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