformation of NATO?s relationship with these states, the significant U.
S. involvement and investment in this program through the Warsaw Initiative,
and the impending debate on potential NATO members drawn
1 The Warsaw Initiative is the mechanism used by the United States to
provide funding and assistance to eligible partnership countries.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
from the Partnership, we have undertaken this study to (1) provide an
historic overview of previous NATO accessions, (2) describe the cost and
content of the Warsaw Initiative, and (3) describe the results and benefits
of Warsaw Initiative programs.
To address these objectives, we combined the results of our Warsaw
Initiative cost analysis with the results of two Department of Defense (DOD)
studies on the effectiveness of Warsaw Initiative programs. We also drew
upon recent testimony from U. S., international, and military officials and
from testimony gathered from similar officials in our previous efforts from
1995 through 1999. Comprehensive cost data collected from DOD were not
readily available for all years of the program and, in some cases, had to be
estimated or reconstructed using our previous work. This report was
completed under our basic legislative responsibilities and is addressed to
you in your capacity as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee of
jurisdiction.
Previous NATO accessions have been shaped by the political and strategic
circumstances of the day. Since 1949, when 12 member countries united in
response to the emerging threat from the Soviet Union, NATO has expanded on
four occasions. On the first three occasions, NATO invited four countries to
join the alliance to strengthen its military position in confronting the
Soviet Union and its allies. NATO first invited Turkey and Greece, then West
Germany, and then Spain to join despite their varying degrees of democratic
and military development and commitment to NATO. The accession to NATO of
the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999 differed from previous
enlargements that had the goal of strengthening NATO?s strategic position
against the Communist bloc. This accession was the culmination of NATO?s
efforts to promote the political stability and security of the newly
democratic states in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the bloc and the
end of the Cold War.
Between 1994 and 2000, the Warsaw Initiative provided about $590 million in
assistance to 22 partner states to make these countries? militaries better
able to operate with NATO and contribute to NATO missions. Most of these
resources were devoted to five programs and the 12 partner nations that had
formally declared an interest in joining NATO. In addition, between 1994 and
2000, the United States provided to the partner states $165 million in
military assistance outside the framework of the Warsaw Initiative but
complementary to its objectives. Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
The Warsaw Initiative and the Partnership for Peace have produced important
results and benefits for NATO and the Partner states. The contributions of
Partner states to NATO- led operations in the Balkans, the formation of new
peacekeeping units, and the extent to which Partnership assistance helped to
prepare the three newest NATO countries for membership evidence the
effectiveness of the Partnership and the Warsaw Initiative. Moreover, our
analysis of both program costs and other assessments of program results
demonstrates that a large portion of Warsaw Initiative resources were
devoted to programs judged effective in enhancing the ability of recipient
nations? militaries to contribute to NATO and to operate with NATO forces.
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, by 12 European and
North American countries to take measures against the emerging threat the
Soviet Union posed to the democracies of Western Europe. Of indefinite
duration, the treaty created a political framework for an international
alliance obligating its members to prevent or repel aggression, should it
occur against one or more treaty countries. Article 10 of the treaty
provides for the possibility of accession by any other European state in a
position to further the principles of the treaty upon the unanimous
agreement of the current members; it contains no explicit criteria an
aspiring member must meet to join NATO.
The PfP program was a U. S. initiative launched at the January 1994 NATO
summit in Brussels as a way for the alliance to engage the former members of
the Warsaw Pact and other former communist states in Central and Eastern
Europe. 2 The objectives of the partnership, stated in NATO?s Partnership
Framework Document, are to (1) facilitate transparency in national defense
planning and budgeting processes; (2) ensure democratic control of defense
forces; (3) maintain the capability and readiness to contribute to crisis
response operations under the United Nations and other international
organizations; (4) develop cooperative military relations with NATO for the
purposes of joint planning, training, and exercises for peacekeeping; search
and rescue; and humanitarian operations; and (5) develop forces that are
better able to operate with
2 The Warsaw Treaty Organization- commonly known as the Warsaw Pact- was
created in 1955 and included the Soviet Union, Albania, Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. It was dissolved
in 1991. Background
Page 4 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
NATO members. NATO also uses PfP to support countries interested in NATO
membership.
In July 1994, the United States launched the Warsaw Initiative to support
the objectives of the Partnership. According to joint DOD and State
Department guidance, the objectives of the Initiative are to (1) facilitate
the participation of partner states in exercises and programs with NATO
countries, (2) promote the ability of partner forces to operate with NATO,
(3) support efforts to increase defense and military cooperation with
Partnership partners, and (4) develop strong candidates for membership in
NATO. The Initiative is jointly funded and administered by DOD and the State
Department.
A total of 29 nations have joined the Partnership, and 3 have since joined
NATO. The partner states range from mature free market democracies in the
European Union, such as Finland and Sweden, which have relatively advanced
military technologies that do not receive and have no need for Warsaw
Initiative assistance, to autocratic command economies with outdated
military structures such as Uzbekistan, and others such as Georgia that are
greatly dependent on Western security assistance for their reform efforts. 3
(Fig. 1 shows the overlapping memberships of NATO, EU, MAP, and PfP
members.)
3 Eleven NATO states and 4 partner states comprise the European Union (EU),
previously known as the European Community, which is an institutional
framework for the construction of an economically united Europe. The
European Community was created after World War II to unite the nations of
Europe economically to make war less likely. In 1999, the EU decided to
establish the military capacity to perform humanitarian and rescue tasks,
peacekeeping, and the ability to deploy combat forces in crisis- management
roles.
Page 5 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Figure 1: Membership in NATO, EU, MAP, and PfP
MAP = Membership Action Plan a Macedonia is an unofficial name for the state
recognized by the U. S. government as The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. Source: GAO based on NATO data.
Each partner participates in activities to the extent it desires and
assembles a unique annual work program by selecting from a variety of
activities listed in NATO?s annual partnership work program, a compendium of
activities offered by donor countries. For those states that have formally
expressed their interest in joining the Alliance, NATO has developed a
Membership Action Plan to help them become better candidates. (MAP countries
are identified in figure 1.) The MAP builds upon Partnership activities,
helps ready these states for the full range of NATO missions, and requires
additional planning by the partner country and review by NATO. Countries
provide assistance to partner states primarily through bilateral
arrangements in order to meet the requirements identified in the work
program. 4
4 NATO also provides assistance to PfP countries through its commonly funded
budgets. In fiscal year 1999, this assistance amounted to $35 million from
the civil budget and $26. 9 million from the military budget. The United
States contributes about 25 percent of these funds.
Page 6 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Since the beginning of the alliance in 1949, NATO has held out the prospect
of membership to other nations as changing political and strategic
circumstances warranted. NATO has expanded on four occasions since 1949,
adding seven new European members. The first three expansions took place
during times of confrontation with the Communist bloc, particularly the
Soviet Union, and were undertaken to meet pressing strategic and security
needs. A significantly different strategic environment marked the fourth and
latest expansion, wherein NATO?s goal was to extend stability eastward into
the political vacuum left after the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Fig. 2
shows the countries that have joined NATO since 1949, as well as MAP and PfP
members.)
In 1952, Turkey and Greece joined NATO for strategic reasons; the Korean War
was at its height, and the United States wished to shore up NATO?s southern
flank to forestall similar Communist military action in Europe. West Germany
acceded in 1955, after it agreed to maintain large NATO forces on its
territory and to place its national army within NATO?s integrated command
structure. 5 Spain joined the alliance in 1982 at NATO?s invitation. NATO
wanted to gain better access to Spain?s air and naval bases, while the newly
democratized Spain sought membership as a means to better its chances to
join the European Economic Community.
In 1991, NATO redefined its strategic concept to reflect the post- Cold War
geopolitical landscape and to pursue greater cooperation with its former
adversaries to the east. NATO committed itself in January 1994 to enlarging
its membership to include the newly democratic states of the former
Communist bloc. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO
in fulfillment of this commitment.
5 After Germany reunited in 1990, the territory of the former East Germany
became part of NATO without a formal accession process. NATO?s military
presence in this territory was restricted by agreement with Russia until
1994. NATO Has Expanded
Four Times Since Its Inception
Page 7 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Figure 2: Accessions to NATO by Date, 1949 Through 1999, MAP Countries and
Other PfP Members
Source: GAO based on NATO sources
Page 8 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Between 1994 and 2000, the Warsaw Initiative provided assistance worth about
$590 million to 22 partner states to support equipment grants, training,
exercises, information technology, and other activities to make these
countries? militaries better able to operate with NATO and contribute to
NATO?s missions. 6 Moreover, a large portion of this funding was allocated
to five programs, and about 70 percent has been devoted to the 12 partner
nations that had formally declared an interest in joining NATO. In this same
time period, the United States provided to the partner states additional
security assistance totaling over $165 million outside the framework of the
Warsaw Initiative but complementary to its objectives.
About 90 percent of the approximately $590 million in Warsaw Initiative
funds ($ 530 million) has funded five programs. The largest program provides
nonlethal military equipment and training. 7 The other programs support
military exercises, information technology programs, a defense education
institute, and a defense resource management system. 8 See table 1 for the
costs of these five programs. Appendix I contains details on other Warsaw
Initiative interoperability programs.
6 The total extent of bilateral PfP assistance from other countries is
unknown, as donors and recipients are sometimes reluctant to reveal the full
extent of their bilateral relationships with other partners and NATO
members.
7 This equipment and training is provided through the Department of State?s
Foreign Military Financing Program. 8 These programs are generally
categorized as interoperability programs. Warsaw Initiative
Funds Support Five Key Programs and Target Aspirant Countries
Five Key Programs Receive Most Funding
Page 9 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Table 1: Major Warsaw Initiative Program Categories by Cost, Fiscal Years
1994 Through 2000 (millions of dollars) Program New NATO members and
MAP countries Other
PfP members and U. S. costs Total cost
Military equipment and training $290.9 $68.5 $359.4
Military exercises 54.5 61.6 116.1
Partnership Information Management System 17.8 13.2 31.0
Marshall Center 7.2 4. 8 12.0
Defense Resource Management System 5.7 5. 8 11.5
Subtotal 376.1 153.9 530.0
Other Warsaw Initiative activities 34.3 24.7 59.0 Total $410.4 $178.6 $589.0
Source: GAO based on DOD and State Department data.
Funding for military equipment and training was used to provide
communications, search and rescue, mountaineering, and mapping equipment,
along with field gear, air defense radar systems, and computers; training
for English language, noncommissioned officer development, vehicle
maintenance and logistics, and other purposes. According to State Department
documents and a DOD- sponsored study, this equipment and training have
directly contributed to partner country participation in NATO- led
peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. For example, this funding provided
communication equipment to Romania for engineering units in the NATO- led
Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia;
air traffic management systems to Hungary, which supported Operation
Allied Force;
fuel, supplies, and construction assistance to Ukraine to support the
initial deployment of a battalion for peacekeeping duties in the Kosovo
Force/ International Security Force (KFOR) in Kosovo; and
an automated logistics system to Poland to help deploy its military units
in peacekeeping operations.
Of all the interoperability programs supported by the Warsaw Initiative,
military exercises were typically cited in Defense- sponsored studies and by
U. S. and international officials as the most useful of partnership
activities. Exercises range from search and rescue simulations to joint
multinational amphibious landing exercises. Exercises have grown in
complexity and sophistication as the skills and experiences of partner
participants have grown. For example, the United States annually conducts
Exercise Combined Endeavor. In the 1995 exercise, 10 countries participated
in a demonstration of the use of common communications equipment. In the
2000 exercise, 35 countries participated in the
Page 10 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
identification, testing, and documentation of communications
interoperability between NATO and PfP communication networks.
The Partnership Information Management System (PIMS) created an
information management and communications system among Partnership members
that stores and disseminates all types of data relevant to the PfP
community. The system has been used to support military exercises,
civilmilitary emergency planning, military medical education, environmental
security activities, and provides e- mail capabilities and other basic
information management capabilities. The system currently links 18 partner
capitals and NATO and is augmented by networks that include ministries of
defense, national defense academies, other international organizations, and
U. S. and NATO military commands.
The Marshall Center is a jointly funded U. S.- German defense educational
institution that focuses on the resolution of security issues involving
Atlantic, European, and Eurasian countries. The Center offers postgraduate
studies, conferences, research programs, foreign area studies, and language
courses to civilian and military professionals from more than 40 countries.
Warsaw Initiative funding supports the Marshall Center?s annual conferences
for PfP members on topics ranging from defense planning and management to
civil oversight of the military.
DOD?s Defense Resource Management program creates models for individual
partner countries to help restructure their militaries. Initially, DOD
conducts a 6- month study in the subject country to help it develop a
rational defense program linked to strategic assessments and budget
constraints. Thereafter, the Department conducts short follow- up visits to
provide technical assistance and help implement a defense resource
management system. The objectives of the program include exposure of partner
countries to defense management systems similar to those of NATO members.
The program also aims to help partner states? civilian officials assert
control over their military structures by making defense management more
transparent.
About 70 percent of the Warsaw Initiative?s approximately $590 million in
assistance has been provided to the 12 partner states that have joined or
declared their intention to join NATO. Approximately twenty- six percent of
all Warsaw Initiative assistance between 1994 and 2000, or $153 million,
went to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic- the three former Warsaw
Pact states that joined NATO in 1999. Almost 44 percent of that funding, or
$258 million, has gone to the nine MAP states of Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The remaining
funding, $178 million, has supported Partnership activities in Croatia and
countries that were once part of the former Soviet Union- Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Twelve Partner States
Receive Large Portion of Funding
Page 11 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan- and to support certain U. S. costs
associated with the program. 9 Figure 3 shows the distribution of Warsaw
Initiative funding.
Figure 3: Distribution of $590 Million in U. S. Warsaw Initiative Funds by
Region, 1994 Through 2000
a Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Macedonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia. b Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. c The former
Soviet Republics of Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan.
Source: GAO based on DOD and Department of State data.
In addition, between 1994 and 2000, the United States provided to the
partner states military assistance totaling over $165 million outside the
framework of the Warsaw Initiative but complementary to its objectives.
9 Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act prohibits U. S. Warsaw Initiative
assistance to Azerbaijan until it lifts its blockade of Armenia. U. S.
policy prohibits Warsaw Initiative assistance to Azerbaijan?s rival,
Armenia. Most forms of U. S. assistance to the government of Belarus,
including Warsaw Initiative funding, are also suspended.
Page 12 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
This funding was distributed through three Department of State and DOD
programs that predate the Warsaw Initiative: the International Military
Education and Training Program, Cooperative Threat Reduction Defense and
Military Contacts Program, and the U. S. European Command?s Joint Contact
Team Program. Although these programs were not designed to implement Warsaw
Initiative objectives, they provide additional training to partner
militaries, facilitate military contacts, and promote closer relationships
with NATO. Appendix II provides details on these programs.
U. S. and international officials and DOD- sponsored studies provide
consistent and reinforcing views that Partnership and Warsaw Initiative
programs have had important results and benefits.
U. S. and NATO military commanders and other international officials have
concluded that Warsaw Initiative and PfP programs have enhanced the
capabilities of partner countries to participate effectively in NATO- led
peace operations in the Balkans and have improved their ability to operate
with NATO, thus making them better candidates for membership in the
alliance.
Warsaw Initiative funding has directly supported the creation of seven
multinational peacekeeping units composed of NATO and partner state troops,
some of which can or have been deployed to NATO- led peace operations in the
Balkans.
According to representatives of the three newest NATO member states, PfP
and Warsaw Initiative assistance was invaluable to their preparation for
joining NATO.
Our cost analysis, along with the DOD- sponsored studies, reinforced these
conclusions by showing that most Warsaw Initiative funding is associated
with effective programs.
U. S. and international officials noted that the growing contribution of
Partner states? troops and other assistance to NATO- led peacekeeping
operations in the Balkans is the most significant indicator of the
effectiveness of U. S. and NATO PfP programs. Between 1995 and 1999, NATO
established three peacekeeping missions-- two long- term and one short-
term-- with partner state military participation. The long- term missions
are the Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia,
now known as SFOR, and KFOR in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Albania. In 1999, NATO
also established the short- term Albania Force during the NATO bombing
campaign against Serbia and Montenegro to assist and coordinate humanitarian
efforts. As shown in figure 4, partner state?s contributions of troops to
these missions rose from about 5, 800 in Warsaw Initiative and
PfP Programs Have Had Important Results and Benefits
Partner States Provide Trained Forces and Other Aid to NATO- led Operations
Page 13 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
1996 to more than 12,800 in 1999 (11 percent and 15 percent of the total
force, respectively). 10 Twenty partner states contributed troops to one or
more of these missions; 9 partners contributed a battalion or more. 11
Figure 4: Partner Troops as a Percentage of All Troops in NATO- led
Peacekeeping Forces in the Balkans, 1996 Through 1999
Source: GAO from DOD and NATO data.
Moreover, NATO heads of government stated in the 1997 Madrid Declaration
that without the experiences and assistance PfP had provided, the
participation of partner forces in SFOR and IFOR would not have been as
effective and efficient. Several SFOR and KFOR commanders and other NATO
officers also noted that PfP activities, particularly exercises with NATO
troops, were effective in preparing partner units to operate with NATO
forces in an integrated command structure. One NATO official stated that
every soldier a partner contributes to SFOR and KFOR means that NATO will
not have to send an additional NATO or U. S. soldier to perform that
function.
10 Although the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO in March
1999, for purposes of comparison, their troop contributions are counted as
part of the total Partner country force contributions for 1999.
11 Those contributing a battalion or more included Austria, the Czech
Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.
Page 14 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
According to DOD officials and documents, partner states also provided
logistical assistance for the 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serbia and
Montenegro. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland offered or provided
basing rights for NATO aircraft. Along with Romania and Bulgaria, the three
newest NATO members permitted allied aircraft to transit their airspace.
Romania also helped NATO commanders direct the bombing campaign by providing
NATO air controllers access to their NATO- compatible radar coverage system,
which was procured through the Warsaw Initiative.
U. S. officials and documents also indicate that Warsaw Initiative programs
have helped create or support seven international peacekeeping units of
battalion size or larger involving a total of 5 NATO countries (including
the 2 former partners Poland and Hungary) and 16 partner countries. In 1996,
the Congress declared that some of these units should receive appropriate
support from the United States because they could make important
contributions to European peace and security and could assist participant
countries in preparing to assume the responsibilities of possible NATO
membership. Two of these units have been deployed to the Balkans. See table
2 for details on the composition of these units and the U. S. assistance
they have received. Warsaw Initiative
Supported Formation of Non- NATO Peacekeeping Units
Page 15 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Table 2: Regional Peacekeeping Units Formed With Assistance From Warsaw
Initiative Programs Unit Participants Date formed/ deployed Warsaw
Initiative assistance
BALTBAT a Estonia Latvia Lithuania
1995/ deployed to Bosnia 1997 Unit equipment
Communications gear PfP exercise support CENTRASBAT b Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan
1996 Communications equipment Trucks PfP exercise support POLITBAT c
Lithuania
Poland 1999 PfP exercise support
POLUKBAT c Poland Ukraine
1996/ deployed to Kosovo 2000 Exercises
Communications gear English language training MPFSEE/ SEEBRIG d
Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Macedonia, Romania, Turkey
1998 Equipment for Bulgarian contingent PfP exercise support
Multinational Land Force e Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia 2000 PfP
exercise support
Assistance to develop joint training facilities CENCOOP Brigade f Austria,
Hungary,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland
2000 PfP exercise support a BALTBAT: Baltic Battalion. b CENTRASBAT: Central
Asian Battalion. c POLITBAT and POLUKBAT: Joint Polish- Lithuanian and
Polish- Ukrainian battalions. d MPFSEE/ SEEBRIG: Multinational Peace Force
Southeast Europe/ South Eastern Europe Brigade. e Also known as the Tri-
national brigade, this was a unit originally formed by Hungary, Italy, and
Slovenia which now includes Croatia. f Central European Nations Cooperation
in Peacekeeping (CENCOOP) is a regional organization
planning to create a multinational peacekeeping brigade using forces from
Austria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland.
Source: GAO based on DOD, State and DFI International data.
According to the NATO delegations of the three newest NATO members, PfP
assistance, of which the United States was their largest donor through the
Warsaw Initiative, was invaluable to their preparation for joining NATO. In
particular, PfP exercises, equipment grants, and exposure to western
military doctrine and practice boosted the ability of their forces to
operate with NATO. Members from all three delegations affirmed the value of
Partnership for Peace and Warsaw Initiative support in making them better
candidates for NATO membership. In particular, they cited
the exposure to NATO procedures, operations, and command structures they
received through PfP exercises and programs; Warsaw Initiative and
Partnership for Peace Helped Prepare New NATO Members
Page 16 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
the professional and personal contacts that they developed to build a
defense establishment better able to operate with NATO; and
exercise experiences and equipment grants that improved the ability of
their military forces to operate with NATO.
The Czech delegation noted that its experiences in PfP activities helped
expose the conflicts between the prerequisites for being a successful NATO
ally and the practical difficulties of achieving those prerequisites, given
their political and economic realities. For example, PfP activities helped
them (1) reconcile the theoretical need for public support for accession at
a time when political support within the government was relatively low and
(2) plan a defense strategy and budget that met the demands of NATO
interoperability goals and spending targets in a constrained budget
environment.
In 2000, DOD commissioned two studies to analyze the objectives, activities,
and accomplishments of Warsaw Initiative programs and identify the lessons
learned from program implementation and results. The studies, conducted by
DFI International, reviewed programs that represented $409 million of the
approximately $590 million in Warsaw Initiative funding. By combining the
cost data that we collected from DOD and the State Department with the
results of these studies, we determined that, in aggregate, about $367
million, or 90 percent, of the funding associated with the programs
examined, was deemed effective or successful in promoting the objectives of
the Warsaw Initiative. The first study, which focussed on the partner states
of Central and Eastern Europe, showed that 91 percent of the resources
associated with the programs examined were exceptionally or significantly
effective. Figure 5 shows in greater detail the findings of this study. DOD-
Sponsored
Assessments of Warsaw Initiative Programs
Page 17 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Figure 5: Effectiveness of Selected Defense- and State- Funded Warsaw
Initiative Programs in 12 Central and Eastern European Partner States, as a
Percentage of Total Cost of Programs Assessed, 1994 Through 2000
Exceptional: The program produced a positive fundamental change or supported
the development of a capability that would not have occurred otherwise; the
program is unambiguously the primary reason for progress towards Warsaw
Initiative objectives. PfP military exercises constitute the entire
category.
Significant: The program provides the tools or information necessary for the
target country to make interoperability improvements, continue existing
defense reform, increase its contributions to NATO, or expand its regional
cooperation. Five programs fall into this category: Civil Military Emergency
Planning, Foreign Military Financing for Equipment Grants, Foreign Military
Financing for Training, Logistics Exercises, and the Regional Airspace
Initiative.
Marginal: The program provides sufficient exposure to U. S. and NATO-
compatible methods such that the target country has taken tentative steps
toward implementing or accomplishing Warsaw Initiative objectives. Four
programs fall into this category: Command and Control Studies, the Defense
Resource Management System, the Navigational Aids Program, and the
Partnership Information Management System.
Minimal: The program provides a venue for familiarization with U. S. and
NATO operating procedures but did not contribute to meaningful improvements
in Warsaw Initiative objectives. One program- the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineer Assessments- constitutes this category.
Note: Study assessed programs worth $386 million, or 94 percent, of total
1994- 2000 Warsaw Initiative costs for these countries.
Sources: GAO based on DOD, State, and DFI International data.
Page 18 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
The second study, which focussed on the Central Asian and Caucasus partner
states along with Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova, showed that 67 percent of
the resources associated with the programs examined were successful or
partially successful. Figure 6 shows in greater detail the findings of this
study.
Figure 6: Effectiveness of Defense- Funded Warsaw Initiative Programs in
Nine New Independent States, as a Percentage of the Total Cost of Programs
Assessed, 1994 Through 2000
Successful: Programs that initiate follow- on Warsaw Initiative or Warsaw
Initiative- related activities. Furthermore, they have either caused
improvements in Warsaw Initiative objectives of recipient nation defense
reform or increased ability to operate with NATO, or they have demonstrated
a significant potential to do so. Seven programs are in this category: Civil
Military Emergency Planning, Defense Planning Exchange, Defense Public
Affairs Exchange, Defense Resources Planning Exchange, Economic Adjustment
Seminars, Joint Consultative Economic Committee, and Logistics Exchange.
Partially successful: Programs at least partially satisfy the study?s
measures of effectiveness. Recipient countries initiate changes or follow-
on efforts based on the information or recommendations included in a
program. The Partnership Information Management System- a large program-
constitutes this category.
Page 19 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Unsuccessful: Programs either (1) required levels of transparency,
absorption capacity, or resources for successful implementation that partner
country recipients are unable to provide; or (2) did not initiate follow- on
Warsaw Initiative or Warsaw Initiative- related activities that were
completed and were unlikely to have contributed to notable amounts of
defense reform or interoperability. Five programs were included in this
category: Army Corps of Engineers Assessments, Defense Resource Management
Institute Exchange, Defense Resource Management System, Environmental
Workshops, and the Inspector General Exchange.
Too recent: Three programs whose results cannot be currently measured due to
extremely recent implementation are included in this category.
Note: Study assessed programs worth $22. 6 million, or 17 percent, of total
1994- 2000 Warsaw Initiative costs for these countries.
Source: GAO based on DOD and DFI International data.
In addition, both studies concluded that the Warsaw Initiative programs need
to be better focused on U. S. strategic and regional objectives and to
better take into account the capacities of the recipient states to absorb or
apply the programs. For example, the second study noted that certain
programs emphasizing NATO interoperability are not well suited for the
Central Asian states.
To prepare our overview of previous NATO accessions, we reviewed historical
texts, and for the most recent accession, interviewed numerous U. S. and
international officials and scholars. We also obtained U. S. and NATO
documents on the accession process.
To describe the cost and contents of Warsaw Initiative programs, we obtained
comprehensive cost and program data by recipient country and year from DOD
and State. We interviewed DOD and State Department country desk officers,
program managers, and fiscal officers. We obtained historic budget and
program documents from DOD and State. For information we were unable to
obtain from DOD, we drew on our previous reports and workpapers on
Partnership for Peace. For fiscal years 1994 and 1995, we extrapolated from
planning documents to approximate actual obligations by recipient country.
In cases where costs were not readily attributable to a specific country, we
applied decision rules for country allocation generated in agreement with
Defense officials.
To assess the outcomes of Warsaw Initiative programs in support of
Partnership for Peace, we synthesized information we obtained from numerous
U. S. and international officials and scholars and historical information
developed for our previous reviews of NATO- led peacekeeping operations in
the Balkans. U. S. officials include cognizant officials from the
Departments of Defense and State, members of the U. S. Scope and
Methodology
Page 20 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
mission to NATO, and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. We also
interviewed and obtained documents from U. S. military officers at the U. S.
European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, and from the U. S. National Military
Representative to the Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe, in Mons,
Belgium. International officials included members of the Czech, Hungarian,
Swedish, and Polish delegations to NATO; NATO?s International Staff in
Brussels, Belgium; and the director of the Partnership Coordination Cell in
Mons, Belgium.
We also reviewed the results of two studies the Department of Defense
commissioned in 2000 to analyze the objectives, activities, and
accomplishments of Warsaw Initiative programs and identify the lessons
learned from program implementation and results. One study, ?Assessing
the Practical Impact of the Warsaw Initiative? examined 11 of the largest
Defense and State- funded Warsaw Initiative programs in Albania, Bulgaria,
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The other study, ?Department of Defense
Engagement of the New Independent States: Developing the Warsaw Initiative
and Minimizing Risks in the Russia Relationship,? examined all DOD-
sponsored Warsaw Initiative programs and other related DOD assistance
activities in the nine New Independent States of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine,
Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. This
study also looked at DOD- sponsored security activities in three other New
Independent States: the partner states of Armenia and Azerbaijan, which did
not receive Warsaw Initiative assistance between 1994 and 2000; and
Tajikistan, which is not a PfP member. Both studies evaluated the
effectiveness of programs in terms of objectives associated with the Warsaw
Initiative and the Partnership for Peace. The principal analysts of these
studies briefed us on their methodology. This methodology included the
development of measures of effectiveness and other metrics to assess the
programs. To implement this methodology, the analysts collected information
from DOD and State Department officials, including desk officers, Defense
Security Cooperation Agency officials, and U. S. embassy personnel from
partner countries. In addition to briefing us on its methodology and
results, DFI International provided us with their detailed results on each
program for each country, along with the specific criteria used in
evaluating each program.
Page 21 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
The Department of State and DOD generally concurred with the report?s major
findings, and State complimented GAO?s analysis and methodology. In
addition, both DOD and State offered technical and editorial suggestions,
which we have incorporated where appropriate. The State Department?s written
comments are presented in appendix III; DOD provided oral comments.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees. We will also send copies to the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense. We will also make copies available to others upon
request.
Please contact me at (202) 512- 8979 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report. Key contributors to this assignment were F. James Shafer,
Muriel J. Forster, B. Patrick Hickey, and Lynn Cothern.
Joseph A. Christoff Director International Affairs and Trade Issues Agency
Comments
and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Other Warsaw Initiative Interoperability Programs
Page 22 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
During fiscal years 1994 through 2000, the Department of Defense (DOD)
supported numerous U. S. interoperability programs in Partnership for Peace
(PfP) nations. Among the largest dollar programs are the following
activities.
SIMNET ($ 9.0 million): SIMNET is an exercise simulation network focused on
peace support operations and scenarios. It is part of a U. S.- launched
effort to link defense education institutions to increase the level of
sophistication of military exercises and cooperative defense education.
Commander in Chief Conferences and Other Expenses ($ 13. 4 million): These
two program categories combined provide funding to cover costs of hosting
PfP- related conferences or sending U. S. or partner personnel to attend
PfP- related events either in the United States or abroad.
Command and Control (C4) Studies ($ 6.1 million): C4 studies analyze and
document command and control interoperability of the subject country?s
forces with U. S. forces for bilateral or multilateral contingencies. The
purpose of the studies is to understand the country?s capabilities for NATO
interoperability and identify useful recommendations for improvement.
Transportation for Excess Defense Articles ($ 4.5 million): DOD sells or
transfers articles no longer needed by U. S. armed forces to partnership
countries. Warsaw Initiative funding can be used to support the costs of
transporting this equipment. 1
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Exchanges and Assessments ($ 3.6 million): The
Army Corps of Engineers conducts information exchanges and assessments in
Partner countries on environmental and infrastructure topics, such as
hazardous waste and material storage and transportation, disaster relief,
and contamination control and prevention at military bases.
Civil Military Emergency Planning ($ 3.4 million): This initiative aims to
enhance the capabilities of partner states to work with each other, with
neighboring nations, and with the international community to prepare for
natural and technological disasters within any partner nation. Workshops and
exercises are conducted in country by traveling contact teams or through
exchanges of military personnel between units of the U. S. National Guard
and comparable units of partner armed forces.
1 No funds were expended to transport excess defense articles in fiscal year
2001. Appendix I: Other Warsaw Initiative
Interoperability Programs
Appendix I: Other Warsaw Initiative Interoperability Programs
Page 23 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Regional Airspace Initiative ($ 3.3 million): This program seeks to help
develop civil and military airspace regimes that are fully interoperable
with West European civilian airspace organizations. Warsaw Initiative funds
are used to study partner requirements for building and operating an
effective air sovereignty system. State Department foreign military
financing funds may be used to procure the hardware necessary to implement
the system.
Navigational Aids Program ($ 3.2 million): This initiative supports
assessments that document the interoperability of navigational aids and
landing systems of partner states with western military forces under various
contingencies. The assessments provide recommendations for modernization,
with a focus on interoperability.
Logistics Exchanges ($ 2.5 million): These exchanges consist of in- country
workshops that focus on improving partners? understanding of NATO?s
collective logistics doctrine and logistics support requirements of NATO
operations and of hosting NATO forces.
National Military Command Centers ($ 1.4 million): This initiative aims to
provide modern, centralized command center support to military and civil
crises and disaster management. Its goal is to establish common command and
control information systems throughout a region.
Partnership for Peace Consortium ($ 1.1 million): This program primarily
supports the annual conference costs of the Consortium, which includes
representatives from 188 military academies, universities, and defense study
institutions.
Radar Interoperability and Lifecycle Upgrade Study ($ 1.1 million): More
than 600 radar in 14 countries remained from the Warsaw Pact military
structure. This study evaluates the utility and NATO compatibility of those
radar for integration into the evolving airspace systems in the partner
states.
Defense Resource Planning Exchanges ($ 1. 0 million): This program consists
of small group workshops that provide an introduction to and explanation of
the DOD?s resource management system to encourage partners to consider U. S.
concepts that could be used to improve their resource management.
National Guard ($ 1.0 million): In 1999, the Air National Guard supported
the Partnership for Peace program largely through military- to- military
Appendix I: Other Warsaw Initiative Interoperability Programs
Page 24 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
contacts. This 1- year Warsaw Initiative funding supported National Guard
participation in flood preparedness workshops, exchanges for engineering
platoons, air exercise planning, field training, medical training, and other
activities.
Appendix II: Other U. S. Security Assistance Provided to Partner Countries,
1994 Through 2000
Page 25 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
The Departments of State and Defense provided additional military assistance
to partner states totaling more than $165 million between 1994 and 2000.
This funding was distributed through three programs with objectives that
complement the objectives of the Partnership for Peace and the Warsaw
Initiative. These programs are:
The International Military Education and Training Program (IMET) ($ 72.4
million): This program provides military education and training on a grant
basis to allied and friendly nations? militaries to (1) increase their
exposure to the proper role of the military in a democratic society,
including human rights issues, and to U. S. professional military education;
and (2) help to develop the capability to teach English. The State
Department funds IMET through its Foreign Operations Appropriation, and DOD
implements the program through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. IMET
complements or builds on Warsaw Initiative programs by offering more
advanced training to partner state defense officials, including English
language training, defense resource management, and instruction in doctrines
common to the officials of NATO countries.
The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Defense and Military Contacts Program
($ 40.4 million): The United States launched the Cooperative Threat
Reduction initiative in 1991 to help the nations of the former Soviet Union
eliminate, control, and prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. This program has assisted CTR efforts by supporting defense and
military contacts between the United States and Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Uzbekistan (Belarus and Turkmenistan are currently ineligible for CTR
funding). The objectives of these efforts complement the objectives of
Partnership for Peace and the Warsaw Initiative by expanding contacts
between defense establishments.
The Joint Contact Team Program ($ 52.9 million): This program supports the
deployment of small teams of military personnel to operate in a number of
partner states and other countries within the U. S. European Command?s area
of responsibility. The teams? mission is to promote stability,
democratization, and closer relationships with NATO. They exchange ideas and
demonstrate operational methods to host nation military personnel and assist
their militaries in the transition to democracies with free market
economies. They do not conduct formal training or supply equipment.
According to a U. S. European command document, 90 percent of the teams?
efforts support partner countries? PfP programs. Appendix II: Other U. S.
Security Assistance
Provided to Partner Countries, 1994 Through 2000
Appendix III: Comments From the Department of State
Page 26 GAO- 01- 734 Partnership for Peace
Appendix III: Comments From the Department of State
(711549)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013
Orders by visiting:
Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
Orders by phone:
(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Orders by Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:
Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov
Contact one:
Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***