NATO Partnerships
DOD Needs to Assess U.S. Assistance in Response to Changes to the Partnership for Peace Program Gao ID: GAO-10-1015 September 30, 2010The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) established the Partnership for Peace (PfP) to increase cooperation with former Warsaw Pact members and provide many of these countries with a path to NATO membership. As NATO confronts new security challenges, including the war in Afghanistan, its relationships with partner countries have grown in scope and importance. Additionally, NATO is developing a new Strategic Concept to clarify its mission and activities, including its relationship with PfP countries and other partners. The Department of Defense (DOD)-funded Warsaw Initiative Fund (WIF) supports the goals of the PfP program. GAO was asked to review (1) how the PfP program has evolved since GAO last reported on it in 2001; (2) options NATO is considering for the future of the PfP and other partnership programs; and (3) support to PfP countries through the U.S. WIF program. GAO analyzed NATO, DOD, and State Department (State) documents; and WIF funding data. GAO also interviewed DOD, State, NATO, and selected country officials.
The PfP program has evolved in four key ways since July 2001, when GAO last reported on it. First, several former PfP countries from Central and Eastern Europe have become NATO members, resulting in both a decline in the number of countries participating in the PfP and in the number of PfP countries seeking NATO membership. Second, NATO has developed additional mechanisms for engaging with PfP countries, allowing partners additional opportunities to tailor their participation in the PfP based upon their individual objectives and capacities. Third, the growing size and significance of the NATO operation in Afghanistan has increased NATO's emphasis on developing PfP countries' capabilities for participating in NATO military operations and the strategic importance of the Caucasus and Central Asian PfP countries. Fourth, as NATO has taken steps to wind down its peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans, it has increasingly used the PfP to build cooperative relationships with countries in the region, marking a shift in its role in stabilizing that part of Europe. NATO's new Strategic Concept is expected to highlight the importance of the PfP and other NATO partnerships, and discuss ways to strengthen them further. First, NATO is debating how to strengthen its partnerships with a growing number of countries outside of the PfP. Some NATO members disagree about the extent to which NATO should pursue a more global partnership agenda. Second, NATO is considering options to enhance its routine and crisis consultations with PfP countries on security issues. Third, NATO is evaluating how to more effectively engage with PfP countries, such as those in Central Asia, that are not seeking NATO membership. Fourth, NATO is debating how to best balance PfP countries' aspirations for membership with Russian concerns about NATO expansion. The changing composition of countries participating in the PfP program has affected the budget and focus of the WIF program, which supports the participation of PfP countries in military exercises and military contact programs. The decline in the number of countries in the PfP program contributed to a drop in average annual WIF funding from about $43 million in fiscal years 1996 through 2005 to about $29 million in fiscal years 2006 through 2010, according to a DOD official. Moreover, WIF funding is no longer concentrated on PfP countries aspiring to join NATO, as it was in the initial years of the program. In 2006, DOD established the Defense Institution Building program as a key focus of the WIF program to help PfP countries develop more professional and transparent defense establishments. Planned activities included assisting with strategic defense reviews; and developing defense planning, budgeting, and resource management systems, among others. DOD has encountered challenges implementing this program, including potential duplication with other U.S. assistance in some countries and limited interest from other countries, which have contributed to frequent cancellations of planned activities. DOD has not formally evaluated the WIF program since 2001, although there have been changes since then in the composition of participating countries and the focus of the WIF program. GAO recommends that, following the establishment of NATO's new Strategic Concept, which could result in changes to NATO's PfP program, the Secretary of Defense conduct an evaluation of the U.S. WIF program to ensure that it effectively supports the goals of NATO's PfP program. DOD concurred with the recommendation.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Joseph A. Christoff Team: Government Accountability Office: International Affairs and Trade Phone: (202) 512-8979GAO-10-1015, NATO Partnerships: DOD Needs to Assess U.S. Assistance in Response to Changes to the Partnership for Peace Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-1015
entitled 'NATO Partnerships: DOD Needs to Assess U.S. Assistance in
Response to Changes to the Partnership for Peace Program' which was
released on November 10, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2010:
NATO Partnerships:
DOD Needs to Assess U.S. Assistance in Response to Changes to the
Partnership for Peace Program:
GAO-10-1015:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-1015, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) established the
Partnership for Peace (PfP) to increase cooperation with former Warsaw
Pact members and provide many of these countries with a path to NATO
membership. As NATO confronts new security challenges, including the
war in Afghanistan, its relationships with partner countries have
grown in scope and importance. Additionally, NATO is developing a new
Strategic Concept to clarify its mission and activities, including its
relationship with PfP countries and other partners. The Department of
Defense (DOD)-funded Warsaw Initiative Fund (WIF) supports the goals
of the PfP program. GAO was asked to review (1) how the PfP program
has evolved since GAO last reported on it in 2001; (2) options NATO is
considering for the future of the PfP and other partnership programs;
and (3) support to PfP countries through the U.S. WIF program. GAO
analyzed NATO, DOD, and State Department (State) documents; and WIF
funding data. GAO also interviewed DOD, State, NATO, and selected
country officials.
What GAO Found:
The PfP program has evolved in four key ways since July 2001, when GAO
last reported on it. First, several former PfP countries from Central
and Eastern Europe have become NATO members, resulting in both a
decline in the number of countries participating in the PfP and in the
number of PfP countries seeking NATO membership. Second, NATO has
developed additional mechanisms for engaging with PfP countries,
allowing partners additional opportunities to tailor their
participation in the PfP based upon their individual objectives and
capacities. Third, the growing size and significance of the NATO
operation in Afghanistan has increased NATO‘s emphasis on developing
PfP countries‘ capabilities for participating in NATO military
operations and the strategic importance of the Caucasus and Central
Asian PfP countries. Fourth, as NATO has taken steps to wind down its
peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans, it has increasingly used the PfP
to build cooperative relationships with countries in the region,
marking a shift in its role in stabilizing that part of Europe.
NATO‘s new Strategic Concept is expected to highlight the importance
of the PfP and other NATO partnerships, and discuss ways to strengthen
them further. First, NATO is debating how to strengthen its
partnerships with a growing number of countries outside of the PfP.
Some NATO members disagree about the extent to which NATO should
pursue a more global partnership agenda. Second, NATO is considering
options to enhance its routine and crisis consultations with PfP
countries on security issues. Third, NATO is evaluating how to more
effectively engage with PfP countries, such as those in Central Asia,
that are not seeking NATO membership. Fourth, NATO is debating how to
best balance PfP countries‘ aspirations for membership with Russian
concerns about NATO expansion.
The changing composition of countries participating in the PfP program
has affected the budget and focus of the WIF program, which supports
the participation of PfP countries in military exercises and military
contact programs. The decline in the number of countries in the PfP
program contributed to a drop in average annual WIF funding from about
$43 million in fiscal years 1996 through 2005 to about $29 million in
fiscal years 2006 through 2010, according to a DOD official. Moreover,
WIF funding is no longer concentrated on PfP countries aspiring to
join NATO, as it was in the initial years of the program. In 2006, DOD
established the Defense Institution Building program as a key focus of
the WIF program to help PfP countries develop more professional and
transparent defense establishments. Planned activities included
assisting with strategic defense reviews; and developing defense
planning, budgeting, and resource management systems, among others.
DOD has encountered challenges implementing this program, including
potential duplication with other U.S. assistance in some countries and
limited interest from other countries, which have contributed to
frequent cancellations of planned activities. DOD has not formally
evaluated the WIF program since 2001, although there have been changes
since then in the composition of participating countries and the focus
of the WIF program.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that, following the establishment of NATO‘s new
Strategic Concept, which could result in changes to NATO‘s PfP
program, the Secretary of Defense conduct an evaluation of the U.S.
WIF program to ensure that it effectively supports the goals of NATO‘s
PfP program. DOD concurred with the recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-1015] or key
components. For more information, contact Joseph Christoff at (202)
512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The PfP Has Evolved in Several Key Ways Due to Changing Political
Circumstances and Security Threats:
NATO Is Considering Ways to Strengthen Its Partnerships as Part of the
Development of Its New Strategic Concept:
Although Eligible Countries and the Focus of the WIF Program Have
Changed, DOD Has Not Evaluated the Program since 2001:
Conclusion:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Description of DOD Components Responsible for Executing
the WIF Program:
Appendix III: Other U.S. Security Cooperation Programs Supporting WIF
and PfP Goals:
Appendix IV: NATO Areas of Cooperation:
Appendix V: PfP Countries' PARP Partnership Goals:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Partner Countries' Participation in Key PfP Mechanisms:
Table 2: WIF Funding for Countries Seeking NATO Membership, Fiscal
Year 2010:
Table 3: Descriptions of and Funding for WIF Implementing Components,
Fiscal Year 2010:
Table 4: Descriptions of U.S. Security Cooperation Programs that
Provide Assistance Related to WIF and NATO PfP Programs:
Table 5: Areas of Cooperation in the 2010-2011 EAPWP:
Table 6: PfP Countries' Most Frequently Selected Partnership Goals in
2008:
Figures:
Figure 1: Former PfP Countries that Have Joined NATO:
Figure 2: Comparison of PfP Countries in 2001 and 2010:
Figure 3: Countries' Troop Contributions to NATO's Operation in
Afghanistan (ISAF) as of August 2010:
Figure 4: Countries' Troop Contributions to NATO's Operation in Kosovo
(KFOR) as of February 2010:
Figure 5: Timeline of Key NATO Events in the Balkans:
Figure 6: Map of Countries Participating in NATO's Partnership
Programs:
Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2010 WIF Budget Allocated to the DIB Program, by
Country and Region:
Figure 8: Funding for PfP Countries from WIF and Related Security
Cooperation Programs, Fiscal Year 2009:
Abbreviations:
CENTCOM: Central Command:
COCOM: Combatant Command:
CTR: Cooperative Threat Reduction:
DIB: Defense Institution Building:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DSCA: Defense Security Cooperation Agency:
EAPC: Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council:
EAPWP: Euro-Atlantic Partnership Work Plan:
EU: European Union:
EUCOM: European Command:
FMF: Foreign Military Financing:
ICI: Istanbul Cooperation Initiative:
IMET: International Military Education and Training:
ISAF: International Security Assistance Force:
KFOR: Kosovo Force:
MAP: Membership Action Plan:
MD: Mediterranean Dialogue:
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization:
PARP: Planning and Review Process:
PfP: Partnership for Peace:
State: Department of State:
TCA: Traditional Combatant Commander Activities:
UN: United Nations:
WIF: Warsaw Initiative Fund:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 30, 2010:
The Honorable John F. Kerry:
Chairman:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) confronts new
security challenges, including the war in Afghanistan, its
relationships with partner countries have grown in scope and
importance. NATO established its principal partnership program--the
Partnership for Peace (PfP)--in 1994, primarily to increase defense
cooperation with former Warsaw Pact members and other former communist
states in Central and Eastern Europe. The PfP also provided many of
these countries with a path to NATO membership. To support the
objectives of the PfP program, in 1994, the United States established
the Warsaw Initiative Fund (WIF), which provided about $30 million in
Department of Defense (DOD) funding in fiscal year 2010 to facilitate
the participation of developing PfP countries in military exercises
and military contact programs. In July 2001, we reported that the WIF
and PfP programs had produced important benefits for participating
countries, as evidenced by their contributions to NATO-led operations
in the Balkans and the addition of three partner countries to NATO
membership in 1999.[Footnote 1] Since then, the strategic context for
NATO's use of the PfP has changed significantly. Most importantly,
NATO admitted an additional nine countries as members and began a
major military operation in Afghanistan. In addition, NATO has
expanded its relationships with other partner countries outside of the
PfP program. To address the range of security challenges it faces,
NATO is developing a new Strategic Concept to clarify its mission and
activities, including its relationships with PfP and other partners.
NATO intends to approve the new Strategic Concept at its November 2010
summit.
In response to your request, this report (1) describes how the PfP
program has evolved since we last reported on it in 2001; (2)
describes options NATO is considering for the future of the PfP and
other partnership programs under the new Strategic Concept; and (3)
analyzes support to PfP countries through the U.S. WIF program.
To address these objectives, we analyzed NATO, DOD, and Department of
State (State) documents; academic literature related to PfP and WIF
programs; and WIF funding data since fiscal year 2006. According to
DOD, no reliable data showing the distribution of WIF budgets among
eligible countries were available before fiscal year 2006. We met with
DOD and State officials in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Mission to
NATO in Brussels, Belgium. We also met with NATO officials at both
NATO Headquarters in Brussels and at Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe in Mons, Belgium, as well as with representatives from
several PfP countries and one NATO member country. In addition, we
conducted phone interviews with geographic U.S. combatant command
officials who have PfP countries in their areas of responsibility--
European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, and Central Command in Tampa,
Florida. We selected three countries--Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, and
Kazakhstan--to examine in greater depth NATO's bilateral relationship
with PfP partners. We sought to pick countries that differed, among
other things, in terms of their geographic location, level of
participation in the PfP, interest in NATO membership, and
contributions to NATO operations. We met with State and DOD officials
at the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia; Government of Georgia
officials; and NATO officials based in Tbilisi. We also conducted
telephone interviews with U.S. officials in Sarajevo, Bosnia-
Herzegovina; and Astana, Kazakhstan; and with an official from NATO
Headquarters, Sarajevo. See appendix I for a detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to September
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
In response to changing political circumstances and security threats,
the PfP program has evolved in four key ways since July 2001, when we
last reported on it. First, several former PfP countries from Central
and Eastern Europe have become NATO members, resulting in both a
decline in the number of countries participating in the PfP and in the
number of PfP countries seeking NATO membership. For example, in July
2001, NATO had granted Membership Action Plans (MAP) to 9 of the 26
PfP countries; as of September 2010, only 3 of the 22 current PfP
countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro) had MAPs.
[Footnote 2] MAP is the final step countries complete before NATO
membership and requires countries to undertake an intensive set of
reforms that extend beyond their defense institutions, to bring the
countries in line with NATO standards. While the PfP program provides
a means for interested countries to pursue NATO membership, it has
also always enabled other countries that are not seeking membership to
maintain cooperative relationships with NATO. Second, NATO has
developed additional mechanisms for engaging with PfP countries. For
example, in 2002, NATO developed the Individual Partnership Action
Plan, which provides PfP countries the opportunity to establish reform
goals and receive tailored assistance from NATO to meet these goals,
without having to commit to pursuing NATO membership as with the MAP.
Third, the growing size and significance of NATO's operation in
Afghanistan has increased both NATO's emphasis on developing PfP
countries' capabilities for participating in NATO military operations
and the strategic importance of the Caucasus and Central Asian PfP
countries to NATO, given their proximity to Afghanistan.[Footnote 3]
As of August 2010, 11 PfP countries were contributing about 2,000
troops to the operation, and four Central Asian and two Caucasus
partners were providing logistical and/or host nation support. Fourth,
as NATO has taken steps to wind down its peacekeeping efforts in the
Balkans, it has increasingly used the PfP to build cooperative
relationships with countries in the region, marking a shift in its
role in stabilizing that part of Europe.[Footnote 4]
NATO's new Strategic Concept is expected to highlight the importance
of the PfP and other NATO partnerships and discuss ways to strengthen
these partnerships further. First, NATO is considering how best to
deepen its relationships with its increasing number of partner
countries outside of the PfP. For example, to more effectively engage
with countries in the Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) and the Istanbul
Cooperation Initiative (ICI), various NATO stakeholders have
recommended focusing on security issues of mutual interest such as
nonproliferation and terrorism.[Footnote 5] Additionally, NATO is
considering options to provide other partners, such as Australia and
Japan, that are major military or financial contributors to NATO
operations, with more concrete ways in which they can participate in
the shaping of strategy and decisions on missions to which they
contribute.[Footnote 6] Second, NATO is seeking to enhance routine and
crisis consultations with PfP countries on security issues. For
instance, some NATO stakeholders have recommended that NATO strengthen
its existing commitments to PfP members to hold consultations if their
security is threatened, such as during the August 2008 Russia-Georgia
War. Some NATO members are reluctant to strengthen such commitments,
however, due to concerns that it may involve NATO in conflicts that
are not in its best interests or create unrealistic expectations among
PfP countries regarding potential NATO assistance. Third, NATO is
seeking more effective engagement with PfP countries not aspiring to
NATO membership, such as those in Central Asia. Among other things,
NATO is considering how to better coordinate and leverage its members'
bilateral assistance to these countries. Fourth, NATO is seeking to
balance the membership aspirations of some PfP countries with Russian
concerns about NATO expansion.
The changing composition of countries participating in the PfP program
has affected the budget and focus of DOD's WIF program. The decline in
the number of countries participating in the PfP program contributed
to a drop in average annual WIF funding from about $43 million in
fiscal years 1996 through 2005 to about $29 million in fiscal years
2006 through 2010, according to DOD officials. Moreover, the WIF
funding is no longer distributed primarily to countries aspiring to
become NATO members, as in the initial years of the program. The WIF
program targeted about 70 percent of funding to aspiring countries in
the initial years of the program from fiscal years 1994 through 2000,
whereas it only distributed about 20 percent of the 2010 WIF budget to
the four PfP countries that currently aspire to join NATO. In
addition, DOD established the Defense Institution Building (DIB)
program in 2006 as a key focus of the WIF program. DOD developed the
DIB program, which received about 20 percent of the WIF budget in
fiscal year 2010, to help PfP countries develop more professional and
transparent defense establishments. DIB program activities included
assisting with strategic defense reviews; developing defense planning,
budgeting, and resource management systems; and developing
professional military education programs, among others. However, DOD
has encountered challenges implementing this program, including
potential duplication with other U.S.-funded assistance in some
countries and limited interest from other countries, which have
contributed to frequent cancellations of planned activities. For
example, Georgia and Bosnia preferred to work through ongoing
assistance provided by military advisors, funded by the U.S. Foreign
Military Financing (FMF) program, rather than through DIB program
activities. DOD officials noted that they have undertaken efforts to
periodically review the WIF program and adapt it to changes in the PfP
program. However, DOD has not formally evaluated the WIF program since
2001, before changes in the focus of the program and the composition
of participating countries.
We are recommending that, following the establishment of NATO's new
Strategic Concept, which could result in changes to NATO's PfP
program, the Secretary of Defense conduct an evaluation of the U.S.
WIF program to ensure that it effectively supports the goals of NATO's
PfP program.
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Defense and
State for their review and comment. DOD provided oral comments stating
that the Department concurs with our recommendation. DOD and State
also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report
as appropriate.
Background:
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's key objective has been to
achieve a lasting peace in the North Atlantic area that is based on
the common values of democracy, rule of law, and individual liberty.
Currently, 28 countries are members of NATO.[Footnote 7] Article 10 of
the treaty permits accession of additional European states if they are
in a position to further the treaty's principles and contribute to
North Atlantic security.[Footnote 8] Under Article 5 of the North
Atlantic Treaty, members of NATO agree that an armed attack against
any member is considered to be an attack against them all.
The NATO PfP program was 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.[Footnote 9] Currently, 22 countries from Europe, Eurasia, and
Central Asia are in the PfP program.[Footnote 10] The objectives of
the partnership 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 (UN)
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 NATO members.[Footnote 11] NATO also uses the PfP to
support countries interested in NATO membership, although it does not
promise eventual membership. NATO does not extend Article 5 protection
to PfP countries or any country other than NATO members.
In addition to the PfP program, NATO has established partnerships with
other groups of countries located beyond Europe, Eurasia, and Central
Asia to build security relationships and maintain dialogue with
countries in other regions of the world. NATO established the MD
partnership in 1994--the same year as the PfP. As of September 2010,
it includes seven African and Middle Eastern countries.[Footnote 12]
At the June 2004 NATO Summit in Istanbul, NATO established the ICI,
and invited six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council to
participate.[Footnote 13] NATO has also established less formalized
partnership relationships with additional countries, referring to them
as "Partners across the Globe."[Footnote 14]
Since the mid-1990s, NATO has initiated several military operations,
most notably the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Afghanistan. Initially, ISAF was a coalition of volunteering countries
deployed under the authority of the UN Security Council.[Footnote 15]
In August 2003, the Alliance assumed strategic command, control, and
coordination of the mission and established a permanent ISAF
headquarters in Kabul. Since then, the operation has grown to about
120,000 troops from 47 countries, including all NATO members, as of
August 2010. NATO also intervened militarily in the aftermath of the
disintegration of the former Yugoslavia to halt conflict in Bosnia-
Herzegovina in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Macedonia in 2001. Since
December 2004, the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) has been the only
remaining large-scale Allied force deployment in the Balkans, although
NATO maintains headquarters in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; and
Skopje, Macedonia; to assist the host governments in defense reform
and NATO integration. In addition, NATO's naval forces lead Operation
Active Endeavour, a maritime surveillance operation, launched after
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to detect, deter, and
protect against terrorist activity in the Mediterranean. NATO vessels
started patrolling the Eastern Mediterranean in October 2001 and
eventually expanded to the entire Mediterranean in March 2004. NATO
also has a noncombat training mission in Iraq, begun in 2004; and a
counterpiracy mission off the Horn of Africa, known as Operation Ocean
Shield, begun in 2009.
DOD launched the WIF program in July 1994 to support countries that
are members of the PfP program. DOD uses defense-wide Operation and
Maintenance, and Research and Development funds for the WIF program
according to the laws and policies governing these types of funds. The
WIF program's goals include:
* assisting PfP partners in building defense institutions that are
transparent, accountable, and professional;
* improving U.S./NATO-PfP partner interoperability to enhance partner
contributions to coalition operations;
* supporting PfP partner integration with NATO; and:
* ensuring democratic control of the armed forces.
WIF funding supports the participation of PfP countries in bilateral
and multilateral military exercises and military contact programs,
including seminars, workshops, conferences, exchanges, and visits.
Within DOD, different components are responsible for the
implementation of the WIF program. Appendix II provides descriptions
of these components and the level of WIF funding allocated to them in
the fiscal year 2010 budget. WIF funding may also be used in
conjunction with other security cooperation programs that support the
goals of the WIF and PfP programs. Appendix III provides descriptions
of these related programs and the level of funding they provided to
PfP countries in fiscal year 2009. DOD relies on other funding, such
as the Coalition Support Fund, to cover the cost of partner countries'
participation in NATO operations.
The PfP Has Evolved in Several Key Ways Due to Changing Political
Circumstances and Security Threats:
The PfP program has evolved in four key ways since July 2001, when we
last reported on the program. First, several PfP countries from
Central and Eastern Europe have become members of NATO, resulting in a
decline in the total number of PfP countries and the number of PfP
countries aspiring to NATO membership. Second, NATO has developed
additional mechanisms for engaging with PfP countries, allowing
partners additional opportunities to tailor their participation in the
PfP based upon their individual objectives and capacities. Third, the
growing size and significance of the NATO operation in Afghanistan has
increased NATO's emphasis on developing PfP countries' capabilities
for participating in NATO military operations and the strategic
importance of the Caucasus and Central Asian PfP countries to NATO,
given their proximity to Afghanistan. Fourth, as NATO has taken steps
to wind down its peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans, it has
increasingly used the PfP to build cooperative relationships with
countries in the region, marking a shift in its role in stabilizing
that part of Europe.
The Number of PfP Countries Aspiring to Membership Has Declined:
Since 2001, several PfP countries from Central and Eastern Europe have
become members of NATO, resulting in a decline in the total number of
PfP countries and the number of PfP countries aspiring to NATO
membership. While NATO has utilized the PfP for a variety of purposes,
historically, NATO's primary focus for the program has been to assist
interested countries in preparing to become NATO members. However, the
PfP's function as a pathway to membership has diminished as the
composition of countries in the program has changed. As figure 1
shows, 12 former PfP countries have joined NATO since the PfP's
establishment in 1994, including 9 countries since our previous report
on the PfP in 2001.
Figure 1: Former PfP Countries that Have Joined NATO:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated world map]
All NATO member prior to 1999 are indicated on the map.
Joined in 1999:
Czech Republic:
Hungary:
Poland:
Joined in 2004:
Bulgaria:
Estonia:
Latvia:
Lithuania:
Romania:
Slovakia:
Slovenia:
Joined in 2009:
Albania:
Croatia:
Source: GAO analysis of NATO data.
[End of figure]
While 9 countries have left the PfP since 2001, 5 new countries have
also joined--Bosnia-Herzegovina, Malta,[Footnote 16] Montenegro,
Serbia, and Tajikistan--bringing the total number of current PfP
members to 22 (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Comparison of PfP Countries in 2001 and 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 illustrated maps]
PIP Countries in 2001:
Albania: (left after 2001);
Armenia:
Austria:
Azerbaijan:
Belarus:
Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Bulgaria: (left after 2001);
Croatia: (left after 2001);
Estonia: (left after 2001);
Finland:
Georgia:
Ireland:
Kazakhstan:
Kyrgyz Republic:
Latvia: (left after 2001);
Lithuania: (left after 2001);
Macedonia:
Moldova:
Romania: (left after 2001);
Russia:
Slovakia: (left after 2001);
Slovenia: (left after 2001);
Sweden:
Switzerland:
Turkmenistan:
Ukraine:
Uzbekistan:
PIP Countries in 2010:
Armenia:
Austria:
Azerbaijan:
Belarus:
Bosnia-Herzegovina: (joined after 2001);
Finland:
Georgia:
Ireland:
Kazakhstan:
Kyrgyz Republic:
Macedonia:
Malta: (joined after 2001);
Moldova:
Montenegro: (joined after 2001);
Russia:
Serbia: (joined after 2001);
Sweden:
Switzerland:
Tajikistan: (joined after 2001);
Turkmenistan:
Ukraine:
Uzbekistan:
Source: GAO analysis of NATO data.
[End of figure]
While the PfP has always included some countries that did not aspire
to join NATO, NATO and U.S. officials with whom we spoke noted that
the number of PfP countries seeking NATO membership has declined as
the majority of those countries interested in joining have already
done so. Of the 22 countries currently in the PfP, only 4 are actively
pursuing NATO membership: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and
Montenegro. Ukraine had previously pursued NATO membership, but is no
longer doing so, given the outcome of the country's February 2010
presidential elections.[Footnote 17]
Three of the countries aspiring to membership--Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Montenegro, and Macedonia--have been offered a MAP, the final step
that countries complete before NATO offers membership. Nine of 26 PfP
countries had MAPs at the time of our previous report in 2001. During
the MAP process, countries are required to undertake an intensive set
of reforms that extend beyond their defense institutions, in order to
bring the countries in line with NATO standards. Macedonia has had a
MAP since 1999, and NATO has committed to offering it membership as
soon as it resolves its dispute with Greece over its constitutional
name.[Footnote 18] NATO has offered the other two countries a MAP only
within the last year. NATO's Foreign Ministers offered Montenegro a
MAP in December 2009. In April 2010, the NATO Foreign Ministers voted
to offer Bosnia-Herzegovina a MAP; however, the Foreign Ministers
decided that Bosnia-Herzegovina can only fully participate in MAP once
it takes the necessary steps to transfer ownership of various
immovable military assets (such as bases) from its two entity
governments to the central government.[Footnote 19]
Most current PfP countries have not indicated an interest in joining
NATO, or, in the case of the five Central Asian PfP countries, are not
eligible for NATO membership because of their geographic location
outside of Europe.[Footnote 20] According to NATO, U.S., and PfP
country officials, these countries participate in the PfP for a
variety of reasons including the opportunity for dialogue with NATO on
security issues, the ability to access NATO training and technical
assistance to support reform efforts and build interoperability with
NATO, the opportunity to contribute to NATO operations, and the desire
to counter external pressures from other countries.
NATO Has Created a Range of Partnership Mechanisms in which PfP
Countries Can Participate Based upon Their Differing Needs:
Since our report in 2001, NATO has created a variety of new
partnership mechanisms and modified existing mechanisms to allow PfP
countries to tailor their participation in the program based upon
their unique capacities and objectives. With nine PfP countries having
joined NATO since 2001, leaving fewer countries aspiring to
membership, these mechanisms enable current PfP countries to structure
their cooperation with NATO in ways other than the MAP process. The 22
countries currently in the PfP differ significantly in terms of
geographic location, military capabilities, political systems, and
economic development, ranging from developed Western European
democracies, such as Switzerland, to developing, authoritarian states
in Central Asia, such as Turkmenistan. These mechanisms allow this
diverse group of PfP countries the flexibility to shape their
participation in the PfP based upon their unique needs (see table 1).
Three of the mechanisms in table 1, the Individual Partnership
Programme, the Planning and Review Process, and the Operational
Capabilities Concept focus primarily on PfP countries' defense and
military goals. The three other mechanisms in figure 3, the Individual
Partnership Action Plan, the Annual National Programme, and the MAP,
also allow PfP countries to establish defense and military goals.
However, these mechanisms are broader in scope with countries also
identifying political, legal, economic, security, and other goals they
would like to work with NATO to achieve.
Table 1: Partner Countries' Participation in Key PfP Mechanisms:
Balkans:
Partner country: Bosnia-Herzegovina;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Check].
Partner country: Macedonia;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Check].
Partner country: Montenegro;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Check].
Partner country: Serbia;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Caucasus:
Partner country: Armenia;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Azerbaijan;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Georgia;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Eastern Europe:
Partner country: Belarus;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Moldova;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Russia;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Empty];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Ukraine;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Western Europe:
Partner country: Austria;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Finland;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Ireland;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Malta;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Empty];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Sweden;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Switzerland;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Central Asia:
Partner country: Kazakhstan;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Check];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Kyrgyz Republic;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Tajikistan;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Empty];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Turkmenistan;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Empty];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Uzbekistan;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: [Check];
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: [Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme:
[Empty];
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan:
[Empty].
Partner country: Total;
Defense and military goals: Individual Partnership Programme: 22;
Defense and military goals: Planning and Review Process: 18;
Defense and military goals: Operational Capabilities Concept: 13;
Defense, military, and additional goals: Individual Partnership Action
Plan: 5;
Defense, military, and additional goals: Annual National Programme: 4;
Defense, military, and additional goals: Membership Action Plan: 3.
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of NATO data.
* Individual Partnership Programme. Since NATO established the PfP
program in 1994, all participating countries prepare, at a minimum,
Individual Partnership Programme documents. Individual Partnership
Programmes identify each country's national policy for participating
in the PfP, the forces and assets they are willing to make available
for PfP activities, and the areas in which they would like to pursue
cooperation with NATO. In developing Individual Partnership
Programmes, countries select partnership activities and events in
which they would like to participate. To improve this process, NATO
developed the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Work Plan (EAPWP) in 2004. The
EAPWP, which is developed for a 2-year period, lists activities and
events offered by NATO, as well as by individual NATO members and
other PfP countries. In the 2010-2011 EAPWP, there are over 1,200
activities sorted into 34 areas of cooperation (for more details about
these areas of cooperation, see appendix IV).
* Planning and Review Process. NATO established the Planning and
Review Process in 1994, and modeled it on NATO's own force planning
system. The Planning and Review Process allows PfP countries to work
more closely with NATO to enhance their interoperability with NATO
forces and strengthen their defense institutions. The 18 countries
participating in the Planning and Review Process work with NATO to
assess their defense capabilities, identify potential contributions to
NATO exercises and operations, and select specific goals for
developing their defense capabilities and building interoperability
(see appendix V for further information on partnership goals
participating countries have selected through the Planning and Review
Process). NATO has made modifications to the Planning and Review
Process over time. For instance, in 2004, NATO modified the Planning
and Review Process' goals to further support defense reform, defense
institution building, and the fight against terrorism.
* Operational Capabilities Concept. In 2004, NATO introduced the
current version of the Operational Capabilities Concept to assist PfP
countries in improving their ability to work effectively with NATO
forces during military operations. Thirteen countries participate in
the Operational Capabilities Concept. Through this process, countries
identify specific military units that they want to develop to NATO
standards. NATO then evaluates and certifies these units as ready to
participate in NATO operations.
* Individual Partnership Action Plan. NATO created the Individual
Partnership Action Plan mechanism in 2002 to allow PfP countries to
develop deeper and more individualized cooperation with NATO than the
Individual Partnership Programme, without having to commit to pursuing
NATO membership. The Individual Partnership Action Plan process is a 2-
year cycle in which participating partners identify specific goals for
cooperation with NATO related to political, economic, and other
reforms in addition to their defense and military goals. As part of
the Individual Partnership Action Plan process, NATO also conducts
assessments of the progress participating partners are making toward
meeting these goals. Of the five countries currently with Individual
Partnership Action Plans, only Bosnia-Herzegovina aspires to become a
NATO member.
* Annual National Programme and MAP. Annual National Programmes are
associated with countries aspiring to become NATO members. The Annual
National Programme process is similar to that for the Individual
Partnership Action Plan and they address similar types of issues;
however, Annual National Programmes are updated every year and NATO
expects participating countries to establish more ambitious reform
objectives that will bring their institutions in line with NATO
standards. Additionally, NATO assesses participating countries'
progress in achieving reform objectives annually instead of biennially
and places greater scrutiny on the extent and pace of progress. In the
past, only countries in the MAP process completed Annual National
Programmes. However, in 2008, NATO offered Georgia and Ukraine Annual
National Programmes, but not MAPs, to acknowledge their membership
aspirations, reward them for the progress they had already
demonstrated in undertaking reforms, and encourage them to set goals
and undertake additional reforms consistent with NATO standards.
[Footnote 21] When NATO's Foreign Ministers voted to offer Bosnia-
Herzegovina a MAP in April 2010, they decided that NATO would not
accept Bosnia-Herzegovina's first Annual National Programme until it
had taken the necessary steps to transfer ownership of its immovable
military assets from its two entity governments to the central
government.[Footnote 22]
NATO Has Placed an Increased Emphasis on Obtaining Support from PfP
Countries for Its Operation in Afghanistan:
The growing size and significance of the NATO operation in Afghanistan
has increased both NATO's emphasis on developing PfP countries'
capabilities for participating in NATO military operations and the
strategic importance of the Caucasus and Central Asian PfP countries
to NATO, given their proximity to Afghanistan. In recent years, NATO
has made the operation in Afghanistan its top priority and ISAF has
grown from 5,000 to approximately 120,000 troops since NATO assumed
command of the force in August 2003. Consequently, NATO has placed an
increased emphasis on obtaining support from PfP countries for this
operation. This focus has been highlighted in NATO summit statements.
For instance, at their 2004 Istanbul Summit, NATO Heads of State
declared their intention to provide partners with increased
opportunities to enhance their contributions to NATO-led operations,
and to help transform their defenses in keeping with NATO's own
evolving operational roles and capabilities. At their 2008 Bucharest
Summit, NATO Heads of State affirmed the high value they place on
partners' contributions to NATO operations and stated they would
continue to strive to increase interoperability between NATO and
partner forces. The importance of PfP countries to NATO's efforts in
Afghanistan has also been emphasized by various NATO and NATO member
country officials. For instance, during a 2010 speech on NATO's
partnerships, the U.S. Ambassador to NATO stated that partner
assistance to NATO's operation in Afghanistan is the best example of
what partnerships can accomplish.
As shown in figure 3, a range of PfP countries have contributed troops
for ISAF. NATO reports that 11 PfP countries had almost 2,000 troops
deployed in Afghanistan, as of August 2010. None of the Central Asian
countries, or Russia, Belarus, Moldova, and Malta contribute troops to
ISAF. Eight additional NATO partner countries that are not in the PfP
program also contribute troops to ISAF, including Australia, which
contributes approximately 1,450 troops.
Figure 3: Countries' Troop Contributions to NATO's Operation in
Afghanistan (ISAF) as of August 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: list; 2 horizontal bar graphs; 1 pie-chart]
Troop contributions: NATO member countries:
United States: 78,430;
United Kingdom: 9,500;
Germany: 4,590;
France: 3,750;
Italy: 3,400;
Canada: 2,830;
Poland: 2,630;
Romania: 1,750;
Turkey: 1,740;
Spain: 1,555;
Denmark: 730;
Belgium: 575;
Bulgaria: 540;
Czech Republic: 500;
Norway: 500;
Netherlands: 380;
Hungary: 360;
Slovakia: 300;
Albania: 295;
Croatia: 295;
Portugal: 250;
Lithuania: 245;
Latvia: 170;
Estonia: 160;
Greece: 75;
Slovenia: 70;
Luxembourg: 9.
Iceland: 5.
Troop contributions: PIP Countries:
Georgia: 925;
Sweden: 530;
Macedonia: 240;
Azerbaijan: 90;
Finland: 80;
Armenia: 40;
Montenegro: 30;
Ukraine: 15;
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 10;
Ireland: 6;
Austria: 3.
Troop contributions: Other Countries:
Australia: 1,455;
Republic of Korea: 270;
New Zealand: 205;
Mongolia: 195;
Malaysia: 40;
Singapore: 30;
United Arab Emirates: 15;
Jordan: 6.
Total troop contributions to ISAF: 119,819:
NATO member countries: 115,634 (96.51%);
PIP countries: 1,969 (1.64%);
Other countries: 2,216 (1.85%).
Source: GAO analysis of NATO data; www.CIA.gov (flag).
Note: These numbers are approximates and, according to NATO, change on
a regular basis.
[End of figure]
Some PfP countries that do not provide troop contributions to NATO
operations offer other types of support, such as overflight access,
land access, or basing rights. Four of the five Central Asian PfP
countries provide logistic and/or host nation support to ISAF. For
instance, in May 2009, Uzbekistan signed an agreement with NATO that
allowed for the rail transit of nonmilitary goods through its
territory to Afghanistan to support NATO operations. Turkmenistan is
the only Central Asian country that has not provided such support. In
addition to contributing troops to ISAF, two Caucasus countries,
Georgia and Azerbaijan, also provide logistic support, including
allowing overflight rights and the rail transit of nonmilitary goods.
NATO and U.S. officials with whom we met stated that this type of
assistance from the Caucasus and Central Asian PfP countries is
critical to NATO's execution of the war in Afghanistan. Additionally,
NATO has noted that the relationships developed through the PfP have
laid the basis for many of these agreements.
In addition to ISAF, NATO has looked to partners to provide troop
contributions to KFOR. As figure 4 shows, six PfP countries
contributed troops to NATO's operation in Kosovo, as of February 2010.
These six countries include five Western European partners and
Ukraine. Morocco, an MD partner, also contributed 213 troops to KFOR,
as of February 2010.
Figure 4: Countries' Troop Contributions to NATO's Operation in Kosovo
(KFOR) as of February 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: list; 2 horizontal bar graphs; 1 pie-chart]
Troop contributions: NATO member countries:
Germany: 1,507;
United States: 1,480;
Italy: 1,409;
France: 807;
Turkey: 465;
Slovenia: 387;
Greece: 366;
Czech Republic: 321;
Portugal: 279;
Hungary: 241;
Poland: 227;
Denmark: 188;
Slovakia: 146;
Romania: 145;
Belgium: 99;
Luxembourg: 29;
Croatia: 20;
Bulgaria: 10;
Netherlands: 10;
Norway: 6;
Canada: 5;
United Kingdom: 5;
Spain: 3;
Albania: 2;
Estonia: 1.
Troop contributions: PIP Countries:
Austria: 434;
Sweden: 253;
Finland: 242;
Ireland: 187;
Switzerland: 206;
Ukraine: 187.
Troop contributions: Other Countries:
Morocco: 213.
Total troop contributions to NATO‘s Operation in Kosovo (KFOR): 9,925
(as of February 2010):
NATO member countries: 8,158 (82.2%);
PIP countries: 1,554 (15.7%);
Other countries: 213 (2.1%).
Source: GAO analysis of NATO data; www.CIA.gov (flag).
Note: These numbers are approximates and, according to NATO, change on
a regular basis.
[End of figure]
NATO has noted that partners' contributions to ISAF and KFOR have
helped ease the burden on its members from conducting multiple
operations.
NATO Has Utilized the PfP to Increase Stability in the Balkans as NATO
Forces Have Drawn Down:
A fourth key way the PfP has evolved since our previous report on the
PfP centers on NATO's efforts in the Balkans.[Footnote 23] As figure 5
shows, NATO has established several peacekeeping missions in the
Balkans since the mid-1990s. However, as NATO has taken steps to wind
down its peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans, it has increasingly used
the PfP to build cooperative relationships with countries in the
region, marking a shift in its role in stabilizing that part of
Europe. NATO has relied on the promise of these cooperative
relationships and eventual NATO membership to encourage reforms in the
Balkan countries designed to reduce the risk of future violence.
Figure 5: Timeline of Key NATO Events in the Balkans:
[Refer to PDF for image: timeline]
NATO Military and Peacekeeping Operations:
April 1992: Civil war begins in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
August 1995: NATO begins airstrikes in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
December 1995: Dayton Peace Agreement is signed ending the conflict in
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
December 1995: NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR) is deployed in
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
December 1996: IFOR transitions to the NATO-led Stabilization Force
(SFOR).
March 1999: NATO launches air campaign in Kosovo.
June 1999: NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) is deployed.
August 2001: NATO launches the first of three peacekeeping operations
in Macedonia.
March 2003: NATO‘s last peacekeeping operation in Macedonia ends.
December 2004: SFOR concludes and the European Union assumes
peacekeeping responsibilities in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
NATO Cooperative Efforts with the Balkans Countries:
February 1994: Albania joins the PfP.
November 1995: Macedonia joins the PfP.
April 1999: Albania and Macedonia are offered MAPs.
May 2000: Croatia joins the PfP.
May 2002: Croatia offered a MAP.
December 2006: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia join the PfP.
April 2009: Albania and Croatia join NATO.
December 2009: Montenegro offered a MAP.
April 2010: Bosnia-Herzegovina offered a MAP conditional on the
resolution of certain issues.
Source: GAO presentation of NATO data.
[End of figure]
Since our report in 2001, NATO has continued to invite additional
countries in the Balkans to participate in the PfP. As of 2010, NATO
has invited all the Balkan countries to participate in the PfP, with
the exception of the newly independent Kosovo.[Footnote 24] Before
inviting Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Serbia to join the PfP in
2006, NATO placed various requirements on the three countries. For
instance, NATO required the countries to cooperate fully with the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Additionally, NATO required that Bosnia-Herzegovina eliminate its two
entities' parallel defense structures and develop a unified command
and control structure.
Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina have progressed in their membership
aspirations since joining the PfP in 2006. Montenegro joined the MAP
process in December 2009 and NATO invited Bosnia-Herzegovina to do so
in April 2010; however, it must resolve the issue of transferring its
immovable defense property, such as military bases, to state control
before it can fully participate. The two countries have also
cooperated with NATO on various reforms. For instance, a
representative from Montenegro's delegation to NATO noted that his
country has worked closely with NATO to complete a Strategic Defense
Review and has made significant progress in tailoring the size and
composition of its military to its actual needs. A representative from
Bosnia-Herzegovina's delegation to NATO stated that his country has
made strides in ensuring civilian control over the military through
Bosnia-Herzegovina's participation in the PfP. A NATO official based
in Sarajevo also noted that Bosnia-Herzegovina has almost completed
the process of unifying its military under state control. While Serbia
has not engaged with NATO to the same extent as Bosnia-Herzegovina or
Montenegro, it has also taken steps to further its participation in
the PfP. For instance, it joined the Planning and Review Process in
2007. Additionally, NATO and Serbia created a Serbia-NATO Defense
Reform Group in 2006 to support Serbia's efforts to reform and
modernize its military.
Two Balkan countries--Albania and Croatia--became NATO members in
April 2009. A year earlier at NATO's Bucharest summit, the heads of
state from NATO countries noted that the two countries had
demonstrated their commitment to the promotion of collective security
among the NATO countries and had embraced NATO's shared values. The
President's Report to Congress on the Future of NATO Enlargement in
2009 highlighted the role the PfP had played in preparing the two
countries to assume the responsibilities of membership. For instance,
the report noted that the PfP had assisted the two countries in making
significant progress in reforming their militaries and developing
forces that were interoperable with NATO. In addition, NATO has
determined that Macedonia has also successfully met the requirements
for membership and will be admitted into NATO once it has resolved its
dispute with Greece over its name.
NATO Is Considering Ways to Strengthen Its Partnerships as Part of the
Development of Its New Strategic Concept:
NATO's new Strategic Concept is expected to highlight the importance
of the PfP and other NATO partnerships and discuss ways to strengthen
these partnerships further. Specifically, NATO is debating how to (1)
strengthen its partnerships with countries outside of the PfP, (2)
enhance routine and crisis consultations with PfP countries on
security issues, (3) more effectively engage with PfP countries, such
as those in Central Asia, that are not seeking membership, and (4)
balance PfP countries' aspirations for membership with Russian
concerns about NATO expansion.
NATO Is Considering How to Strengthen Partnerships with Countries
outside the PfP:
NATO's new Strategic Concept[Footnote 25] is expected to highlight the
importance of the PfP and NATO's other partnerships, given the
widespread acknowledgment among NATO members that partnerships are
critical to NATO's ability to address many of the security challenges
it faces, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.[Footnote 26] The Group of Experts' May 2010 report to
NATO's Secretary General highlighted the importance of partnerships,
citing the strengthening of partnerships as one of NATO's four core
tasks for the next 10 years.[Footnote 27] As figure 6 shows, NATO's
partnerships extend beyond the PfP and include countries from around
the world that fall into various partnership groupings including the
MD, the ICI, and Partners across the Globe.
Figure 6: Map of Countries Participating in NATO's Partnership
Programs:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated world map]
Mediterranean Dialogue countries:
Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia.
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative countries:
Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates.
Partnership for Peace countries:
Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Finland,
Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Malta,
Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
Partners Across the Globe countries:
Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, and New Zealand.
NATO Member countries:
Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States.
Source: GAO presentation of NATO data.
[End of figure]
Some NATO members, including the United States, have advocated for
NATO to pursue a more global partnership agenda. According to a U.S.
mission to NATO official, the United States had previously proposed
eliminating the distinctions between NATO's various partnership
programs and creating one consolidated, global partnership program.
Some NATO stakeholders have argued that NATO is an organization facing
global security threats and that by strengthening partnerships with
key countries around the world, it will allow NATO to better draw upon
these partnerships as such threats arise. However, some NATO members,
such as France and Germany, have been reluctant to make these
partnerships a key focus for NATO, believing that it pushes NATO away
from its traditional focus on Europe. These NATO members believe that
NATO should continue to place the PfP above its other partnership
efforts, given the PfP countries' geographic proximity to NATO
territory. Various NATO stakeholders have also raised concerns that if
NATO increases its engagement with partners outside of the PfP it will
result in declining NATO resources for PfP countries, given NATO's
expected budget shortfalls in upcoming years.
As the scope of NATO's partnerships is debated, NATO is also
considering steps to work more effectively with its partners in the MD
and the ICI. The Group of Experts noted in its report that the
accomplishments of the MD and ICI programs have been relatively modest
to date. Accordingly, various NATO stakeholders have recommended that
NATO focus its efforts on areas of mutual concern such as
nonproliferation, terrorism, missile defense, and Iran. To this end,
the Group of Experts recommends that NATO develop a statement of
shared interests with the two partnerships to further cooperation in
such areas. Additionally, NATO's Allied Command Transformation
recommends that NATO should seek to review and reenergize its
relationships with partners in the two programs in order to increase
the scope and frequency of both its formal and informal engagements
with these partners. One option NATO is considering is to increase MD
and ICI countries' access to partnership mechanisms that are currently
only available to PfP countries. For example, these countries do not
have access to all of the activities in the EAPWP. They are also not
entitled to participate in the Planning and Review Process or develop
Individual Partnership Action Plans.
Unlike the MD and ICI, NATO has not developed a formal partnership
structure for cooperation and dialogue with its Partners across the
Globe; however, it is assessing ways to deepen its partnership with
these countries. Several of these partners are key contributors to
NATO's operation in Afghanistan. For example, Australia has
contributed more troops than many NATO members. Japan, while not
contributing troops, has funded billions of dollars in reconstruction
projects. Both NATO's Allied Command Transformation and the Group of
Experts have recommended that NATO provide mechanisms to enable global
partners to have a meaningful role in shaping strategy and decisions
on missions to which they contribute. U.S. officials with whom we
spoke noted that these countries are not seeking formalized
partnerships with NATO, but are seeking such mechanisms to allow for
better coordination with NATO on joint efforts.
NATO Is Seeking to Strengthen Routine and Crisis Consultations with
PfP Countries:
NATO stakeholders have cited the need for NATO to strengthen its
existing commitments to PfP countries to hold consultations with those
countries facing security threats. The PfP Framework Document states
that, "NATO will consult with any active participant in the
Partnership if that Partner perceives a direct threat to its
territorial integrity, political independence, or security."[Footnote
28] Some NATO stakeholders view NATO's failure to hold such
consultations with Georgia during the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war
as evidence that NATO's current commitments to hold consultations with
PfP countries in such situations are insufficient. In recognition of
such concerns, the Group of Experts recommended that NATO strengthen
crisis consultations, as provided for in the PfP Framework Document.
However, a U.S. official with whom we spoke noted that some NATO
members are reluctant to strengthen such commitments due to concerns
that it may involve NATO in conflicts that are not in NATO's best
interests or create unrealistic expectations among PfP countries
regarding potential NATO assistance.
Revitalizing existing NATO-PfP councils may also be needed to improve
ongoing dialogue between NATO and the PfP countries. The Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council (EAPC) is the forum in which all NATO members and
PfP countries come together to discuss relevant political and security
issues. NATO and the PfP countries are currently considering various
proposals to make the EAPC more dynamic and relevant, including
linking the agenda more closely with that of the North Atlantic
Council and focusing more on practical issues, such as energy
security, where there is opportunity for mutual cooperation. Some NATO
stakeholders with whom we met noted that the diversity of countries in
the PfP has made substantive and frank discussion at the EAPC
challenging, because some PfP countries are reluctant to discuss their
security concerns, given other countries that attend. Additionally,
stakeholders noted that because the EAPC is not a decision-making
body, its meetings seldom result in specific outcomes.
Some NATO stakeholders have also cited the need for NATO to revitalize
its commitment to conduct routine and crisis consultations with the
priority countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia through existing
bilateral councils or commissions. For instance, NATO leaders noted at
their 2009 summit that the NATO-Russia Council has not always been
adequately utilized and recommended that NATO use the Council to focus
on areas where there are opportunities for cooperation, such as
nonproliferation, arms control, and counterterrorism. The Group of
Experts recommended that NATO regularly make use of the NATO-Ukraine
and NATO-Georgia Commissions to discuss mutual security concerns and
foster practical cooperation in areas such as defense reform. Other
NATO stakeholders have called for NATO to ensure that it honors its
commitments to Ukraine and Georgia to, through the two commissions,
provide the countries with additional assistance in implementing
political and defense reforms.
NATO Is Seeking More Effective Engagement with PfP Countries Not
Aspiring to NATO Membership:
NATO is also considering how it might increase the effectiveness of
its efforts to encourage reforms in PfP countries that are not
aspiring to NATO membership. In particular, NATO has cited Central
Asia, which has no PfP countries aspiring to membership, as a key area
of focus for the PfP since 2004; however, it has struggled to
effectively engage with the five countries in the region. For
instance, only one of the five countries in the region, Kazakhstan,
has elected to develop an Individual Partnership Action Plan. NATO has
identified various challenges in engaging these partners, including
their reluctance to have their defense ministries scrutinized, their
limited financial resources and personnel available for participation
in NATO activities, their close relationship with Russia, and their
distance from Europe.
To enhance engagement with Central Asian countries, NATO is seeking
better coordination among members' bilateral assistance programs. One
initiative centers on NATO's clearinghouse mechanisms. These
clearinghouses are designed to bring together PfP country
representatives and security cooperation officials from NATO
countries. Through the clearinghouses, partners can discuss their
needs and then NATO members are able to volunteer to provide
assistance to meet those needs. NATO has already established such
clearinghouses for some PfP countries, such as those in the Caucasus,
and is considering establishing one for Central Asia. A NATO official
noted that NATO should do a better job of leveraging the types of
assistance that individual members can provide that NATO itself
cannot, such as the provision of equipment. As an example, the
official noted that a Central Asian country has requested radar
equipment to support border security requirements. The official noted
that if a NATO member would commit to providing this equipment, NATO
could use this as an opportunity to encourage the country to take
certain actions, including providing additional support for its
operation in Afghanistan. As part of its strategy, NATO intends to
place a liaison officer in Central Asia to assist in the coordination
of NATO members' bilateral assistance and to increase communication
between NATO and Central Asian government officials.
NATO Is Debating How to Support PfP Countries' Membership Aspirations,
while Not Escalating Tensions with Russia:
Various NATO stakeholders have stated that NATO needs to maintain a
credible "Open Door Policy" that supports the aspirations of those PfP
countries that are seeking NATO membership. Some NATO members and PfP
countries have expressed concern that NATO has allowed Russia undue
influence in enlargement decisions, particularly for Georgia. In
February 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that
NATO membership should be a process between the country and NATO, with
no outside party being able to adversely influence the outcome. In
addition, the Group of Experts report emphasized the need for a strong
Open Door policy stating that NATO should ensure consistency with
Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty and its principles for
enlargement by allowing states interested in joining NATO to move
forward as they fulfill their requirements for membership. Certain
NATO members have advocated for a slower approach to the prospective
membership of some PfP countries to avoid antagonizing Russia. At
NATO's January 2010 Strategic Concept seminar, some participants
stated that Russian concerns about enlargement should be taken into
account. Additionally, some stakeholders have noted that, while NATO
should reaffirm its commitment to maintain an open door policy, a slow
path to membership for Georgia, would help ease tensions with Russia
and provide greater possibilities for NATO-Russia cooperation.
Although Eligible Countries and the Focus of the WIF Program Have
Changed, DOD Has Not Evaluated the Program since 2001:
As a result of the changing composition of countries in the PfP
program, total WIF funding dropped significantly in 2006, and the
majority of funds are no longer distributed to countries aspiring to
join NATO. DOD also established the DIB program in 2006 as a key focus
of the WIF program; however, this relatively new program has faced
challenges with its implementation. DOD last formally evaluated the
WIF program in 2001 before key changes to both the WIF and PfP
programs were implemented.
Amount and Distribution of WIF Funding Reflect Changing Composition of
Countries in PfP Program:
Since 1999, 12 PfP countries have become NATO members. As a result,
fewer PfP countries remain eligible for WIF funding.[Footnote 29] In
2001, when we last reported on the WIF program, 21 countries were
eligible for WIF funding; in 2010, 16 are eligible.[Footnote 30]
According to DOD officials, the decline in the number of WIF-eligible
countries contributed to the decreases in WIF budgets. From fiscal
years 1996 through 2005, total annual WIF funding averaged about $43
million. From fiscal years 2006 through 2010, annual WIF funding has
averaged about $29 million.[Footnote 31]
The distribution of WIF funding among eligible PfP countries also has
changed since the initial years of the program. In our 2001 report on
the WIF program, we found that WIF funding was primarily targeted to
countries aspiring to become members of NATO.[Footnote 32] From 1994
through 2000, about 70 percent of WIF funding was distributed to 12
aspiring countries, according to the 2001 report. With the exception
of Macedonia, these countries became NATO members and lost WIF
funding. As of September 2010, only four countries aspire to join
NATO. As a result, as table 2 shows, the fiscal year 2010 WIF budget
only distributes about 20 percent of its funding to aspiring
countries.[Footnote 33]
Table 2: WIF Funding for Countries Seeking NATO Membership, Fiscal
Year 2010:
Country: Macedonia;
Fiscal year 2010 budget: $1,810,821;
Percentage of total: 5%.
Country: Montenegro;
Fiscal year 2010 budget: $1,467,736;
Percentage of total: 4%.
Country: Bosnia-Herzegovina;
Fiscal year 2010 budget: $1,566,996;
Percentage of total: 4%.
Country: Georgia;
Fiscal year 2010 budget: $2,509,101;
Percentage of total: 7%.
Country: Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2010 budget: $7,354,654;
Percentage of total: 21%.
Country: Total WIF budget;
Fiscal year 2010 budget: $34,876,878.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Note: The total of $34,876,878 reflects the sum of approved activities
in the fiscal year 2010 WIF budget. This amount exceeds the total
fiscal year 2010 WIF budget of $29,789,000 to allow program
implementers flexibility to reprogram funding when events are
canceled. The breakout of funding by country was only available for
the approved activities.
[End of table]
In addition, a significant share of the fiscal year 2010 WIF budget--
about 35 percent--was devoted to supporting the participation of
eligible PfP countries in bilateral or multilateral military
exercises.[Footnote 34] WIF funding was budgeted to support the
participation of PfP countries in a number of exercises in fiscal year
2010 ranging from 10 for Georgia to 2 for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
DOD views these exercises, which are sponsored by the United States,
NATO, or other countries, as a key means of building participating
countries' military capability and interoperability with U.S. and NATO
forces. According to DOD officials, WIF provides a key source of
funding to enable PfP developing countries to participate in these
exercises.
According to DOD officials, exercises are occasionally canceled due to
political factors in host countries. In fiscal year 2009, four
exercises were canceled, according to DOD. For example, a U.S.-
sponsored multilateral exercise, known as Sea Breeze, hosted by
Ukraine was canceled in 2009 when the Ukrainian Parliament failed to
authorize foreign troops to enter the country to participate.[Footnote
35] Consequently, the actual number of exercises WIF supports and
amount of WIF funding devoted to exercises are likely to be lower than
the budget reflects.
DIB Program is Key Focus of WIF Program, but Has Faced Implementation
Challenges:
DOD established the DIB program in 2006 as a key focus of the WIF
program. The DIB program, which received about 20 percent of the
fiscal year 2010 WIF budget, is designed to help eligible PfP
countries develop accountable, professional, and transparent defense
establishments. The DIB program is also intended to complement NATO's
Partnership Action Plan on Defense Institution Building, which NATO
established with similar objectives in 2004.
Approved activities in the fiscal year 2010 budget for the DIB program
included assisting with strategic defense reviews; developing defense
planning, budgeting, and resource management systems; developing
professional military education programs; improving human resource
management systems; and preparing countries to contribute to
peacekeeping operations.[Footnote 36] In its initial years, the DIB
program conducted surveys of PfP countries' defense institutions and
developed "roadmaps" to outline key steps the countries needed to take
to achieve required reforms. According to DOD, the program has
surveyed 11 PfP countries.
The DIB program has faced a variety of challenges in its first few
years, which have contributed to frequent cancellations of DIB-
sponsored activities. In fiscal year 2009, the DIB program executed
only about $650,000 in originally approved activities in its $6.4
million budget.[Footnote 37] We also found that the DIB program did
not execute any of its five originally approved activities in the
fiscal year 2010 budget for Georgia and only one of seven for Bosnia-
Herzegovina. DOD officials attributed the lack of execution to the
existence of similar assistance provided through FMF-funded contracts
in some countries and limited interest in DIB program activities in
others.
First, DOD officials told us that Bosnia-Herzegovina and Georgia were
already receiving similar assistance funded through the FMF program.
For example, the DIB program included activities in its fiscal year
2010 budget to help Bosnia-Herzegovina implement its strategic defense
review and create a human resource management system. However, FMF-
funded advisors were already embedded in Bosnia-Herzegovina's Ministry
of Defense and Joint Staff assisting with these efforts. In Georgia,
both FMF and DIB funding were directed to help Georgia with its
"defense transformation," according to DOD documents. FMF funding
provided $3.8 million in fiscal year 2009 and $2.5 million in fiscal
year 2010 for a contract that provides advice and assistance to
Georgia's Ministry of Defense and Air Force for defense sector
transformation, according to DOD. This included the building of
institutions and systems, the development of doctrine and curricula,
the conduct of a National Security Review, and the training of
Ministry of Defense and Air Force personnel to improve professionalism
and NATO interoperability. At the same time, the DIB program included
$750,000 for defense transformation in its fiscal year 2010 budget for
Georgia. According to a DOD official, the DIB program did not
implement this assistance, primarily because of Georgia's preference
to work through the FMF-funded advisors, who were available to provide
full-time assistance, rather than intermittent guidance visits offered
through the DIB program.
Second, DOD officials noted that some PfP countries have been
unwilling to participate in the DIB program's surveys of their defense
institutions or have lost interest in participating in follow-up
activities after the surveys were completed. For example, according to
a DOD official at the U.S. post in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina's
Ministry of Defense and Joint Staff were not receptive to findings
from a DIB assessment, which contributed to their decision to pursue
reforms through FMF-funded advisors instead. DOD officials also noted
that the PfP countries from Central Asia resist outside assessments of
their defense institutions or undertaking reforms to increase
transparency and accountability of these institutions. As shown in
figure 7, the fiscal year 2010 WIF budget indicates that the DIB
program planned limited assistance for Central Asian countries
compared to countries in other regions.
Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2010 WIF Budget Allocated to the DIB Program, by
Country and Region:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart and list]
Programs:
Multiple/other: 6%;
Central Asia: 6%;
Eastern Europe: 18%;
Caucasus: 31%;
Balkans: 39%.
Region: Balkans;
3,050,000.
Country: Bosnia-Herzegovina;
DIB Funding: $1,150,000.
Country: Montenegro;
DIB Funding: $800,000.
Country: Serbia;
DIB Funding: $800,000.
Country: Macedonia;
DIB Funding: $300,000.
Region: Caucasus;
DIB Funding: $2,429,596.
Country: Armenia;
DIB Funding: $950,000.
Country: Georgia;
DIB Funding: $929,596.
Country: Azerbaijan;
DIB Funding: $550,000.
Region: Eastern Europe;
DIB Funding: $1,380,000.
Country: Ukraine;
DIB Funding: $1,030,000.
Country: Moldova;
DIB Funding: $350,000.
Region: Central Asia;
DIB Funding: $439,400.
Country: Kazakhstan;
DIB Funding: $105,000.
Country: Kyrgyz Republic;
DIB Funding: $84,400.
Country: Tajikistan;
DIB Funding: $0.
Country: Uzbekistan;
DIB Funding: $0.
Country: Turkmenistan;
DIB Funding: $0.
Region: Central Asia Multiple;
DIB Funding: $250,000.
Region: Multiple/Other;
DIB Funding: $500,000.
Total;
DIB Funding: $7,798,996.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
DOD officials noted that the DIB program is still relatively new,
although it was first developed in 2006. The Office of the Secretary
of Defense only recently transferred management responsibility for the
DIB program to the Center for Civil-Military Relations at the Naval
Postgraduate School in canceled, California. The Center established a
management team in January 2010 and intends to develop a plan for
evaluating the DIB program, according to an official there.
DOD Last Evaluated the WIF Program in 2001:
Two DOD-commissioned assessments of the WIF program were completed in
2000 and 2001.[Footnote 38] These assessments sought to analyze the
objectives, activities, and accomplishments of Warsaw Initiative
programs and identify the lessons learned from program implementation
and results. The assessments found that the majority of WIF activities
were successful in enhancing the ability of recipient countries'
militaries to contribute to NATO operations and to operate with NATO
forces. The assessments also found that the WIF program should do a
better job of taking into account the recipient countries' capacities
to absorb or apply the assistance provided. According to DOD
officials, no formal evaluations specifically of the WIF program have
taken place since these two assessments were conducted in 2000 and
2001.[Footnote 39] Federal standards for internal controls indicate
that U.S. agencies should monitor and assess the quality of
performance over time.[Footnote 40] Moreover, GAO's Internal Control
Tool states that separate evaluations are often prompted by events
such as major changes in management plans or strategies.[Footnote 41]
In commenting on our draft of this report, DOD noted that the
Department has conducted periodic reviews of the WIF program and as a
result, the program has evolved over time to keep pace with changes in
NATO.
WIF program managers conduct midyear budget reviews and program
management reviews each year. The budget review is designed primarily
to assess the execution of WIF funds for the first half of the year
and determine if any funds should be reallocated; however, the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) did not have data readily available
on how funds were reprogrammed when events were canceled. According to
DOD officials, the program management review is a forum for program
managers and stakeholders to discuss ways the program can be improved
and any lessons learned. Program implementers also prepare after
action reports on individual events supported by WIF funding that
include evaluations of results, according to DSCA officials. In
addition, DOD officials also noted that while the department does not
assess results of the WIF program specifically, it monitors progress
countries make in achieving broader U.S security cooperation goals,
which are supported by a variety of programs and funding streams,
including WIF.
Conclusion:
The WIF program provides a key source of DOD funding to support
eligible countries' participation in NATO's PfP program. NATO's new
Strategic Concept, due at the end of 2010, will likely lead to further
changes to the PfP program and other partnerships that could have
implications for the WIF program. For example, DOD may need to
reconsider how it defines eligibility for WIF funding to complement
efforts by NATO to increase the level of cooperation activities with
partner countries outside of the PfP program. DOD's current policy is
that WIF funding is only available to NATO partner countries in the
PfP program. While DOD officials noted that they have undertaken
efforts to periodically review and adapt the WIF program to changes in
the PfP program, the last formal evaluation of the WIF program took
place in 2001. This was before the focus of the PfP and WIF programs
changed in response to the changing composition of participating
countries and the critical need for partner contributions to the NATO-
led war in Afghanistan. In addition, the challenges DOD has faced in
implementing the WIF-funded DIB program, including potential
duplication of other U.S.-funded assistance, heighten the need to
assess whether the WIF program is effectively supporting PfP
countries' goals for cooperation with NATO and NATO's efforts to
deepen its relationships with partner countries.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that, following the establishment of NATO's new Strategic
Concept, which could result in changes to NATO's PfP program, the
Secretary of Defense conduct an evaluation of the U.S. WIF program to
ensure that it effectively supports the goals of NATO's PfP program.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Defense and
State for their review and comment. DOD provided oral comments stating
that the Department concurs with our recommendation. In commenting on
our draft, DOD noted that the Department has conducted periodic
reviews of the WIF program and, as a result, the program has evolved
over time to keep pace with changes in NATO. DOD and State also
provided technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as
appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretaries of Defense and State and other interested
congressional committees. In addition, this report will be available
at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Joseph A. Christoff:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) describe how the Partnership for Peace
(PfP) program has evolved since GAO last reported on it; (2) describe
options the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is considering
for the future of the PfP and other partnership programs under the new
Strategic Concept; and (3) analyze support to PfP countries through
the U.S. Warsaw Initiative Fund (WIF) program. To address these
objectives, we analyzed NATO, Department of Defense (DOD), and
Department of State (State) documents; academic literature related to
PfP and WIF programs; and WIF funding data for fiscal years 2006
through 2010. We met with DOD and State officials in Washington, D.C.,
and the U.S. Mission to NATO in Brussels, Belgium. We also met with
NATO officials at both NATO Headquarters in Brussels and at Supreme
Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Mons, Belgium, as well as with
representatives from five PfP countries and one NATO member country.
In addition, we conducted phone interviews with geographic U.S.
combatant command officials who have PfP countries in their areas of
responsibility--European Command (EUCOM) in Stuttgart, Germany, and
Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida. We also reviewed relevant
GAO and Congressional Research Service reports to obtain additional
background information on NATO, the PfP, and NATO and the United
States' security cooperation relationships with PfP countries.
In addition, we selected three countries--Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia,
and Kazakhstan--to examine NATO's bilateral relationship with PfP
partners and U.S. support through the WIF program in greater depth. We
sought to pick countries that differed, among other things, in terms
of their geographic location, level of participation in the PfP,
interest in NATO membership, and contributions to NATO operations. We
met with State and DOD officials at the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi,
Georgia; Government of Georgia officials; and NATO officials based in
Tbilisi. We also conducted telephone interviews with U.S. officials in
Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina; and Astana, Kazakhstan; and with an
official from NATO Headquarters, Sarajevo. This sample of three
countries is not intended to be representative of all countries
participating in the PfP program or receiving WIF funding.
To describe how the PfP program has evolved since 2001 when GAO last
reported on it, we reviewed a variety of relevant NATO documents that
provided information on the PfP and analyzed how it has evolved over
time. These documents included background materials that NATO has
produced on the PfP generally and on specific PfP mechanisms. We also
reviewed materials NATO has produced describing NATO enlargement since
the PfP was created in 1994 and materials describing the
organization's cooperative efforts with specific PfP countries.
Additionally, we assessed the results of NATO reviews of the PfP
conducted in 2002 and 2004 and reviewed NATO summit statements from
1999 through 2009 to identify decisions NATO leaders have made about
the PfP. We also reviewed NATO guidance on the PfP, such as NATO's
Handbook, the 2009 Euro-Atlantic Partnership Work Plan (EAPWP)
Overarching Guidance, and the 2009 Planning and Review Process (PARP)
Ministerial Guidance. In order to assess PfP countries' level of
engagement with NATO and their use of key mechanisms, we also reviewed
examples of Individual Partnership Action Plans, Annual National
Programmes, and PARP documents. We also reviewed corresponding
assessments for these documents that describe NATO's findings about
partners' progress in achieving these goals. To identify troop
contributions to NATO's operations in Afghanistan and Kosovo, we
analyzed publicly available NATO data that provided approximate
figures of troop contributions by participating countries. We found
these data to be sufficiently reliable for presenting the extent to
which countries are contributing troops to these operations. To gather
further information on how the PfP has changed since 2001, we also
assessed findings in State's annual reports to Congress on PfP
developments for years 2007 through 2009. We also used information
gathered in our interviews with U.S., NATO, and PfP country officials
to further identify ways that the PfP program has changed since 2001.
To describe options NATO is considering for the future of the PfP and
other partnership programs under the new Strategic Concept, we
reviewed and synthesized findings from several NATO analyses,
conducted in 2009 and 2010, including the Group of Experts' final
report, NATO's Multiple Futures Project Final Report, NATO Allied
Command Transformation's report, "Building the Alliance's New
Strategic Concept," and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly's
recommendations regarding the new Strategic Concept. We also reviewed
summary reports from two NATO conferences held in 2010 discussing the
future of NATO's partnership efforts. Additionally, we reviewed
proposals by some PfP countries regarding how the Strategic Concept
should address the issue of partnerships. To gain further information
on considerations about NATO's Strategic Concept and options for
NATO's partnerships, we reviewed academic articles, Congressional
testimonies by NATO experts, speeches by key U.S. and NATO officials,
and interviewed U.S., NATO, and PfP country officials during our visit
to NATO Headquarters.
To analyze support to PfP countries through the U.S. WIF program, we
discussed WIF-funded activities and program monitoring with DOD
officials at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (DSCA), EUCOM, and CENTCOM. We also discussed the
WIF program with security assistance officers at U.S. embassies in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, and Kazakhstan.[Footnote 42] In addition,
we discussed the WIF program with an official from the Center for
Civil-Military Relations at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey,
California, which is responsible for managing the WIF-funded Defense
Institution Building (DIB) program. We also reviewed DSCA guidance on
the WIF program, and annual budget submissions and memos. In addition,
to assess the extent of DOD's past evaluations of the WIF program, we
reviewed the findings of two independent assessments of the WIF
program completed in 2000 and 2001, a July 2005 audit of the WIF
program by the DOD Inspector General, and our July 2001 report on the
NATO PfP and WIF programs.[Footnote 43]
To present information on WIF funding priorities and the distribution
of funding among eligible countries, we analyzed WIF summary budget
data for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 from DSCA. According to DOD,
no reliable data showing the distribution of WIF budgets among
eligible countries were available before fiscal year 2006. We also
analyzed all approved activities in the fiscal year 2010 WIF budget to
determine how WIF funding was distributed among eligible PfP countries
and by type of activity. We focused on fiscal year 2010 budget data
because, for fiscal years 2006 through 2009, DOD grouped a significant
share of the WIF budget into a multiple country category. For example,
in fiscal year 2009, the WIF budget allocated about $11 million out of
a total of about $30 million in WIF funding to the multiple country
category. The fiscal year 2010 WIF budget attributed more of the
funding to specific countries and allocated only about $2 million to
the multiple country category. Consequently, country breakouts in the
fiscal year 2010 budget are more meaningful than in previous years. We
also analyzed data on canceled activities approved in the WIF budgets
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 from DSCA and corroborated this
information through interviews or emails with officials from DSCA;
combatant commands; and the U.S. posts in Bosnia, Georgia, and
Kazakhstan.
To assess the reliability of DOD's WIF budget data, we interviewed
DSCA officials about the data and reviewed all the approved activities
in the WIF budgets for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. We also discussed
WIF funding with security assistance officers at U.S. posts in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Georgia, and Kazakhstan to help verify the accuracy of
DSCA budget data in these countries. We found the WIF budget data used
in this report to be sufficiently reliable to present the distribution
of the fiscal year 2010 WIF budget among eligible countries and
specific types of activities, such as support for PfP countries'
participation in military exercises and the DIB program.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 to September
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Description of DOD Components Responsible for Executing
the WIF Program:
Within DOD, multiple components implement the WIF program. The Office
of the Secretary of Defense is responsible for the development,
coordination, and oversight of policy and other activities related to
the WIF program. DSCA manages the program and provides the funding to
different implementing components that are responsible for executing
the program. Table 3 describes these implementing components. The
portion of WIF funding that supports PfP countries' participation in
military exercises comes from WIF budget allocations to the relevant
combatant commands. The combatant commands also use some of their WIF
funding for military contact programs.
Table 3: Descriptions of and Funding for WIF Implementing Components,
Fiscal Year 2010:
Implementing component: CENTCOM;
Description: CENTCOM is one of six geographic combatant commands.
CENTCOM, which is based in Tampa, Florida, is responsible for U.S.
military relations with most of the countries in the Middle East,
Central Asia, and Egypt;
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $7,998,605.
Implementing component: EUCOM;
Description: EUCOM is a geographic combatant command. EUCOM, which is
headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, is responsible for U.S. military
relations with NATO and countries in Europe, as well as Israel;
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $8,546,440.
Implementing component: U.S. Joint Forces Command;
Description: U.S. Joint Forces Command, which is located in Norfolk,
Virginia, provides mission-ready joint forces to the combatant
commanders in support of current operations. The command also focuses
on military transformation and assisting combatant commanders with
executing their regional security cooperation programs;
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $2,728,531.
Implementing component: DIB Program;
Description: DIB is intended to help PfP countries develop
accountable, professional, and transparent defense establishments. The
program is managed by the Center for Civil-Military Relations at the
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California;
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $7,798,996.
Implementing component: Civil Military Emergency Preparedness Program;
Description: The Civil Military Emergency Preparedness Program is led
by the U.S. Army under the direction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to encourage civil-military and multinational cooperation
with PfP countries to plan for protecting populations and reducing the
consequences in the event of major disasters from any cause, including
terrorism;
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $1,954,256.
Implementing component: George C. Marshall Center;
Description: The George C. Marshall Center was established in Garmisch-
Partenkirchen, Germany, in 1993. It is a jointly U.S.-and German-
funded international security and defense studies institute that
promotes dialogue and understanding among the nations of North
America, Europe, Eurasia, and beyond. It holds a variety of defense
related conferences in which PfP countries participate with the
support of WIF funding;
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $1,321,050.
Implementing component: PfP Information Management System;
Description: The PfP Information Management System provides
communications and information systems capabilities that facilitate
PfP countries' cooperation with NATO and the United States;
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $1,500,000.
Implementing component: Regional Airspace Initiative;
Description: The Regional Airspace Initiative is designed to develop
PfP countries' airspace management systems to be fully compatible and
interoperable with European civilian airspace organizations and NATO;
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $479,000.
Implementing component: Management and Oversight;
Description: [Empty];
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $2,550,000.
Total:
Fiscal year 2010 WIF budget allocation: $34,876,878.
Source: GAO presentation of State and DOD data.
Note: Total funding of $34,876,878 allocated to implementing
components exceeds the fiscal year 2010 WIF budget of $29,789,000 to
allow program implementers flexibility to reprogram funding when WIF-
supported activities are canceled.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Other U.S. Security Cooperation Programs Supporting WIF
and PfP Goals:
Table 4 describes U.S. security cooperation programs that provide
assistance related to the goals of the WIF program and NATO's PfP
program. The relevant geographic combatant commands (COCOM) and
security assistance officers based at U.S. posts in recipient
countries play a key role in ensuring that the WIF program complements
the other available sources of funding in support of U.S. security
cooperation goals.[Footnote 44]
Table 4: Descriptions of U.S. Security Cooperation Programs that
Provide Assistance Related to WIF and NATO PfP Programs:
Cooperation program: Foreign Military Financing (FMF);
Description: FMF provides grants and loans to foreign governments and
international organizations for the acquisition of U.S. defense
equipment, services, and training. FMF assists the militaries of
friendly countries to promote bilateral, regional, and multilateral
coalition efforts; improve military capabilities to contribute to
international crisis response operations, including peacekeeping and
humanitarian crises; contribute to the professionalism of military
forces; enhance interoperability of military forces; maintain support
for democratically elected governments; and support the U.S.
industrial base by promoting the export of U.S. defense-related goods
and services.
Cooperation program: International Military Education and Training
(IMET);
Description: IMET provides training to military and related civilian
personnel. IMET training exposes foreign students to U.S. military
organizations and procedures and the manner in which military
organizations function under civilian control. IMET aims to strengthen
democratic and civilian control of foreign militaries, improve their
understanding of U.S. military doctrine and operational procedures,
and enhance interoperability. IMET facilitates the development of
professional and personal relationships, which aim to provide U.S.
access to foreign governments.
Cooperation program: Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR);
Description: CTR is intended to prevent the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and related materials, technologies, and expertise
from former Soviet Union states. While the initial focus of the CTR
program was on the most pressing nuclear proliferation threats,
program funding has also been directed toward improving the physical
protection, safety, and security of facilities that housed dangerous
bio-agents. Activities include: familiarization visits, conferences,
and seminars.
Cooperation program: Traditional Combatant Commander Activities (TCA);
Description: TCA provides funds to combatant commands to conduct
military-to-military contacts and comparable activities with allied
and friendly countries designed to encourage a democratic orientation
of defense establishments and military forces. Some functions include
traveling contact teams, military liaison teams, exchanges of military
and civilian personnel, seminars, and conferences within the COCOM
area of responsibility.
Cooperation program: Section 1206;
Description: Section 1206 authorizes DOD to use its own funds to train
and equip partner nations' national military and maritime forces to
conduct counterterrorism operations or to participate in or support
military or stability operations in which the U.S. armed forces
participate. This program is also known as the Global Train and Equip
Program.
Source: DOD and State.
[End of table]
Figure 8 shows the level of funding of these programs and the WIF
program to eligible PfP countries in fiscal year 2009.
Figure 8: Funding for PfP Countries from WIF and Related Security
Cooperation Programs, Fiscal Year 2009: Dollars in thousands:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
PfP Country: Armenia;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $1,177,000;
International Military Education and Training: $357,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $244,700;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: 0.0
Foreign Military Financing: $3,000,000.
PfP Country: Azerbaijan;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $978,000;
International Military Education and Training: $989,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $142,600;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: 0.0
Foreign Military Financing: $3000,000.
PfP Country: Belarus;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: 0.0;
International Military Education and Training: 0.0;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: 0.0;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: 0.0;
Foreign Military Financing: 0.0.
PfP Country: Bosnia Herzegovina;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $787,000;
International Military Education and Training: $939,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: 0.0;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $390,000;
Foreign Military Financing: $3,600,000.
PfP Country: Georgia;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $141,000;
International Military Education and Training: $1,426,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $83,000;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: 0.0;
Foreign Military Financing: $11,500,000.
PfP Country: Kazakhstan;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $2,040,000;
International Military Education and Training: $858,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $1,464,200,000;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $15,000;
Foreign Military Financing: $4,500,000.
PfP Country: Kyrgyz Republic;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $971,000;
International Military Education and Training: $872,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $776,200;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $15,000;
Foreign Military Financing: $800,000.
PfP Country: Macedonia;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $380,000;
International Military Education and Training: $620,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: 0.0;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $193,700;
Foreign Military Financing: $2,800,000.
PfP Country: Moldova;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $202,000;
International Military Education and Training: $674,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $254,100;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: 0.0;
Foreign Military Financing: $500,000.
PfP Country: Montenegro;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $600,000;
International Military Education and Training: $148,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: 0.0;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $157,900;
Foreign Military Financing: $800,000.
PfP Country: Russia;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $240,000;
International Military Education and Training: 0.0;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: 0.0;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: 0.0;
Foreign Military Financing: 0.0.
PfP Country: Serbia;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $1,090,000;
International Military Education and Training: $887,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: 0.0;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $297,500;
Foreign Military Financing: $800,000.
PfP Country: Tajikstan;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $417,000;
International Military Education and Training: $269,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $704,900;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $15,000;
Foreign Military Financing: $740,000;
PfP Country: Turkmenistan;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $417,000;
International Military Education and Training: $269,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $225,100;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $15,000;
Foreign Military Financing: $150,000.
PfP Country: Ukraine;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $2,191,000;
International Military Education and Training: $1,813,000;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $413,200;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $22,500;
Foreign Military Financing: $7,000,000.
PfP Country: Uzbekistan;
Warsaw Initiative Fund: $615,000;
International Military Education and Training: 0.0;
Cooperative Threat Reduction: $507,200;
Traditional Combatant Commander Activities: $15,000;
Foreign Military Financing: 0.0.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD and State data.
Notes:
1) In addition to these programs, Kyrgyz Republic received $9,572,000
in Section 1206 funding in fiscal year 2009.
2) Over $11 million of the WIF budget in fiscal year 2009 was
classified to a multiple country category, which reduced the WIF funds
attributed to individual countries.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: NATO Areas of Cooperation:
PfP countries are able to select partnership activities and events in
which they would like to participate from the EAPWP. The EAPWP lists
activities and events offered by NATO, as well as by individual NATO
members and other PfP countries. It is revised every 2 years. In the
2010-2011 EAPWP, there are over 1,200 activities sorted into 34 areas
of cooperation. PfP countries determine the areas of cooperation on
which they wish to focus and select relevant activities in each area.
Table 5 lists these areas of cooperation.
Table 5: Areas of Cooperation in the 2010-2011 EAPWP:
Arms Control, Disarmament and Nonproliferation.
Air Defense.
Armaments Cooperation, including planning, organization, and
management of defense procurement.
Airspace Management and Control.
Border Security and Control.
Consultation, Command and Control, including Communications and
Information Systems, Navigation and Identification Systems, Spectrum
Management, interoperability aspects, procedures, and terminology.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense.
Cyber Defense.
Civil Emergency Planning and Disaster Preparedness.
Crisis Management.
Combating Trafficking in Human Beings.
Democratic Control of Forces and Defense Structures.
Defense Economic Issues.
Deployability and Mobility.
Defense Planning, Budgeting, and Resource Management.
Defense Policy and Strategy.
Planning, Organization, and Management of National Defense Research
and Technology.
Effective Engagement.
Foreign Policy and Security.
Gender Perspectives, Peace and Security, including the implementation
of UNSCR 1325, UNSCR 1820, and related UN Security Council Resolutions.
Humanitarian Mine Action and Related Explosive Remnants of War
Activities.
Effective Intelligence.
Language Training.
Law of Armed Conflict.
Logistics and Logistics Sustainability.
Medical Services.
Public Diplomacy.
Protective Security Systems and Inspections.
Response to Terrorism.
Survivability and Force Protection.
Small Arms and Light Weapons.
Science for Peace and Security.
Operational, Materiel, and Administrative Aspects of Standardization.
Timely Force Availability.
Source: NATO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: PfP Countries' PARP Partnership Goals:
Eighteen PfP countries participate in PARP. Russia, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, and Malta are the only four PfP countries that do not
currently participate in the PARP process. PARP is modeled on NATO's
own force planning system and allows interested PfP countries to work
more closely with NATO to develop the interoperability of their forces
and strengthen their defense institutions. Countries participating in
PARP work with NATO to assess their defense capabilities, identify
potential contributions to NATO exercises and operations, and select
specific partnership goals for developing their defense capabilities
and building interoperability. There are over 150 partnership goals
that partners can choose from. There are general goals related to
defense-wide issues, such as defense planning and budgeting, as well
as goals specific to countries' land, maritime, and air forces. Table
6 shows the 14 partnership goals most commonly selected by partners in
2008.
Table 6: PfP Countries' Most Frequently Selected Partnership Goals in
2008:
Partnership goal: Land Operations and Training;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 18.
Partnership goal: Language Requirements;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 17.
Partnership goal: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
Weapons Protection;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 17.
Partnership goal: Combat Unit Contribution;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 17.
Partnership goal: Medical Support;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 16.
Partnership goal: Strategic Movement of National Forces;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 15.
Partnership goal: Mine Detection, Mine Clearing, and Explosive
Ordinance Disposal Capabilities;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 15.
Partnership goal: Combined Joint Task Force Headquarters Augmentation;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 14.
Partnership goal: Logistics Liaison Personnel;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 14.
Partnership goal: National Support for Deployed Forces;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 14.
Partnership goal: Air Operations and Training;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 14.
Partnership goal: Combat Identification Devices and Combat
Identification Training;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 13.
Partnership goal: Message System Upgrade;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 12.
Partnership goal: Combat Support Contribution;
Number of PfP countries selecting the goal: 11.
Source: GAO analysis of NATO data.
[End of table]
The 18 countries selected an average of 37 partnership goals in 2008.
Ukraine selected the most goals with 96, while Kyrgyz Republic
selected the least with 15. The types of goals selected by countries
varied. For instance, Western European partners' goals for
participation in the PfP program focused primarily on improving
military capabilities and interoperability with NATO. The European
Union (EU) and NATO have committed to adhere to common standards in
the development of their armed forces, so PfP countries that are also
EU members are fulfilling EU requirements by developing
interoperability with NATO. The Western European PfP countries already
have developed civilian-run defense institutions and, therefore, do
not generally pursue goals related to those issues. Countries from the
Balkans and the former Soviet Union selected goals related to
improving their military capabilities and interoperability with NATO
as well. However, many of these countries also identified additional
objectives related to defense institution building, including goals
focusing on civilian control of the military, defense budgeting and
planning, and effective personnel and resource management.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Joseph Christoff (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Key contributors to this report include Judith McCloskey, Assistant
Director; Ashley Alley; Debbie Chung; Howard Cott; David Dayton; David
Dornisch; Etana Finkler; and Ryan Vaughan.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, NATO: U.S. Assistance to the Partnership for Peace,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-734] (Washington, D.C.:
July 20, 2001).
[2] In April 2010, the NATO Foreign Ministers voted to offer Bosnia-
Herzegovina a MAP; however, the Foreign Ministers decided that Bosnia-
Herzegovina must resolve certain issues regarding its immovable
defense property before it can fully participate in MAP.
[3] Three Caucasus countries participate in the PfP: Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Five Central Asian countries participate in
the PfP: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and
Uzbekistan.
[4] For the purposes of this report, the Balkans region is defined as
Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro,
and Serbia. "Macedonia" is an unofficial name for the state recognized
by the U.S. government as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia."
In 1995, NATO established its first peace operation in the Balkans,
the Implementation Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was later
renamed the Stabilization Force. NATO ended the Stabilization Force
operation in 2004. In 1999, after an air campaign against Serbia and
Montenegro, NATO established a second peace operation in the region,
the Kosovo Force, which continues operations at a reduced level.
[5] In addition to the PfP, NATO created the MD and ICI partnership
programs to establish cooperative relationships with countries in
North Africa and the Middle East.
[6] NATO refers to countries such as Australia and Japan as "Partners
across the Globe." NATO maintains cooperative relationships with such
countries outside of a formal partnership program.
[7] The 28 NATO members are Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey,
United Kingdom, and the United States.
[8] While members must unanimously agree to any new country's
accession, the treaty contains no explicit criteria that a country
must meet in order to join the alliance. Article 10 does not permit
additional countries located outside of Europe to join NATO.
[9] 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.
[10] The 22 countries currently in the PfP program are Armenia,
Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia,
Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova,
Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
[11] The PfP Framework Document, which provides the formal basis for
the PfP, establishes these objectives. All countries seeking to join
the PfP are required to sign the Framework Document. In doing so,
countries make several commitments including working to preserve
democratic societies and maintain the principles of international law.
[12] The MD countries are Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania,
Morocco, and Tunisia.
[13] Four of the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries have joined
the ICI--Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The
other two countries, Saudi Arabia and Oman, have shown an interest in
the ICI, according to NATO, but have yet to join.
[14] Partners across the Globe countries are Australia, Japan,
Republic of Korea, and New Zealand. NATO has also referred to these
countries as "Contact Countries."
[15] The UN Security Council Resolution 1386 of December 20, 2001,
provided for the creation of ISAF and its deployment to Kabul and
surrounding areas.
[16] Malta originally joined the PfP in 1995, but then suspended its
participation in 1996. It rejoined the PfP in 2008.
[17] Current Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has reversed his
predecessor's policy of pursuing NATO membership for Ukraine.
Subsequent to his election in February 2010, he signed legislation
declaring Ukraine a "non-bloc" state and specifying that Ukraine is
not pursuing membership in NATO.
[18] "Macedonia" is an unofficial name for the state recognized by the
U.S. government as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia."
Macedonia has claimed the right to use and be recognized by its
constitutional name, "the Republic of Macedonia." However, Greece,
whose largest province borders the former Yugoslav republic and is
also called "Macedonia," has raised objections, claiming that the name
usurps Greece's heritage and implies aspirations to Greek territory.
Greece has blocked approval of Macedonia's NATO membership pending the
resolution of the issue.
[19] Under the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement, which ended the 3-year
war, Bosnia-Herzegovina continued as a sovereign state within its
internationally recognized borders and consisted of two semiautonomous
"entities:" the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republika
Srpska.
[20] Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty limits NATO expansion to
European states.
[21] Georgia and Ukraine requested MAPs at NATO's 2008 summit, but
NATO declined to grant either country a MAP given disagreement among
members about whether the countries were ready and given concerns that
it would escalate tensions with Russia. However, NATO stated its
intention to offer the two countries membership at some point in the
future. Subsequently, Ukraine has chosen to no longer pursue NATO
membership.
[22] Once Bosnia-Herzegovina's Annual National Programme is accepted,
the Annual National Programme will supersede its Individual
Partnership Action Plan and it will no longer be considered as
participating in this mechanism.
[23] For the purposes of this report, the Balkans region is defined as
Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro,
and Serbia.
[24] Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia on February 17,
2008. The next day, the United States formally recognized Kosovo as an
independent and sovereign state. Several other NATO members have also
recognized Kosovo's independence; however, others such as Greece,
Romania, Slovakia, and Spain have not.
[25] NATO leaders called for the development of a new Strategic
Concept at their April 2009 summit in Strasbourg, France; and Kehl,
Germany; to replace the previous Strategic Concept completed in 1999.
This new Strategic Concept will lay out NATO's vision regarding its
future mission and activities. The new Strategic Concept is scheduled
to be approved at NATO's November 2010 summit in Lisbon, Portugal.
[26] According to U.S. officials, the new Strategic Concept is
expected to be a relatively short document. While the Strategic
Concept is expected to highlight the importance of the PfP and NATO's
other partnerships, it will not likely prescribe specific partnership
reforms. Rather, U.S. officials expect that NATO will develop
supporting plans that will provide more details on how it intends to
implement specific elements of the Strategic Concept.
[27] As part of the process to develop the new Strategic Concept, NATO
leaders directed NATO's Secretary General to convene a group of
qualified experts to provide analysis and recommendations to assist
him in drafting a new Strategic Concept. This 12-member "Group of
Experts," chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright, held a series of seminars, consultations, and meetings with
civilian and military officials from NATO member and partner country
governments, as well as other NATO stakeholders. The Group then
produced a report outlining its findings and recommendations. See:
NATO, NATO 2020: Assured Security; Dynamic Engagement--Analysis and
Recommendations of the Group of Experts on a New Strategic Concept for
NATO (Brussels, Belgium, May 17, 2010).
[28] NATO's commitment to consult with PfP countries if they face
security threats is contained in Paragraph 8 of the PfP Framework
Document.
[29] As a matter of DOD policy, as defined in its annual budget
submission to Congress, a country's participation in NATO's PfP
program is required for eligibility to receive WIF funding, according
to DOD officials. Consequently, countries lose their eligibility for
WIF funding when they become NATO members and, therefore, are no
longer part of the PfP program. In addition, countries participating
in other NATO partnership programs, such as the MD, are ineligible for
WIF funding.
[30] WIF funding may only be provided to PfP countries classified as
developing. DOD's guidance for the WIF program states that program
managers should use World Bank lists of developing countries to
determine eligibility. Of the 22 countries currently in the PfP
program, all are developing countries except Austria, Finland,
Ireland, Malta, Sweden, and Switzerland. Of the 16 developing
countries eligible for WIF funding, the fiscal year 2010 WIF budget
did not allocate any funding to Belarus or Russia for policy reasons.
[31] According to a DOD official, the drop in WIF funding also
reflected a shift in priorities in programming defense-wide Operations
and Maintenance funds.
[32] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-734].
[33] According to DOD, no reliable data showing the distribution of
WIF budgets among eligible countries were available before fiscal year
2006. For fiscal years 2006 to 2009, DOD grouped a significant share
of the WIF budget into a multiple country category. The fiscal year
2010 budget attributed more of the funding to specific countries
rather than group a large share of the funding to a multiple country
category. For example, in fiscal year 2009, WIF funding for the
multilateral exercise, Combined Endeavor, was budgeted for about
$900,000, all of which was attributed to the multiple country
category. In fiscal year 2010, a similar level of WIF funding for
Combined Endeavor was distributed in the budget among nine countries.
[34] WIF generally does not pay for U.S. or non-PfP country expenses.
U.S. Government or DOD representatives' expenses may be funded
according to law and current policy guidance when their expertise is
critical to the execution of the event.
[35] According to DOD, the Ukraine Parliament has since passed the
necessary legislation and Ukraine is scheduled to host the 2011 Sea
Breeze exercise.
[36] Preparation for peacekeeping operations included promulgating
standards of conduct and NATO-compatible rules of engagement for
peacekeeping units, and establishing a line item for peacekeeping
operations in the contributing country's budget.
[37] Ultimately, the DIB program reprogrammed most of its fiscal year
2009 funding for other activities, which were scheduled "out of
cycle," and executed between 60 and 65 percent of its fiscal year 2009
budget, according to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
[38] DFI International, Assessing the Practical Impact of the Warsaw
Initiative (Washington, D.C., Feb. 2001); and Developing the Warsaw
Initiative and Minimizing Risks in the Russia Relationship
(Washington, D.C., Sept. 2000).
[39] The DOD Office of Inspector General conducted an audit of the WIF
program in 2005 which focused primarily on compliance with statutory
funding requirements and restrictions, rather than an evaluation of
program priorities, and outcomes or impacts. See Inspector General of
the Department of Defense, Joint Warfighting and Readiness: DOD
Execution of the Warsaw Initiative Program, D-2005-085 (Arlington,
Va., July 1, 2005).
[40] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).
[41] GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1008G] (Washington, D.C.: August
2001).
[42] DOD and State use the term, "security assistance officer," to
refer to personnel in all organizations, regardless of actual name or
size, located within overseas U.S. missions and assigned
responsibility for carrying out security assistance functions.
[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-734].
[44] The PfP countries are located within the areas of responsibility
of either EUCOM or CENTCOM.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
