NATO Enlargement: Reports Are Responsive to Senate Requirements,
but Analysis of Financial Burdens Is Incomplete (05-MAY-03,
GAO-03-722).
On November 21, 2002, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) invited seven countries to join the alliance. To
facilitate congressional consideration of NATO enlargement, the
U.S. Senate mandated in 1998 that GAO review and assess the
reports the Senate directed the President to provide on countries
invited to join NATO. The President submitted the required
reports to Congress on March 25, 2003. To fulfill its mandate,
GAO determined if (1) the reports met the Senate's requirements
and the information was accurate and current, (2) the methodology
for assessing the likely impact on NATO's military effectiveness
was reasonable, and (3) the methodology for analyzing the ability
of the invited countries to fulfill the full range of financial
burdens of NATO membership was reasonable.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-722
ACCNO: A06809
TITLE: NATO Enlargement: Reports Are Responsive to Senate
Requirements, but Analysis of Financial Burdens Is Incomplete
DATE: 05/05/2003
SUBJECT: Congressional/executive relations
International organizations
Reporting requirements
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Lithuania
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** 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-03-722
Report to Congressional Committees
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
May 2003 NATO ENLARGEMENT
Reports Are Responsive to Senate Requirements, but Analysis of Financial
Burdens Is Incomplete
GAO- 03- 722
The President*s reports responded to the Senate*s requirements. The
information provided in the reports was generally accurate and current.
The methodology for assessing the likely impact of each invited country on
NATO*s military effectiveness was reasonable. The reports provided a clear
explanation of the methodology used and provided information on countries*
defense reform plans, past and current contributions to U. S. and NATO
operations, and expectations of countries* ability to contribute
specialized military capabilities. The methodology was consistently
applied to assessments of each of the seven invited countries.
The methodology used to analyze each invited country*s ability to fulfill
the full range of financial burdens of NATO membership was not described
and the information provided was limited. The reports included some cost
information but did not discuss the costs of maintaining representation at
NATO*s headquarters or military command posts. Furthermore, the same types
of information were not consistently provided for each country.
European NATO Members and Countries Invited to Join the Alliance
On November 21, 2002, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
invited seven countries to join the alliance. To facilitate
congressional consideration of NATO enlargement, the U. S. Senate mandated
in 1998 that GAO review and assess the reports the Senate directed the
President to provide on countries invited to join NATO. The President
submitted the required reports to Congress on March 25, 2003. To fulfill
its mandate, GAO determined if (1) the reports met the Senate*s
requirements and the information
was accurate and current, (2) the methodology for assessing the likely
impact on NATO*s military effectiveness was reasonable, and (3) the
methodology for analyzing
the ability of the invited countries to fulfill the full range of
financial burdens of NATO membership was reasonable.
To ensure sound analyses of invited countries* financial capabilities in
reports required for
any future NATO enlargement, GAO recommends that those reports fully
explain the methodology, ensure the range of information is sufficient to
support
the conclusions, and consistently apply the methodology. We provided a
draft of this report to the National Security Council. The council did not
provide comments on this report.
www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 722. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Joseph Christoff, 202- 512- 8979. Highlights of GAO-
03- 722, a report to
Senate and House Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations, the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House Committee on
International Relations
May 2003
NATO ENLARGEMENT
Reports Are Responsive to Senate Requirements, but Analysis of Financial
Burdens Is Incomplete
Page i GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement Letter 1 Results in Brief 2
Background 3 Reports Responded to the Mandate*s Requirements 5 Methodology
for Assessing Likely Impact on Military Effectiveness
Was Reasonable 6 Methodology for Analyzing Ability to Meet Financial
Burdens Was Limited 7 Conclusion 8 Recommendation for Executive Action 8
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 8 Scope and Methodology 8 Figure
Figure 1: Countries Invited to Join NATO and Current European NATO Members
5 Contents
This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.
Page 1 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
May 5, 2003 Congressional Committees: In the Senate resolution ratifying
enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1999, 1
the Senate required the President to submit to Congress a classified and
an unclassified report that provides updated information on the status of
political, economic, defense, and related issues for countries invited to
join NATO. In addition, these reports are to provide an assessment of the
invited countries* likely impact on NATO*s military effectiveness and an
analysis of the ability of each invited country to fulfill the full range
of financial burdens of NATO membership. The
President submitted these reports to Congress on March 25, 2003. The
Senate mandated that GAO review and assess these reports.
The President had previously submitted a report to Congress that provided
information on the nine countries that were seeking NATO membership. 2 As
required by the Senate, this August 2002 report assessed how countries
would further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty, contribute to
North Atlantic security, and affect U. S. national security interests. It
also evaluated countries* eligibility for membership and estimated the
military requirements and costs associated with a country*s membership for
both NATO and U. S. budgets. In our November 2002 report, we found that
the President*s report met the Senate*s requirements. However, we provided
additional information on such eligibility issues as border relations,
judicial independence, civil rights, human rights, and minority rights
because the President*s report did not provide a full understanding of the
1 Section 3( 2)( E)( ii) of the Senate Resolution of Ratification on the
Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech Republic, 144 Cong. Rec. S4217- 20, 1998. 2 Section
3( 2)( E)( i) of the Senate Resolution of Ratification on the Protocols to
the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary, and
the Czech Republic required the President to provide such a report before
NATO extended any invitations to countries seeking membership.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
challenges facing these countries and their efforts to address those
challenges. 3 To fulfill our mandate to review the President*s current
reports, we
determined if (1) the reports met the Senate*s requirements and the
information was accurate and current, (2) the methodology for assessing
the likely impact on NATO*s military effectiveness was reasonable, and (3)
the methodology for analyzing the ability of the invited countries to
fulfill the full range of financial burdens of NATO membership was
reasonable. To assess the President*s current reports, we developed
information from
a broad array of sources, including U. S., NATO, and foreign government
reports and analyses of the countries invited to join NATO and discussions
with U. S. and foreign government officials. We determined if each of the
Senate*s requirements was addressed and if the information provided was
accurate and current. To assess the methodologies used for the analyses in
the reports, we determined if the methodology was clearly and fully
described, if the range of information provided supported the conclusions,
and if the methodology was applied consistently to analyses for each
invited country.
The President submitted a classified and an unclassified report to
Congress on the seven countries that NATO invited to join the alliance*
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The
National Security Council was responsible for developing these reports.
While we reviewed both reports, no classified information has been
included in our observations.
The President*s reports responded to the mandated requirements for each of
the seven countries invited to join NATO and provided information that was
generally accurate and current. The information was generally consistent
with the data we collected independently from a broad array of sources,
including U. S. government, NATO, and foreign government sources. No
recent events have occurred to alter the general information provided in
the reports.
3 See U. S. General Accounting Office, NATO Enlargement: Report Is
Responsive to Senate Requirements, but Additional Information Could Be
Useful, GAO- 03- 255 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 15, 2002). Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
We found that the methodology for assessing the likely impact of each
invited country on NATO*s military effectiveness was reasonable. The
reports clearly identified the methodology used and the assessments in the
reports provided information on the countries* defense reform plans, past
and current contributions to U. S. and NATO operations, and expectations
of countries* abilities to contribute specialized military capabilities.
The methodology was consistently applied to assessments of each of the
seven invited countries.
We found that the methodology for analyzing invited countries* ability to
fulfill the full range of the financial burdens of NATO membership was
limited. The reports did not identify the methodology used and did not
provide information on the costs of maintaining representation at NATO*s
headquarters or military command posts, which representatives of the
invited countries consider part of the costs of membership. In addition,
invited countries* representatives to NATO stated that their commonly
funded costs and the costs of maintaining representation at NATO ranged
from about 1 to 4 percent of their defense budgets and that these total
costs have been included in their budgets. The reports also did not
identify the costs of NATO membership as a percentage of the countries*
total defense budgets. This information would have identified the level of
demand these costs would place on the country*s total allocation of funds
for defense. Finally, the reports did not consistently discuss the same
types of information for each of the seven countries. The discussions of
these types of information for each country are classified.
Although the methodology for assessing the likely impact of the invited
countries on NATO*s military effectiveness was reasonable, the methodology
for analyzing the ability of countries to fulfill the full range of
financial burdens of membership was limited. Therefore, to ensure that
sound analyses of invited countries* financial capabilities are provided
in future reports, we are recommending that the National Security Council
fully explain the methodology, ensure that the range of information is
sufficient to support conclusions, and consistently apply the methodology.
The National Security Council provided no comments on this report. The
North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, by 12 European and
North American countries to provide collective defense against the
emerging threat that the Soviet Union posed to the democracies of Western
Europe. Since its inception, NATO has enlarged its membership four times
as changing political and strategic circumstances have Background
Page 4 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
warranted. Turkey and Greece joined NATO in 1952, West Germany in 1955,
and Spain in 1982.
In 1994, NATO committed to enlarging its membership to include the newly
democratic states of the former Communist bloc. In 1999, Poland, the Czech
Republic, and Hungary became the first of those countries to join the
alliance. At its summit meeting in November 2002 in Prague, NATO invited
seven countries to join: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia. Figure 1 shows the invited countries and
the current members of NATO.
Page 5 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
Figure 1: Countries Invited to Join NATO and Current European NATO Members
The President*s reports responded to the three requirements in the
Senate*s mandate with regard to each of the seven invited countries.
First, to provide updated information on the five issues required to be
addressed in the report submitted to Congress on August 26, 2002, the
reports included updated information on the political, economic, defense,
budgetary, information security, and legal conditions and preparations of
the invited countries. Because NATO*s military requirements did not
change, the reports included no changes in the methodology for assessing
the potential costs of enlarging the alliance or in the estimates provided
in Reports Responded to
the Mandate*s Requirements
Page 6 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
the earlier report. Second, the reports provided an assessment of each
invited country*s likely impact on NATO*s military effectiveness. Third,
the reports provided a variety of information regarding each country*s
ability to meet the financial burdens of NATO membership, including such
issues as current and planned defense spending levels and economic growth
rates.
The information provided in the reports was generally accurate and
current. No major events appear to have been excluded. The information
provided in the reports was generally consistent with the data we
collected independently from a broad array of sources, including U. S.
government, NATO, and foreign government sources. The reports* cutoff date
for the timeliness of information was January 31, 2003, and the timeframes
for events, particularly recent ones, were usually identified. No recent
events have occurred to alter the general information provided in the
reports.
We found that the methodology for assessing the likely impact of each
invited country on NATO*s military effectiveness was reasonable. The
reports clearly described the methodology. That methodology called for
assessing the soundness and feasibility of each country*s defense reform
plan, each country*s support of U. S. and allied actions through
contributions to U. S. and NATO military operations, and the ability of
each country to contribute specialized military capabilities to NATO once
it becomes a member. The information provided supported the reports*
conclusions about the likely impact of these countries on NATO*s military
effectiveness. The discussion of defense reform plans provided an
understanding of the status of the countries* defense modernization
efforts and their degree of military preparedness. Identifying examples of
how countries have participated in or contributed to NATO or other
multilateral defense operations demonstrates how countries can be expected
to participate in NATO operations as members of the alliance. Determining
what kinds of specialized military capabilities a country could provide to
NATO illustrates how the country will enhance NATO*s preparations for
future missions. Finally, the methodology was consistently applied in the
assessment of each invited country. Methodology for Assessing Likely
Impact on Military Effectiveness Was Reasonable
Page 7 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
We found that the methodology for analyzing the ability of invited
countries to fulfill the full range of financial burdens of NATO
membership was limited. The reports did not explain the methodology used
and the
information provided to support the conclusions was limited. The reports
discussed the ability of countries to meet their share of NATO*s commonly
funded costs, 4 but did not consider the costs of supporting country
representation at NATO facilities. Officials of the invited countries told
us that their share of NATO*s commonly funded costs generally ranged from
about 1 to 2 percent of their annual defense budgets. However, becoming a
member also entails the cost of supporting country representation at
NATO*s facilities such as its civilian and military headquarters in
Belgium and its command posts in Europe. According to officials of each of
the seven invited countries, the costs of establishing and maintaining
country representation at NATO facilities are part of the costs of NATO
membership. Those country officials anticipated that the costs for
establishing and maintaining country representation at NATO will vary
between under 1 percent to, in one case at least, as much as 2 percent of
their annual defense budgets. While the reports do not address these
costs, officials of the seven invited countries stated that the costs of
supporting country representation* along with their share of NATO*s
commonly funded costs* have been accounted for in the defense budgets.
The reports also did not identify the costs of NATO membership as a
percentage of countries* total defense budgets. Although this was not a
requirement, these data would have provided useful information about the
level of demand these costs will place on a country*s total allocation of
funds for defense.
Finally, the discussions of countries* abilities to meet the financial
burdens of NATO membership did not consistently address the same types of
information for each country. The report provided several types of
information intended to demonstrate the countries* ability to meet the
financial burden of membership. The report provided information on such
factors as a country*s share of NATO*s commonly funded costs, the
percentage of Gross Domestic Product committed to defense spending,
commitment to funding needed defense expenditures, and economic
4 Commonly funded costs cover NATO*s day- to- day operating costs,
military headquarters, and defense infrastructure projects in member
countries. Each member of NATO pays a certain percentage of these costs.
Methodology for
Analyzing Ability to Meet Financial Burdens Was Limited
Page 8 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
growth. The discussions of these types of information for each country are
classified.
The President*s reports responded to the Senate*s requirements, providing
information that was generally accurate and current on each of the seven
countries invited to join NATO. While the methodology for analyzing the
likely impact of the invited countries on NATO*s military effectiveness
was reasonable, the methodology for analyzing countries* ability to meet
the full range of the financial burdens of NATO membership was limited.
The methodology used to analyze invited countries* financial capabilities
was not explained. Lack of discussion of the methodology used limits the
understanding of how the conclusions were derived. Also, because the
reports did not discuss all of the costs associated with NATO membership,
the reports did not provide comprehensive support for their conclusions on
this issue.
To ensure that sound analyses of invited countries* financial capabilities
are provided in future reports required under section 3( 2)( E)( ii) of
the Senate Resolution of Ratification on the Protocols to the North
Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic, we recommend that the National Security Council fully explain
the methodology, ensure the range of information is sufficient to support
conclusions, and consistently apply the methodology. We provided a draft
of this report to the National Security Council. The council provided no
comments on this report.
We assessed the President*s reports by determining the extent to which
they addressed each of the mandated requirements. We assessed the accuracy
of the information in the reports by determining if it was consistent with
the information in the sources we developed. We assessed the currency of
the information by determining whether any recent events identified in our
sources raised questions about the accuracy of any of the reports* main
findings. We did not independently assess foreign laws or regulations. To
make this assessment, we developed an extensive array of documentary
information from a broad spectrum of sources, including reports and
analyses of the U. S. government, NATO, and governments of the seven
countries invited to join NATO, including: Conclusion
Recommendation for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Scope and Methodology
Page 9 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
invited countries* commitments to NATO upon accession and the timetable
for meeting those commitments; invited countries* defense modernization
and reconstruction plans and
their planned defense expenditures; NATO assessments of invited
countries* defense capabilities; invited countries* documentation
updating progress in meeting NATO
political, economic, budgetary, information security, and legal membership
goals; the U. S. State Department*s country background reports and its
annual
reports assessing human rights practices and religious freedom; reports
of the Congressional Research Service on NATO enlargement; the European
Union*s 2002 annual regular progress report on the political and economic
developments and other preparations of countries seeking
membership in the European Union; Freedom House 2002 Nations in Transit
report*s country ratings of democratization, rule of law, and economic
liberalization; Freedom House Annual Survey of Press Freedom 2002;
Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2002; and
related media coverage. We met at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium,
with representatives
of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia,
and obtained additional testimonial evidence through discussions with U.
S. agency officials in Washington, D. C. and NATO headquarters, as well as
with NATO international staff.
To assess the methodologies used to analyze the likely impact of new
members on NATO*s military effectiveness and the ability of invited
countries to fulfill the full range of the financial burdens of
membership, we determined (1) if the methodology and analytical criteria
were clearly and fully described; (2) if the methodology provided a range
of information that supports the conclusions; and (3) if the methodology
were applied consistently to analyses for each of the seven invited
countries.
We conducted this review from December 2002 to April 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees, the Chairman of the National Security Council, the Secretary
of State, and the Secretary of Defense. We will also make copies available
Page 10 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no
cost on the GAO Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512- 8979 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Key contributors to this report were F. James
Shafer, Beverly Ann Bendekgey, Monica Brym, Martin de Alteriis, Ernie
Jackson, and Lynn Cothern.
Joseph A. Christoff, Director International Affairs and Trade
Page 11 GAO- 03- 722 NATO Enlargement
List of Congressional Committees The Honorable Richard Lugar Chairman The
Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Foreign Relations United States Senate
The Honorable John W. Warner Chairman The Honorable Carl Levin Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate
The Honorable Ted Stevens Chairman The Honorable Robert C. Byrd Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Appropriations United States Senate
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman The Honorable Tom Lantos Ranking
Minority Member Committee on International Relations House of
Representatives
The Honorable Duncan Hunter Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young Chairman The Honorable David R. Obey
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Appropriations House of
Representatives
(320175)
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail
this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000
TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800
U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***