Former Soviet Union

Hampered at the outset by a lack of coordination, U.S. aid to the former Soviet Union is now better managed and is achieving promising, although mixed, results in a variety of projects ranging from the promotion of economic reforms to the disposal of nuclear weapons. This report provides information on U.S. bilateral programs with the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union from fiscal year 1990 through December 1994 to help them make the transition to democratic societies with market economies. GAO discusses (1) the amount of funds obligated and spent; (2) the amount of credits provided, including subsidy costs; and (3) the appropriation source and budget function for these funds. This information is categorized by agency, recipient country, and programmatic sector. GAO summarized this and the following report in testimony before Congress; see: Former Soviet Union: Assessment of U.S. Bilateral Programs, by Harold J. Johnson, Associate Director for International Relations and Trade Issues, before the House Committee on International Relations. GAO/T-NSIAD-96-78, Dec. 15 (13 pages).

GAO found that: (1) from FY 1990 through December 31, 1994, U.S. departments and agencies obligated $5.4 billion and expended $3.5 billion for grant technical assistance, exchange programs, training, food and commodity donations, mutually beneficial science and technology projects, and support of joint space efforts; (2) the U.S. government also provided about $10 billion in credit for bilateral loans, loan guarantees, and insurance; (3) during this same period, 23 departments and independent agencies implemented 215 programs in the FSU; (4) the Agency for International Development, Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Department of Defense implemented the large majority of noncredit programs; (5) USDA also funded the largest portion of credit/insurance programs; (6) most of the funding for U.S. programs came from budget accounts in the international affairs, defense, and agriculture budget functions; however, funds also came from eight other budget functions; (7) the U.S. agencies implemented programs in all 12 of the FSU countries; (8) nearly half of all U.S. expenditures were for programs with Russia; (9) when measured on a per capita basis, Armenia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan received more than the other countries; (10) U.S. programs involved a wide diversity of program areas; and (11) about two-thirds of the total obligations were for food aid, private-sector development, emergency humanitarian assistance, disposition of weapons, and democratic reform, and the remaining funding was in 13 other program areas.