Section 1206 Security Assistance Program--Findings on Criteria, Coordination, and Implementation
Gao ID: GAO-07-416R February 28, 2007Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006 established a new program that gives the Department of Defense (DOD) the authority to spend up to $200 million of its own appropriations to train and equip foreign militaries to undertake counterterrorism or stability operations. Department of State (State) and DOD officials have cited the importance of this program in building capacity among partner nations to help fight the global war on terror. Moreover, they believe that compared with traditional security assistance programs funded by State, Section 1206 assistance will provide greater flexibility to respond quickly to emerging threats and opportunities. However, some believe that such a program should be funded in the foreign affairs budget, which is administered by State, to ensure that the Secretary of State has the authority to manage foreign policy decisions and bilateral relationships. To address Congress's questions about the new Section 1206 security assistance program, we examined (1) what criteria State and DOD use to select recipient countries and types of assistance, (2) how State and DOD coordinate the formulation and approval of Section 1206 programs, and (3) how State and DOD implement Section 1206 programs. As part of our audit work, we interviewed State and DOD headquarters officials involved in the Section 1206 program and officials involved in formulating fiscal year 2006 proposals at embassies and combatant commands. We also reviewed the program's authorizing legislation and State and DOD guidance.
State and DOD select Section 1206 projects based on criteria established in the authorizing legislation and departmental guidance to combatant commands and embassies. State and DOD reviewers stated that they examine all proposals to ensure that no country participates in a Section 1206 project if it is ineligible to receive security assistance under other U.S. laws. Reviewers also stated that they reject proposals involving assistance to units under the authority of the ministry of interior rather than the ministry of defense. State and DOD guidance requires embassies and combatant commands to explain how their proposals support U.S. national security objectives and address urgent or emerging threats or opportunities. Proposals also must explain whether other sources of funds are available and how the project will be sustained in future years. Additionally, in considering proposals involving their host country, the embassy country team and ambassador typically weigh such factors as compatibility of the proposed project with U.S. foreign policy goals and the partner country's willingness to participate in the project and ability to absorb the assistance. State and DOD have developed a coordinated process for jointly reviewing and selecting proposals for Section 1206 projects; however, coordination in formulating proposals did not occur consistently between combatant commands and embassy country teams. Once project proposals are received from combatant commands and embassies, several State and DOD offices or bureaus examine all proposals and then meet to jointly decide which ones they recommend for funding. A final list of projects is presented concurrently to the Secretaries of Defense and State for their approval. DOD fiscal year 2007 guidance to combatant commands specifies that programs must be developed jointly with embassy country teams and that ambassadors should have full knowledge of proposed projects from their inception. However, we found that for projects funded in fiscal year 2006 prior to the issuance of formal guidance, this coordination occurred in only 5 of 14 instances before proposals were submitted for joint DOD and State review. In 9 of the 14 instances, coordination efforts took place before the departments notified Congress about the proposals. Ultimately, no project would be implemented without the support of the ambassador, according to State and DOD officials. The combatant commands and embassies we contacted reported better coordination in the formulation of fiscal year 2007 proposals. They attributed this improvement to having more time to develop proposals and more explicit guidance from State and DOD. DOD's Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and security assistance officers at embassies implement Section 1206 assistance using the same processes established for other traditional State-funded security assistance programs. For example, for each equipment transfer to a partner country, DSCA establishes the terms and conditions of the transfer and provides fiscal oversight. At the embassy, the security assistance officer is the primary point of contact to ensure delivery to and proper use by the recipient country. According to embassy and combatant command officials we contacted, DOD and State meet the requirement to coordinate implementation of Section 1206 projects through embassy-based security assistance officers, who report to both their combatant commanders and ambassadors.
GAO-07-416R, Section 1206 Security Assistance Program--Findings on Criteria, Coordination, and Implementation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-416R
entitled 'Section 1206 Security Assistance Program--Findings on
Criteria, Coordination, and Implementation' which was released on March
5, 2007.
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.
February 28, 2007:
The Honorable Richard G. Lugar:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Foreign Relations:
United States Senate:
Subject: Section 1206 Security Assistance Program--Findings on
Criteria, Coordination, and Implementation:
Dear Senator Lugar:
Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006
established a new program that gives the Department of Defense (DOD)
the authority to spend up to $200 million of its own appropriations to
train and equip foreign militaries to undertake counterterrorism or
stability operations.[Footnote 1] Department of State (State) and DOD
officials have cited the importance of this program in building
capacity among partner nations to help fight the global war on terror.
Moreover, they believe that compared with traditional security
assistance programs funded by State, Section 1206 assistance will
provide greater flexibility to respond quickly to emerging threats and
opportunities. However, some believe that such a program should be
funded in the foreign affairs budget, which is administered by State,
to ensure that the Secretary of State has the authority to manage
foreign policy decisions and bilateral relationships.
To address your questions about the new Section 1206 security
assistance program, we examined (1) what criteria State and DOD use to
select recipient countries and types of assistance, (2) how State and
DOD coordinate the formulation and approval of Section 1206 programs,
and (3) how State and DOD implement Section 1206 programs. As part of
our audit work, we interviewed State and DOD headquarters officials
involved in the Section 1206 program and officials involved in
formulating fiscal year 2006 proposals at embassies and combatant
commands. We also reviewed the program's authorizing legislation and
State and DOD guidance. We briefed your staff on our findings on
December 14, 2006. See Enclosure I for a copy of the briefing slides,
which we have updated based on technical comments provided by DOD and
State.
Background:
Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006
authorizes DOD to provide equipment, supplies, or training to a foreign
country to build its capacity to (1) conduct counterterrorism
operations or (2) participate in or support stability operations in
which the U.S. military also participates.[Footnote 2] The law limits
the provision of assistance to a foreign country's national military
forces,[Footnote 3] which State and DOD have interpreted to mean units
under the ministry of defense, not interior. The law also states that
no country may receive Section 1206 assistance if it is prohibited from
receiving similar assistance under other laws.[Footnote 4] Further, the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, must
notify Congress no less than 15 days before initiating activities in
any country.[Footnote 5] Additionally, State and DOD must jointly
formulate all projects and coordinate their implementation.[Footnote 6]
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 increased the annual
funding authority from $200 million to $300 million and extended the
program for an additional year until the end of fiscal year
2008.[Footnote 7] It also delegated approval authority from the
President to the Secretary of Defense, with Secretary of State
concurrence.[Footnote 8] State and DOD officials interpret the term
"concurrence" to mean that the Secretary of State, along with the
Secretary of Defense, must approve all projects.
In fiscal year 2006--the first year of the Section 1206 program--DOD
and State approved a total of about $100 million for nine projects
involving 15 countries (see encl. II for a description of the projects
and a list of the participating countries).[Footnote 9] This assistance
was used primarily for equipment to improve the counterterrorism
capabilities of recipient countries. For some countries, Section 1206
assistance represented a significant dollar increase in fiscal year
2006 over U.S. security assistance provided through the traditional
State-funded programs.[Footnote 10] DOD's Defense Security Cooperation
Agency (DSCA) directs, administers, and supervises the execution of all
security assistance programs, including Section 1206 assistance.
Summary:
State and DOD select Section 1206 projects based on criteria
established in the authorizing legislation and departmental guidance to
combatant commands and embassies. State and DOD reviewers stated that
they examine all proposals to ensure that no country participates in a
Section 1206 project if it is ineligible to receive security assistance
under other U.S. laws. Reviewers also stated that they reject proposals
involving assistance to units under the authority of the ministry of
interior rather than the ministry of defense. State and DOD guidance
requires embassies and combatant commands to explain how their
proposals support U.S. national security objectives and address urgent
or emerging threats or opportunities. Proposals also must explain
whether other sources of funds are available and how the project will
be sustained in future years. Additionally, in considering proposals
involving their host country, the embassy country team and ambassador
typically weigh such factors as compatibility of the proposed project
with U.S. foreign policy goals and the partner country's willingness to
participate in the project and ability to absorb the assistance.
State and DOD have developed a coordinated process for jointly
reviewing and selecting proposals for Section 1206 projects; however,
coordination in formulating proposals did not occur consistently
between combatant commands and embassy country teams. Once project
proposals are received from combatant commands and embassies, several
State and DOD offices or bureaus examine all proposals and then meet to
jointly decide which ones they recommend for funding. A final list of
projects is presented concurrently to the Secretaries of Defense and
State for their approval. DOD fiscal year 2007 guidance to combatant
commands specifies that programs must be developed jointly with embassy
country teams and that ambassadors should have full knowledge of
proposed projects from their inception. However, we found that for
projects funded in fiscal year 2006 prior to the issuance of formal
guidance, this coordination occurred in only 5 of 14 instances before
proposals were submitted for joint DOD and State review.[Footnote 11]
In 9 of the 14 instances, coordination efforts took place before the
departments notified Congress about the proposals. Ultimately, no
project would be implemented without the support of the ambassador,
according to State and DOD officials. The combatant commands and
embassies we contacted reported better coordination in the formulation
of fiscal year 2007 proposals. They attributed this improvement to
having more time to develop proposals and more explicit guidance from
State and DOD.
DOD's DSCA and security assistance officers at embassies implement
Section 1206 assistance using the same processes established for other
traditional State-funded security assistance programs. For example, for
each equipment transfer to a partner country, DSCA establishes the
terms and conditions of the transfer and provides fiscal oversight. At
the embassy, the security assistance officer is the primary point of
contact to ensure delivery to and proper use by the recipient country.
According to embassy and combatant command officials we contacted, DOD
and State meet the requirement to coordinate implementation of Section
1206 projects through embassy-based security assistance officers, who
report to both their combatant commanders and ambassadors.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Defense and
State, both of which provided technical comments that we incorporated
as appropriate. In commenting on our draft, State and DOD agreed with
our finding that their efforts to jointly formulate Section 1206
proposals improved for fiscal year 2007. They also stated that they
expect continued improvement as they gain more experience with this
program.
Scope and Methodology:
To answer our three research questions, we examined the nine Section
1206 projects selected for funding in fiscal year 2006. (See encl. II
for a description of the projects and a list of the 15 participating
countries.) We interviewed officials from combatant commands and U.S.
embassies responsible for these projects and also interviewed State and
DOD officials that participated in the joint review and implementation
process. At DOD, we interviewed officials in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, and the Office of General Counsel. At the State Department, we
interviewed officials in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs,
regional bureaus, the Bureau of Legal Affairs, the Office of the
Director of Foreign Assistance (F Bureau), and the Office of the
Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT). Lastly, we reviewed the
National Defense Authorization Acts of 2006 and 2007 and consulted
State and DOD guidance for submitting Section 1206 proposals. Although
the Thailand project was canceled, we included it in our assessment of
coordination between the embassies and the combatant commands.
We conducted our review from September 2006 to February 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
-------------------------------------:
As agreed with your staff, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 5 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Secretaries of Defense and State and interested congressional
committees. We will also make copies available to others on request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning 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. Key contributors to this report include Muriel Forster,
Assistant Director; Lynn Cothern; Howard Cott; Martin De Alteriis; Drew
Lindsey; and Grace Lui.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Joseph A. Christoff:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
Enclosures:
[end of section]
Enclosure I: Briefing:
Section 1206 Security Assistance:
Briefing for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staff:
December 14, 2006:
Objectives and Methodology:
Objectives:
What criteria do State and DOD use to select recipient countries and
types of assistance?
How do State and DOD coordinate on formulation and approval of Section
1206 programs?
How do State and DOD implement Section 1206 programs?
Methodology:
Interviews with the 4 combatant commands (COCOMs) and 13 of the 15 U.S.
embassies involved in projects selected for FY06 funding:
Interviews with State and DOD officials involved in the joint review
and implementation process, including OSD, the Joint Staff, DSCA, OGC,
State PM and regional bureaus, State Legal Advisor (L), the Office of
the Director of Foreign Assistance (F), and the Office of the
Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT):
Review of State and DOD guidance for submitting proposals:
Summary of Findings:
Departments reported that decisions on proposals were based on criteria
in law and guidance:
State and DOD have a coordinated process for reviewing and approving
proposals:
Level of coordination between COCOMs and embassies to formulate
proposals varied in FY06 and appears to have improved in FY07:
FY07 guidance emphasizes coordination between COCOMs and embassies:
1206 programs will be implemented in the same manner as the Foreign
Military Financing (FMF) program:
Implementation will be coordinated through Security Assistance Officers
(SAOs) at embassies:
Background: Section 1206 of the FY06 National Defense Authorization
Act:
Equipment, supplies, or training may be provided to a foreign country's
national military forces to build capacity for counterterrorist
operations or military/stability operations in which the U.S. military
participates:
May not be used to provide assistance to any country otherwise
prohibited from receiving such assistance under other laws:
DOD and State jointly formulate and coordinate on implementation:
Congressional notification is required not less than 15 days before
initiating assistance in any country:
Background: Changes in the FY07 Authorization:
Approval authority delegated to Secretary of Defense, with concurrence
from Secretary of State:
Annual authorization increased from $200 million to $300 million:
Extended authority through FY08:
Source of funds broadened to DOD O & M (which includes all services' O
& M funds):
Background: Section 1206 FY06-Funded Programs:
Section 1206 Project: Pakistan: Improving Counterterrorism Strike
Capabilities;
Country: Pakistan;
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: September 2007;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $23,315,456;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $297,000,000.
Section 1206 Project: Yemen: Countering Cross-Border Terrorism
Activity;
Country: Yemen;
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: June 2008;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $4,291,374;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $8,415,000.
Section 1206 Project: Lebanon: Reducing Hezbollah's Operational Space;
Country: Lebanon;
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: June 2008;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $10,489,390;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $990,000.
Section 1206 Project: Gulf of Guinea: Countering Threats to U.S. Energy
Security;
Country: Nigeria Sao Rome and Principe;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: September 2007;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $6,800,000;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $990,000.
Section 1206 Project: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the
Region Against Terrorists;
Country: Morocco, Algeria, Senegal, Nigeria, Chad, Tunisia;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: March 2007;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $6,200,000;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $12,375,000(Morocco), $0 (Algeria),
$495,000(Senegal), $990,000(Nigeria), $0(Chad), $8,415,000(Tunisia).
Section 1206 Project: Indonesia: Securing Strategic Sea lanes;
Country: Indonesia;
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: August 2008;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $18,409,520;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $990,000.
Section 1206 Project: Sri Lanka: Reducing Ungoverned Maritime Spaces;
Country: Sr Lanka;
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: June 2007;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $10,883,283;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $990,000.
Section 1206 Project: Thailand: Securing Strategic Sea Lane [1];
Country: Thailand;
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: On hold;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $5,300,000;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $1,485,000.
Section 1206 Project: Caribbean Basin: Forward Defense of the U.S.
Homeland;
Country: Dominican Republic, Panama, Operation Enduring Friendship[2];
Combatant Command (COCOM): SOUTHCOM;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: June 2007;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $14,406,267;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $941,000(Dominican Republic),
$990,000(Panama), $3,960,000(Operation Enduring Friendship).
9 approved projects;
15 countries;
4 unified commands;
Expected Equipment Delivery Completion Date: N\A;
FY06 Section 1206 Funds Obligated: $100,095,290;
FY06 FMF Funding Estimates: $338,036,000.
Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD agency data:
[1] When the Thailand project was cancelled because of a coup, $5.3
million had already been contracted for equipment. According to DSCA,
the disposition of this equipment had not been determined as of 11/28/
06.
[2] The Caribbean Basin 1206 Project supports Operation Enduring
Friendship, which was first funded through FMF in FY06 and which
provides support to countries in Central America and the Caribbean to
combat transnational crime and terrorism.
[End of table]
Background: Timeline for Project Submission and Approval in FY07:
31 Jul; Tasking for proposal development.
15 Oct; COCOMs and embassies submit proposals to DOD and State.
13 & 20 Nov; Review Board meetings.
15 Feb; Sec Def approval with Sec State concurrence.
1 Mar; Begin oversight committee briefs; funding sources identified.
15 Mar; LOAs complete.
15 Apr; Congressional notification complete; contracting begins.
Selection Criteria: Legislation and State and DOD Guidance Provide
Criteria for Selecting Programs:
Proposals assessed on whether legal criteria are met and whether they
are executable by end of fiscal year:
Guidance interpreting the law states that assistance may only be for
forces under authority of the ministry of defense:
Proposals assessed for linkage with objectives in DOD Security
Cooperation Guidance and National Military Strategic Plan for War on
Terrorism:
Programs should address time-sensitive, emerging threats or
opportunities that cannot wait upon the normal budget process:
Proposals should explain how assistance would be sustained in future
years:
Selection Criteria: Section 1206 Proposals Also Considered for
Compatibility with other Assistance Projects and Foreign Policy Goals:
State Political-Military Affairs Bureau evaluates proposals in the
context of other security assistance programs provided to each country
(e.g., FMF, IMET):
As of FY07, State's Office of Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance
reviews proposals for compatibility with all other U.S. assistance in
each country:
State regional bureaus prioritize proposals for the countries within
their region and assess whether proposals are compatible with overall
foreign policy for those countries:
Ambassadors consider whether proposals would be supported by partner
countries and if proposals are consistent with embassies' strategic
goals:
DOD/State Coordination: FY06 Proposal Submission and Approval Process
Built in State and DOD Coordination:
[See PDF for image]
Source: DOD.
Note: For FY07, State included the Office of Director of U.S. Foreign
Assistance in the review process; presidential approval is no longer
required.
[End of figure]
Accountability * Integrity * Reliability:
DOD/State Coordination: State and DOD Developed a Coordinated Process
for Reviewing Proposals:
[See PDF for image]
Source: DOD:
[End of figure]
State and DOD staff review and prioritize all proposals regardless of
origin:
Senior State and DOD officials meet to approve vetted proposals to
present to the Secretaries of Defense and State:
78 proposals submitted for FY07 at a total cost of about $800 million:
DOD/State Coordination: Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies
Appears to Have Improved in FY07:
Country: Lebanon;
FY06 Projects: Reducing Hezbollah's Operational Space;
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Pakistan;
FY06 Projects: Improving Counterterrorism Strike Capabilities;
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Yemen;
FY06 Projects: Countering Cross-Border Terrorism Activity;
Combatant Command (COCOM): CENTCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Mixed.
Country: Algeria;
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the Region
Against Terrorists;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: No.
Country: Chad;
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the region
against terrorists;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Nigeria[1];
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the region
against terrorism;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Nigeria[2];
FY06 Projects: Countering Threats to U.S. Energy Security;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Sao Tome and Principe;
FY06 Projects: Countering Threats to U.S. Energy;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: yes.
Country: Senegal;
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the region
against terrorism;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM:
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Indonesia;
FY06 Projects: Securing Strategic Sea Lanes;
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Sri Lanka;
FY06 Projects: Reducing ungoverned maritime spaces;
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): Yes;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Thailand;
FY06 Projects: Securing Strategic Sea lanes;
Combatant Command (COCOM): PACOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): Embassy;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: No FY07 Proposal.
Country: Dominican Republic;
FY06 Projects: Caribbean Basin: Forward Defense of the U.S. Homeland;
Combatant Command (COCOM): SOUTHCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): No;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Panama;
FY06 Projects: Caribbean Basin: Forward Defense of the U.S. Homeland;
Combatant Command (COCOM): SOUTHCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Coordination Before Joint Review Process (FY06): No;
Coordination Before Notifying Congress (FY06): Yes;
Improved Coordination for FY07?: Yes.
Country: Morocco;
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the Region
Against Terrorists;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
Embassy contact was unable to identify staff familiar with Section 1206
project.
Country: Tunisia;
FY06 Projects: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the Region
Against Terrorists;
Combatant Command (COCOM): EUCOM;
Proposal Origin (FY06): COCOM;
No response from Embassy.
Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD agency data:
[End of table]
DOD/State Coordination: Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies
Appears to Have Improved in FY07:
CENTCOM:
Lebanon: The SAO at the embassy developed FY06 and FY07 proposals with
ambassador support before submission by CENTCOM or joint review.
Pakistan: The SAO at the embassy developed FY06 and FY07 proposals with
ambassador support before submission by CENTCOM. The embassy also
submitted the FY07 proposal through State Department channels.
Yemen: The SAO at the embassy developed the FY06 and FY07 proposals in
coordination with the embassy pol-econ officer. The ambassador
supported the proposals before CENTCOM submitted them for joint review.
--The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa in Djibouti developed a
regional FY07 proposal involving Yemen. The embassy was not aware of
this proposal until after submission by CENTCOM.
CENTCOM officials stated that, except for the regional proposal, SAOs
at the embassies developed all FY07 proposals, which would ensure
coordination with State since they are part of embassy country teams.
Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies Appears to Have Improved in
FY07:
EUCOM:
Algeria: EUCOM did not brief embassy staff on the FY06 Trans-Sahara
proposal until September 27, 2006 at which point the embassy rejected
Algeria's participation because of diplomatic concerns.
Chad: EUCOM did not brief embassy staff on the FY06 Trans-Sahara
proposal until after it had been approved and funded. The SAO at the
embassy voiced concerns about the proposal and is awaiting a status
report from EUCOM.
Nigeria (Gulf of Guinea): The proposal resulted from an existing
maritime security initiative in which the Ambassador was involved.
EUCOM briefed the ambassador on the 1206 proposal after submission.
*Nigeria (Trans-Sahara): EUCOM did not brief embassy staff on the
proposal until August 2006, and the embassy is awaiting an update from
EUCOM.
Sao Tome and Principe: Embassy did not know about the Gulf of Guinea
program involving Sao Tome and Principe until after EUCOM submitted the
proposal for review. EUCOM briefed embassy about proposal in June 2006
and gained support from ambassador before congressional notification.
Senegal: EUCOM did not brief embassy staff on the Trans-Sahara proposal
until October 2006, at which point the embassy cited concerns about the
project's sustainability. The embassy is waiting to hear from EUCOM
about how it will address these issues.
EUCOM officials stated that for F Y07, they provided documentation of
coordination and evidence of ambassador support for all proposals, as
instructed in F Y07 guidance.
--Embassy staff from Chad, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, and Senegal
said that EUCM coordinated with the embassy prior to submitting FY07
proposals.
DOD/State Coordination: Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies
Appears to Have Improved in FY07:
PACOM:
Thailand: The SAO and political officer worked together to develop the
FY06 proposal within 24 hours. They briefed PACOM after they submitted
the proposal through State Department channels.
Indonesia: The SAO developed the FY06 proposal in coordination with the
embassy's 's pol-mil officer and forwarded it to PACOM for submission
with the ambassador's endorsement. The SAO kept the ambassador informed
throughout the process.
Sri Lanka: The SAO developed the FY06 proposal and submitted it to
PACOM with the support of the ambassador. During the development of the
proposal, the AO briefed the ambassador and deputy chief of mission
during weekly country team meetings.
PACOM held a September 2006 planning meeting in Manila attended by SAOs
and State pol-mil officers from several embassies to develop the
regional proposal with support of embassies and PACOM before submission
for joint review.
All three embassies characterized coordination as effective in the
development of an FY07 regional maritime security proposal.
DOD/State Coordination: Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies
Appears to Have Improved in FY07:
SOUTHCOM:
Dominican Republic: The FY06 proposal involving the Dominican Republic
provides funding for an existing maritime security initiative in the
Caribbean known as "Enduring Friendship." The embassy support Enduring
Friendship but was not aware of the FY06 Section1206 proposal to
provide funding for it. SOUTHCOM briefed the embassy in September 2006,
after congressional notification.
Panama: The FY06 proposal involving Panama provides funding for the
Enduring Friendship maritime security initiative. The SAO and
ambassador had prior knowledge of the Enduring Friendship initiative,
but they did not learn of the FY06 1206 proposal related to this
initiative until June. The embassy supported the project once they
learned about it.
SOUTHCOM: SOUTHCOM tasked SAOs to oversee development of FY07 proposals
and coordinate with embassy country teams to ensure that ambassadors
supported proposals before submission.
DOD/State Coordination:
Coordination Between COCOMs and Embassies Appears to Have Improved in
FY07:
COCOMs and embassies had more time to formulate proposals in FY07 (two
months compared to one or two weeks in FY06):
FY07 guidance and template for submitting proposals emphasized
coordination between COCOMs and State entities in the field and asked
for documentation of coordination:
Program Implementation: 1206 Programs Will be Implemented in Same
Manner as FMF Program:
DSCA will establish an FMS case for equipment to be provided as it
would under the FMF program:
* DSCA uses unique 1206 code for fiscal tracking:
* SAOs at embassies will implement 1206 programs along with other
security assistance programs:
Embassies will apply same human rights vetting procedures to 1206 as to
other programs:
SAOs will coordinate implementation with embassy and COCOM:
No 1206-specific agency guidance on assessment:
* 1206 programs would likely be included in existing embassy and COCOM
assessments of security goals:
Concluding Observations:
State and DOD appear to have developed a coordinated process for
reviewing and approving proposals:
Discussions with COCOMs and embassies indicated that coordination
improved in FY07:
Poor coordination was more common for regional proposals:
Too soon for assessment of 1206 program's impact on security
cooperation and foreign policy goals:
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Section 1206 Fiscal Year 2006 Project Descriptions
(Dollars in millions):
Project name: Caribbean Basin: Forward Defense of the U.S. Homeland
($14.4);
Countries involved: Dominican Republic, Panama;
Project description/Objectives: Provides interoperable communications
and computers with training and technical support to establish a joint
maritime command, control, and communications architecture to support
counterterrorism operations.
Project name: Gulf of Guinea: Countering Threats to U.S. Energy
Security ($6.8);
Countries involved: Nigeria,; Sao Tome and Principe;
Project description/Objectives: Establishes a Regional Maritime
Awareness Capability through the use of commercially available
equipment; promotes stability and enhances counterterrorism
capabilities.
Project name: Indonesia: Securing Strategic Sea Lanes ($18.4);
Countries involved: Indonesia;
Project description/Objectives: Assists in developing an Integrated
Maritime Surveillance System to support maritime security in Indonesia,
including the Malacca Strait, and facilitates counterterrorism
operations.
Project name: Lebanon: Reducing Hezbollah's Operational Space ($10.5);
Countries involved: Lebanon;
Project description/Objectives: Helps the Lebanese Armed Forces bolster
the government of Lebanon's ability to exert control over its territory
and reduce the operational space of militias such as Hezbollah.
Project name: Pakistan: Improving Counterterrorism Strike Capabilities
($23.3);
Countries involved: Pakistan;
Project description/Objectives: Helps develop integrated rotary wing
assets capable of expediting the receipt, analysis, and dissemination
of intelligence. Facilitates the rapid planning and execution of
Pakistani counterterrorist special operations raids in the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas and border region to fight terrorists and
anti-coalition militants.
Project name: Sri Lanka: Reducing Ungoverned Maritime Spaces ($10.9);
Countries involved: Sri Lanka;
Project description/Objectives: Promotes the development of a
Counterterrorism Maritime Security Capability.
Project name: Thailand: Securing Strategic; Sea Lanes ($5.3);
Countries involved: Thailand;
Project description/Objectives: Helps establish an intelligence fusion
hub critically located on the Andaman Sea to support Royal Thai Navy
operations and enhance counterterrorism capabilities.[A].
Project name: Trans-Sahara African Countries: Securing the Region
Against Terrorists ($6.2);
Countries involved: Algeria, Chad, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia;
Project description/Objectives: Helps develop a secure multinational
information sharing network to share and store information effectively.
Enables countries to act on information that is essential to disrupt
and attack terrorist networks, and conduct peace and security
operations.
Project name: Yemen: Countering Cross-Border Terrorist Activity ($4.3);
Countries involved: Yemen;
Project description/Objectives: Helps increase the capability of the
Yemeni Armed Forces to prevent cross- border arms trafficking and helps
suppress terrorist activity.
Source: DOD:
[A] This project was canceled in September 2006 because of a coup in
Thailand. When the project was canceled, $5.3 million had already been
contracted for equipment. According to the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, the disposition of this equipment had not been determined.
[End of table]
FOOTNOTES
[1] National Defense Authorization Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, §
1206. 119 Stat. 3136, 3456-58 (2006).
[2] § 1206.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007, Pub. L. No.
109-364, 120 Stat. 2083, 2418 (2006).
[8] Id.
[9] The Section 1206 project involving Thailand was canceled, and other
security assistance programs were suspended, following the September
19, 2006, coup d'etat in that country.
[10] State-funded security assistance programs include the Foreign
Military Financing (FMF) program, which provides grants and loans to
foreign governments for the acquisition of U.S. defense equipment,
services, and training, and the International Military Education and
Training (IMET) program, which provides training to foreign military
and related civilian personnel.
[11] Although 15 countries were included in projects selected for
funding in fiscal year 2006, Nigeria participated in two different
projects, resulting in 16 instances in which coordination should have
occurred. During the course of our work, we were unable to contact
knowledgeable officials at two embassies. Consequently, we were only
able to determine if coordination occurred in 14 instances.
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 (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 www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
