oversight

Security Assistance: Observations on the International Military Education and Training Program

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-06-14.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                               United       States GeneraI Accounting                                 Office   ..

                               Briefing Report to Congressional
                               Requesters



June 1990
                               SECURITY
                                  ISTANCE
                               Observations on the
                               International Military
                               Education and
                               Training Program




                               --,
                     .::   -            *    _’   ,,,   __I   .&l(II   -..   .; .,ap   ... ..-.   ,




                                                        ,-
GAO/NSIAD-90-215BR
.




    Requests for copies of GAO reports     should be sent to:

    U.S. General Accounting    Office
    Post Office Box 6015
    Gaithersburg, Maryland     ‘20877

    Telephone   202-275-6241

    The first five copies of each report   are free. Additional   copies are
    $2.00 each.

    There is a 25% discount    on orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
    single address.

    Orders must be prepaid by cash or by check or money order made
    out to the Superintendent of Documents.
      United States
GAO   General Accounting Office
      Washington, D.C. 20548

      National Security and
      International AtTairs Division



      B-237984



      June 14, 1990
      The Honorable   Patrick   J. Leahy
      Chairman,  Subcommittee     on Foreign             Operations
      Committee on Appropriations
      United States Senate
      The Honorable          Bob Graham
      United States          Senate
      As you requested,        we reviewed the International                   Military
      Education      and Training       (IMET) Program in selected                countries.
      Specifically,       we determined        whether the Departments                of State
      and Defense had (1) complied               with program policies              and
      procedures       and (2) met the U.S. foreign              policy      objective       of
      exposing IMET trainees            to U.S. values,        including         human
      rights.       We also obtained        U.S. and foreign          officials'         views
      on the program's        benefits      and the desirability             and
      feasibility       of expanding       nation-building        training         in the
      program,      for example,      in the fields        of medicine,
      engineering,       and logistics.          We obtained      information           on
      training      programs in Austria,          Guatemala,      Haiti,       Peru, South
      Korea, and Spain; the U.S. Unified                  Commands; and the
      Departments       of Defense and State.             This report        summarizes
      the information       we provided         to your offices         in a briefing          on
      May 23, 1990.
      RESULTS IN BRIEF
      The Department      of Defense has generally             administered       the
      programs in accordance         with its established           policies      and
      procedures    during   the planning       and development          phases of the
      program.    Defense,     however, lacks (1) procedures                for
      reviewing   training     requirements       that are added after
      training   programs are reviewed and approved by U.S.
      officials   and (2) specific        guidelines        for monitoring        the use
      of IMET graduates.        Furthermore,        neither     Defense nor State
      has a system for evaluating          the success of the program.
      Thus, it is difficult        to ensure the most effective                 use of
      IMET funds.
B-237984


In accordance     with the IMET Program's     policy   objectives,
students   are being exposed to U.S. values and concern for
human rights    through   formal training    and cultural      events in
the United States.       U.S. and foreign    officials    believe    that
the program provides      numerous other benefits.        They also
believe  that nation-building       training  should be considered
on a country-by-country       basis as part of the IMET Program.
BACKGROUND
The IMET Program provides            instruction        and training       in
military  skills     and U.S. military           doctrine       to foreign
military  and related       civilian       personnel        on a grant basis.
The U.S. military      departments         offer     over 2,000 courses in
the United States and abroad,              including        professional
military   education    at the war colleges,                management
training,   technical    and maintenance             training,       and flight
training.     Under the IMET Program,              the Defense Department
annually  spends about $47 million               to train       about
5,000 foreign     personnel       from nearly        100 countries.
Program management is divided                  between the Departments           of
State and Defense.              The Secretary        of State is responsible
for the program's           general     direction.         He recommends funding
levels    for congressional           approval       and allocates      approved
funds to each country.               The Secretary         of Defense,     through
the Defense Security             Assistance       Agency, is responsible           for
planning      and implementing          the program,        including
administration          and monitoring,         within     established     funding
levels.       Officials       in the Security          Assistance     Organization
develop and manage individual                  country     programs with input
from key embassy officials.                  Officials       from the military
departments        and other organizations              review each country's
training      program at annual training                workshops that the
Unified      Commands host.          A Unified       Command is composed of two
or more military           services     under a single          commander and is
 responsible       for conducting         security      assistance     programs
within     its region.
IMET PROGRAMSCOMPLY WITH POLICY,
BUT OVERSIGHT COULD BE IMPROVED
The Departments     of State and Defense have established          a
formal process for reviewing        each country's  proposed
training    programs to ensure that they comply with management
policies    and procedures,    complement U.S. foreign      policy
objectives,     and are consistent    with IMET objectives.          The
process has three major components:
                                    2
B-237984



--   Preparing      State's     Annual Integrated       Assessment of
     Security     Assistance,      which describes       specific     U.S.
     economic,      political,     and military      objectives      for each
     country    and includes       the Security      Assistance
     Organization's         proposed funding      levels     for training
     programs.
--   Preparing      a 2-year training     plan that includes              current
     and future      U.S. training    objectives     and other          information
     supporting      the proposed training       program.
--   Reviewing       countries'    training     programs at annual U.S.
     Unified      Command training        workshops to ensure that the
     programs       complement program objectives,        meet a legitimate
     need of      the countries,      and comply with Defense Department
     policies       and regulations.
Of the six countries        we visited,          three did not have written
training   plans to support          their     training       programs.        However,
we determined     from our observations               of four Unified
Commands' training        workshops for 28 countries,                  including
five of the six countries            we reviewed,          that most programs
were supported      by written       2-year plans.            The plans included
training   that U.S. officials            believed        supported      both U.S.
foreign   policy    and IMET Program objectives                  based     on their
reviews of individual         training       courses included            in the
programs.      Of the eight countries              that did not have written
training   plans required        by Defense          policy,     seven were under
the Southern Command's area of responsibility.                           Officials
said that the Command did not ensure that training                            officials
prepared written       plans as part of the training                   workshop.
Training Officials Frequently
Made Changes to Approved
Training Proqrams
In the countries         we visited,      training   officials      had
frequently      changed approved programs for a variety                 of
reasons.      For example,       funds were not available,           when
needed, to send students             to training;    the military
departments       made changes; and the countries              changed their
training     priorities.        These changes resulted          in the
addition     of 133 new courses         and 155 students        that were not
in the approved programs for fiscal                years 1988 and 1989.       In
several    instances      these changes were made even though U.S.
officials      recognized     that there was no documented need for
the training,         and it could not be effectively             used.
                                     3
B-237984


According      to the Defense Security          Assistance     Agency's
policy,    training     officials     should not make frequent          changes
to approved programs,            and new training      requirements     should
be carefully       considered.
No System for Monitoring
Use of IMET Graduates
According       to Defense Security     Assistance       Agency policy,        the
Unified     Commands are to supervise         the Security        Assistance
Organizations       to ensure that they place IMET graduates                 in
positions       in which they can use their         training      for 2 to
3 years immediately        following    their    training.        The policy's
purpose is to ensure that participating                 countries     are using
u. s. funds in the most efficient            and effective        manner.      The
policy     states   that a report    from the participating             country
will    provide    a basis for this assurance.
Unified     Commands have not issued specific            instructions        on
how the Organizations          can ensure that graduates           are using
their    training.       As a result,     each Organization        has acted on
its own to comply with the policy.              The Organizations          in
Austria,      South Korea, and Spain received          a report       from the
country's       military   providing    the names and positions           of IMET
graduates.         However, the Organizations       in Guatemala,         Haiti,
and Peru had no system           for tracking   how IMET graduates           were
used after       being trained.
No System for Evaluating           IMET
Proaram Effectiveness
Neither      Defense nor State has a system for periodically
evaluating       the success       of IMET training      in meeting program
objectives.          Currently,      the Defense Security       Assistance
Agency's only methods of evaluating                 success are to report        on
the number of graduates              who have achieved      positions      of
prominence       and to review the results           of the Unified        Command
inspections        that determine        whether Security      Assistance
Organizations         have complied       with various     program
administrative          requirements.        The lack of a system        to
periodically         evaluate     program success could result          in the
continuation         of programs from year to year without
considering        changes in the military,          economic,      or political
relationships         between the United States and the countries.
For example,         (1) Austria       has been allocated      more funds than
it can effectively            use, (2) Peru's      IMET Program is based on
objectives       that are inconsistent          with U.S. foreign       policy,

                                   4
B-237984


and (3) Spain's         economic     ability     to pay for     its   training    has
changed.
OTHER ISSUES
From our review,          we determined     that the IMET Program has
been designed        to expose foreign        students         to U.S. values,
including      concern for human rights.              For example, lesson
plans for some of the courses included                     studies    on the Geneva
Convention,      the Law of Land Warfare,             the My Lai incident        in
Vietnam,     U.S. rules of evidence,           and the three branches of
the U.S. government.            The training       facilities       have
established       internal    evaluation      systems        to ensure the
quality    of the courses.          Also, extracurricular             activities
include     presentations,       travel,    and interaction           with U.S.
citizens.
U.S. and foreign        military      officials         agreed that the IMET
Program is valuable          and should        be continued         because    it
(1) enhances the military-to-military                      relationship      needed
to address U.S. foreign            policy      objectives,         (2) provides
reciprocal     training      to U.S. personnel,              (3) promotes
democratization,        (4) provides         weapon system sales for U.S.
industry,     (5) improves the overall                professionalism        of the
recipient     nation's     military,       and (6) enhances understanding
of U.S. military        doctrine      and technology.
Many officials      also believe      that the IMET Program should
include     more nation-building        training    to enhance military
skills    in such areas as engineering,            medicine,     and logistics
but that this training          should be carefully         considered    on a
country-by-country       basis.      U.S. officials       stated    that
training     to enhance nation-building          skills    would not be
effective      if equipment were not available            to perform these
skills.      Equipment    is currently       not provided      under IMET.
Other military          and civilian        training     programs,   such as
foreign    military       sales,     were     available     in the countries we
reviewed.        While the military             programs generally     have
objectives        similar     to those      of IMET, they do not appear to
duplicate       the program.         U.S.     officials     stated that such
programs cannot be substituted                    for the IMET Program.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Most training    officials      plan and develop IMET programs that
comply with policies        and procedures   because of the review
process established        by the State and Defense Departments.
                                     5
B-237984


However, the lack of (1) procedures           for reviewing     new
training    requirements      that are added after    programs are
approved at the training          workshops,  (2) a system    for
evaluating     the success of the program, and (3) guidelines
for monitoring       the use of IMET graduates     contribute     to the
Departments'      inability     to ensure that IMET funds are
efficiently      and effectively      used.
To further    improve the management of the IMET Program, we
recommend that the Secretary           of Defense consider            requiring
the Director,     Defense Security        Assistance        Agency, to develop
procedures    for reviewing        and approving       training     requirements
that are added after        programs have been approved at the
annual workshops and (2) coordinate                with Unified      Commands in
developing    guidelines       that specify      how Security       Assistance
Organizations     should monitor       the use of IMET graduates.
These guidelines       should,     at a minimum, require          the
Organizations     to periodically        verify     how countries        use IMET
graduates,      Furthermore,       we recommend thatthe           Secretaries
of Defense and State coordinate             in designing        a system that
will   enable them to periodically            evaluate      the success       of the
IMET Program.,
               /:
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We reviewed the IMET Program at the Departments                    of State and
Defense, Washington,       D.C.: the Inter-American            Air Forces
Academy, Homestead Air Force Base, Florida;                  and the U.S.
Army School of the Americas and the Infantry                  Officer    School,
Fort Benning,   Georgia.       We also conducted our work at the
u. s. European Command, Stuttgart,            West Germany: the U.S.
Pacific   Command, Honolulu,       Hawaii;     the U.S. Central         Command,
Tampa, Florida;      and the U.S. Forces Caribbean,               Key West,
Florida.    We obtained     detailed    information        from officials       in
the Southern Command and in the six countries                   that you
suggested   we visit    (Austria,    Guatemala,       Haiti,      Peru, South
Korea, and Spain).       We reviewed       the program from September
1989 through May 1990 in accordance              with generally        accepted
government auditing      standards.


As you requested,    we did not obtain     written    agency comments
on this report.     We did discuss     our observations     with U.S
officials  in each country     we visited   and with Defense and
State Department    officials,   who generally     agreed with the
facts presented   in this report.

                                   6
B-237984


As agreed with your offices,          we plan no further     distribution
of this report     until   10 days after     its issue date.        At that
time we will    send copies to appropriate         congressional
committees,   the Secretaries        of Defense and State,       and
interested   parties     on request.
Staff members who made major contributions       to this report
are listed  in appendix   IV.  If you have any questions     about
the matters discussed   in this report,    please call me on
275-4128.




Joseph E. Kelley
Director,    Security   and International
   Relations   Issues
                                      CONTENTS
                                                                            Paa e
LETTER                                                                         1
APPENDIX
         I   MANAGEMENTOF THE IMET PROGRAM                                     9
               Background                                                      9
               Overview of the Planning        and Development   Process      10
               Policies     Generally  Followed   During Program              12
                 Planning     and Development
               Numerous Changes Made to Approved Programs                     13
               Monitoring     of IMET Graduates'    Assignments   Varies      16
               No System for Evaluating        IMET Program                   18
                  Effectiveness
               Conclusions      and Recommendations                           20
    II       OTHER ISSUES                                                     22
               Students   Exposed to U.S. Values,      Including              22
                  Human Rights
               Views Indicate    that the Program Provides                    23
                  Numerous Advantages
               Views Indicate    That Nation-Building       Training          25
                  Should Be Carefully    Considered
               Other Programs Provide Military        Training                28
               Civilian   Programs Provide Training                           30
  III        OBJECTIVES,     SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY                           31
    IV       MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT                                 33
TABLES
  I.1          u. s.   Cost of the IMET Program                                10
  I.2          Additions      to Approved     Programs                         14

                                   ABBREVIATIONS
DOD          Department      of Defense
DSAA         Defense Security          Assistance      Agency
GAO          General Accounting            Office
IMET         International        Military       Education   and Training
SAO          Security      Assistance       Organization
APPENDIX I                                                                    APPENDIX I


                         MANAGEMENTOF THE IMET PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
The International       Military   Education      and Training       (IMET) Program
is a grant training        program authorized        by section      541 of the
Foreign Assistance        Act of 1961.      Prior     to 1976, grant training
was provided      under the Military       Assistance      Program, which was
heavily   oriented     towards training       foreign    military      personnel   in
skills   related    to equipment     provided      to their     countries    by the
United States.
The IMET Program was implemented                     to create skills      needed for
effective       operation        and maintenance          of equipment provided      by the
United States:           assist     foreign     countries     in developing     expertise
and systems needed for effective                     management of their       defense
establishments;           foster      foreign    countries'      development    of their
training       capabilities:          provide    an alternative        to Soviet military
training:       promote military            rapport     between the United States and
foreign      countries;         and promote better          understanding     of the United
States,      including        its people,       political     system, and other
institutions         and how they reflect              the U.S. commitment to human
rights.
The U.S. military       departments         offer    more than 2,000 courses at
over 150 military        schools      throughout      the United States and
abroad.     Training     includes       professional      military       education at the
war colleges      and the command and general              staff     schools and
management, technical,          maintenance,         and flight      training.
Students    attending      a military       course in the United States can
also participate       in the Department           of Defense Informational
Program, which is designed              to assist     students     in acquiring    an
understanding       of the United States and its commitment to human
rights.
The Department     of Defense (DOD) annually                spends about $47 million
to train    5,000 foreign        personnel      from nearly       100 countries
through   the IMET Program.            Although     a relatively      small program in
terms of funding       levels,      the program is large in terms of the
number of foreign        students      trained.       As shown in table        1.1, DOD
trained   902 military       and civilian         personnel     at an approximate
cost of $9.13 million          in fiscal      years 1988 and 1989 in the six
countries    we visited.




                                              9
APPENDIX I                                                                   APPENDIX I


Table 1.1:    U.S. Cost of the           IMET Program
(Fiscal  years 1988 and 1989)
                                    Number of
Country                             Students                       Amount
                                                                  (mmns)
Austria                                    10                     $ .045
Guatemala                                 169                       .891
Haiti                                       9                         100
Peru                                       45                       1435
South Korea                               398                      3.140
Spain                                     271                      4.523
     Total
The Departments        of State and Defense share responsibilities                     for
IMET.     The Department       of State determines           whether an IMET Program
is necessary      to achieve U.S. political             and national      security
interests     in a foreign       country,     recommends funding        levels      for the
program to the Congress,           and allocates        funds to each country.
DOD's Defense Security           Assistance      Agency (DSAA) manages the IMET
Program within       the allocated        funding    levels.      Each of the
military    departments,       as well as the U.S. Coast Guard, reviews
and approves      each participating          country's      IMET Program to ensure
that the courses are effectively                sequenced and scheduled           to
provide    the maximum benefit          to the country.          Each Unified       Command
reviews funding        requests    and hosts an annual training             workshop
for countries       under its area of responsibility.                The Security
Assistance      Organization      (SAO) in each country           is responsible         for
planning,     managing,      implementing,       and monitoring      the country's
IMET Program under the direction                and supervision      of the U.S.
Ambassador.
OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The IMET planning        and development          process involves      U.S. officials
in the Departments        of State and Defense in each country                 as well
as foreign     military     officials.          The Departments     of State and
Defense have established             a formal system to ensure that each
country's     IMET Program is planned and developed                 consistent    with
u. s. foreign     policy    objectives        and within    funding   levels
allocated     by State and consistent             with DOD program policies         and
regulations.        The  process       includes    three  important     components:
(1) the Annual Integrated              Assessment for Security        Assistance,
(2) 2-year training         plans,       and (3) Unified      Command workshops.

                                            10
APPENDIX I                                                                             APPENDIX I


Annual Integrated      Assessment
for Security    Assistance
Annual program development                 begins when the State Department
 requires    each SAO to prepare an Annual Integrated                          Assessment for
Security     Assistance,          the primary document for supporting                     funding
 requests    to the Congress.              Each assessment,         which is prepared by
the SAO in coordination                with U.S. embassy officials                and approved
by the Ambassador,             describes      U.S. foreign       policy      objectives,
provides     perceptions          of external       and internal        threats,       describes
the country's         military       structure      and capabilities,           presents
information        related      to equipment        purchases,     and proposes funding
levels.     According        to U.S. officials,          numerous officials
throughout       the Departments           of State and Defense extensively
review each assessment               to ensure that it complies                with U.S.
foreign     policy      objectives,        regional     military      objectives,        and IMET
Program objectives.
Two-Year      Training      Plans
Each SAO is required              to prepare a 2-year written                  training      plan
and a detailed          list    of training        courses to support              the plan
within     its established           funding     level.      The plan contains             a
variety      of information,           including      the country's          training
capabilities,         primary       suppliers      of equipment and training,
current      and future       training       objectives,      significant
accomplishments           toward meeting the training                objectives,          and
funding      allocations        by training        categories      (i.e.,        professional
military       education;       management, postgraduate,                flight,       technical,
and overseas training;               training      teams;    and other support).
Unified      Command Workshops
Each Unified   Command hosts an annual training             workshop to review
each IMET course for consistency            with U.S. foreign      policy  and
IMET Program objectives,         funding    levels,   and DOD policies     and
regulations.    Officials      from the Unified       Commands, the military
departments,   various    training      schools,    and other organizations--
such as the U.S. Coast Guard and each SAO within                the
responsibility    of the Unified        Command--attend     these workshops.
Funding      the Program
After    receiving        congressional        authorization         for the IMET Program,
State allocates           funding      for each country.           If allocations    differ
from the levels           used in developing          the training         programs or in
prior    allocations,         training     officials       consult      with foreign
military      officials       and make changes to the approved program.
                                                  11
APPENDIX I                                                                           APPENDIX I


State    may reallocate  funds           toward        the middle    and end of the
fiscal    year, if necessary.
POLICIES GENERALLY
FOLLOWED DURING PROGRAM
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
The IMET Program is generally         well managed during      the program
planning     and development    phases.     At the most recent annual
Unified    Command training     workshops,    we observed the reviews of
IMET programs for 28 countries          (the European Command,
8 countries:     the Southern Command, 11 countries;         the Pacific
Command, 2 countries:        and the Central     Command, 7 countries)     and
found that officials       reviewed   each course to determine       whether it
was consistent      with DOD's policies      and procedures.
These officials     screened the courses to ensure that they were
properly    sequenced to provide    optimum training    benefits.   In some
cases,   courses   were deleted  because   the country   did not need them
or they would not make the most effective          use of IMET funds.

All countries      had 2-year written    training   plans to support          their
detailed   training     programs except for seven countries           under the
Southern Command's responsibility          and one country       under the
European Command's.         In these eight countries,      training
officials    did not comply with the DSAA policy         that requires
written   a-year plans.       Officials  from DSAA and the Southern
Command said that they were taking          action  to ensure that SAOs
provide   written    2-year training    plans to support       their   training
programs at the annual workshops.
Program planning         and development          in the six countries             we reviewed
closely    paralleled        what we observed at the annual workshops.
Training    officials        in Austria,       South Korea, and Spain prepared
2-year,    written      plans to support          their      fiscal     year 1988 and 1989
programs.       These plans clearly            stated     specific        U.S. foreign
policy    and IMET Program objectives,                 and the training           appeared to
support    these objectives.           Conversely,           officials       in  Guatemala,
Haiti,    and Peru did not prepare any plans to support                           their
programs.       While the training           officer       in Haiti      developed       a
program to address a primary               U.S. objective             of countering        the
narcotics     trade,      training    officials        in Guatemala          and Peru
addressed     their     countries'     military        training        objectives       rather
than U.S. foreign           policy  and IMET Program objectives.                     Although
U.S. officials        in Guatemala        and Peru maintained              that the training
program supported           U.S. foreign       policy     and IMET objectives,               the
lack of any written            plan made it difficult               for us to confirm           the

                                                  12
APPENDIX I                                                                        APPENDIX I


extent to which         the training       programs      related     to these
objectives.
Both DSAA and Southern Command Officials                     stated   that they were
taking  action  to ensure that SAOs provide                   written    2-year training
plans to support   their  training programs                  at the annual workshops.
NUMEROUSCHANGES MADE
TO APPROVED PROGRAMS
While DSAA policy         generally     discourages         making numerous changes
to approved programs,          training     officials        in the six countries   we
visited    had frequently        changed their         programs.      These changes
frequently      included     new training       requirements       that were never
formally     reviewed for approval           by DSAA or the military
departments.         In several     countries,       training     was added, even
though officials         recognized     that such training           was not an
effective     use of resources.

According      to training    officials, these changes                were made for a
number      of valid   reasons that were beyond their                 control.  For
example:
--   The military    departments   canceled,    substituted,         or
     rescheduled    some courses.    As a result,       the   training
     officials    had to delete   or add training       requirements.
--   The Congress did not approve fiscal           year 1988 appropriations
     for the IMET Program until        after    the fiscal    year started.      As
     a result,    the State Department       could not allocate      funds until
     much later     than expected.     This situation      forced changes in
     the training      program;  for example, training        that was planned
     for the first      quarter  of the fiscal     year had to be
     rescheduled.
--   The host governments              changed training          priorities     because
     their      military      services      received      fewer funds from their
     governments          than originally         anticipated;        new leaders    had
     different         ideas about      priorities:         or the country's       economic,
     political,          or security      interests       changed after      the program
     was planned and developed.
--   In Peru, sanctions        that previously      restricted     funding   were
     temporarily    lifted.       Sanctions     were imposed under the Brooke-
     Alexander    amendment (P.L.        loo-202 and P.L. loo-461         for fiscal
     years 1988 and 1989, respectively),             which suspends assistance
     to a foreign      country    that has defaulted        on loan payments to

                                               13
APPENDIX I                                                                   APPENDIX I


      the United States.1       If      the host country        makes scheduled
      payments,   the sanctions         are lifted until        the country   misses
      another   payment.
--    Legislation       placed restrictions        on funding     for wealthy
      countries      in fiscal     year 1989.      The Foreign Operations,        Export
      Financing,       and Related Programs Appropriations             Act, 1989
      (P.L. 100-461) prohibited            the provision      of IMET funds
      appropriated        by the Foreign Assistance          Act of 1961, as
      amended, to any country           with a per capita        gross national
      product     greater    than $2,349      unless that country        agreed to
      fund the transportation           and living     allowance     costs for its
      students.        As a result     of the amendment, during          fiscal year
      1989, Austria        and Spain reprogrammed          some IMET courses.
New    training    requirements   were frequently   added to approved
programs.        As shown in table 1.2, training     officials  in the six
countries       we visited   added 133 courses and 155 students    to the
fiscal      year 1988 and 1989 programs after     they had been approved
at the annual workshops.
Table     1.2:      Additions    to Approved         Programs
                                       Fiscal    year
                       1988           1988             1989       1989
Country               Courses      Students           Courses    Students
Austria                    0              0                2            2
Guatemala                 19            11               13           10
Haiti                      0             0                7            4
Peru                      14            32                3            1
South     Korea           12             3               19           15
Spain                     15            -17              -29          -60
        Total
Included          in these additions      were six courses that,       according    to
policy,         required   the SAO's written      justification      and DSAA's
approval         before they could be offered.             None of these six
courses,         which included     high-cost,    civic      action or postgraduate

1The fiscal    year 1990 Brooke-Alexander          amendment          (P.L. 101-167)
does not apply to funding        for activities      related          to counter-
narcotics    in Colombia,   Bolivia,       and Peru.    One of          the principal
U.S. training    objectives    for Peru in fiscal         year        1990 is to
address counter-narcotics        activities.

                                                14
APPENDIX I                                                                      APPENDIX I


training,  had written   justifications.        Not included     in table I.2
are four mobile training       teams that were subsequently        added to
approved programs.     The mobile training        team additions    included
one each to Guatemala,     Peru, and South Korea in fiscal          year 1988
and one to Guatemala in fiscal          year 1989.
As the following     examples demonstrate,   some officials   added new
training   requirements    to approved programs,   even though they
could not document how these additions       would be used by the
recipient   country.
--   A training     official         in Guatemala stated            that,  at the request
     of Guatemala's         military,       the Southern Command added an
     intelligence       mobile training            team to the fiscal        year 1989
     program after        it was approved,            at a cost of $8,000,          to
     establish     Guatemala's          capability       to train      its personnel   in
     intelligence.          The official         said that he could not provide
     any documentation           to support        how such training        would be used
     by Guatemala.          As a result        of this requirement,          Guatemala's
     program exceeded its allocation                    and the training       officer
     requested     and received          additional        funding.
--   In fiscal    year 1989, the State Department                allocated
     $100,000 to train          Haiti's      naval personnel      in skills       related    to
     the counter-narcotics             missions    of its armed forces.            U.S.
     officials     initially       identified      a requirement       to train      five
     navy enlisted         personnel      in six courses at a cost of about
     $35,700.      Since this requirement             did not use the full
     $100,000,     the training         officer    added four additional            navy
     students    to the program.             However,    U.S. officials       familiar
     with Haiti's        navy and the assets devoted to counter-
     narcotics     missions      stated      that the additional         students      could
     probably    not be effectively             used in the mission.          According      to
     one U.S. officer,          only two of the nine could probably                  be used.
--   In fiscal   years 1988 and 1989, the training           officer     in Peru
     added 18 students     to a psychological      operations       course that
     included   only 2 students     in the approved program and
     5 students    whose training     Peru had originally        agreed to pay
     for in cash.     The training     officer  stated    that Peru had been
     under sanctions     and had been unable to use any of the
     allocated   funds.    Because Peru had made a loan payment, the
     sanctions   were temporarily      lifted.   He added the students           to
     take advantage     of the opportunity     to train     them.     While he
     knew that Peru probably       could not make effective          use of this
     training,   he wanted to send as many students            as possible     to
     available   courses to expose them to U.S. values.

                                               15
APPENDIX I                                                                    APPENDIX I


--   During fiscal   year 1989, U.S.         training      officials      in Spain
     added 19 students    to a course        on    explosive      ordnance disposal
     at a cost   of about   $112,172.        This course was not in the
     approved program, and training            officials       could not document
     the need for this training.
When we discussed      these examples with DSAA officials,        they             agreed
that many of these course      additions  indicated    an ineffective                 use
of IMET funds,    particularly   those in Haiti     and Peru.
MONITORING OF IMET GRADUATES'
ASSIGNMENTS VARIES
DSAA policy        states     that SAOs, under the direction           and supervision
of the Unified         Commands, are responsible            for ensuring     that
personnel      trained       under the IMET Program are being properly               and
effectively       used when they return           from training.       DSAA defines
proper use as the prompt employment of individuals                       in the skill
for which trained,            generally    for 2 to 3 years immediately
following      their     training.      The policy's      purpose is to ensure that
participating         countries     are using U.S. funds in the most
efficient      and effective         manner.     The policy     also  states    that
periodic      reports      by appropriate      foreign    authorities      can normally
be used to follow            up on the use of trainees.
Although    Unified      Commands issued broad guidelines             stating     that
SAOs should monitor          the use of IMET graduates,           they did not issue
specific    instructions        on how SAOs should implement            these
guidelines.        According      to U.S. officials,       it is difficult        to
establish     guidelines       for monitoring      graduates    because     the
political     relationships        between the United States and foreign
countries     vary, and some countries           may be more receptive          than
others to providing          a report    on how graduates       are used or having
U.S. officials        verify     how graduates     are used.
Since these instructions            do not provide    specific     guidance    on how
SAOs should obtain         information    regarding    the use of IMET
graduates,      each SAO may or may not monitor           IMET graduates.
Consequently,      some SAOs have more information             than others and are
in a better      position     to ensure that graduates         are being properly
and effectively        used when they return        to their     homes.    For
example:
--   The military     services    of each country     provided      U.S.      officials
     in Austria,    South Korea, and Spain reports           containing           the
     names and positions        of recent IMET graduates.           U.S.      officials
     used information       from these reports     during    visits      to     military
     installations     to randomly verify      that students        were      in these
                                           16
APPENDIX I                                                                         APPENDIX I


     positions.         Although      these officials      did     not maintain   results
     of these visits           in their    files,     they said      that they knew of no
     instance       in which the countries            would not      make use of their
     training,        especially      since they had paid          all of the travel      and
     living     allowances       related      to training    in    the United States.
--   U.S. officials          in Guatemala had no data on how IMET graduates
     were used when they returned                from training.            These officials
     stated      that they relied        on observations           of how some graduates
     were used at various           military       installations.            We noted during
     our review,          however, that IMET graduates              might not have been
     effectively         used by the military.              For example, the U.S. Air
     Force representative           stated     that the Guatemalan Air Force had
     experienced         a 20-percent      turnover       in helicopter        personnel
     over the past 12 to 18 months: however,                       he did not know
     whether any of this turnover                included       IMET graduates.            U.S.
     officials       said that as a result            of a recent Inspector               General
     review by the Southern Command, they planned to request that
     the Guatemalan military             send them a formal            report      on the use
     of recent graduates.             According       to the training          officer,      SAO
     personnel       will    use this report         during     their    field     visits    to
     randomly verify           how graduates       are used.
--   The U.S. training       officer       in Haiti      had no assurance          that prior
     graduates    were effectively           used and had no formal method for
     tracking   them.     U.S. officials           stated     that Haitian        military
     officials   were probably          not using these personnel               effectively
     because they have routinely              transferred        military     personnel
     from one service      to another         to fill     different       positions        after
     they have completed         training       programs.        According      to SAO
     officials,     this practice        is necessary         because Haiti        lacks the
     resources    to fill    all of its critical              manpower requirements.
--   The U.S. training      officer     in Peru had established           a catalogue
     of the names of IMET graduates            that he said he used during
     periodic   visits   to Peru's military           units    to determine    how
     graduates   were being used.          Our   review     showed,   however,    that
     the file   did not include       information        regarding    use of the
     trainees.     The training     officer      stated     that he did not have
     sufficient    knowledge on how IMET graduates               from the fiscal
     years 1988 and 1989 programs were being used.                    Thus, he could
     not be assured that the training              funds were warranted.
NO SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING
IMET PROGRAY EFFECTIVENESS
Neither    Defense nor State has a system for periodically
evaluating     IMET training to determine its success in meeting
                                                17
APPENDIX I                                                                       APPENDIX I


program      objectives.      Currently      DSAA's only methods of evaluating
success      are to report on the number of graduates              who have
achieved      positions     of prominence      and to review the results        of the
Unified      Command inspections         that determine   whether SAOs have
complied      with various     program administrative        requirements.        The
lack of a system to periodically               evaluate  program success could
result     in the continuation         of programs from year to year without
considering        the changes in the military,         economic,    or political
relationships         between the United States and the countries.
Methods Currently         Used to
Describe Program         Effectiveness
State has no system for evaluating           program effectiveness.
However, DSAA currently        has two methods for measuring        program
success and effectiveness:         (1) reporting     on the numbers of IMET
graduates   who have achieved      positions     of prominence    and
(2) documenting    inspections     conducted     by Unified   Commands.
Neither   of these provides      a comprehensive     assessment of program
success.

A key goal of the IMET Program is to emphasize the training                              of
individuals        who are likely          to reach prominent        positions      in their
countries.         DSAA prepares        a report      every 5 years that provides
information        on the numbers of IMET graduates                 who have reached
such positions.           According        to DSAA, the identification             of a
prominent       position      varies     from country       to country     and could
include      any military        position      ranging    from the chief of staff           of
the army to a battalion               commander or a key civilian             position.      In
their     February      1990 report        to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations,          DSAA and State reported              that 1,067 IMET graduates
were in prominent           positions.        U.S. officials        stated    that such a
report     is of limited         usefulness       for evaluating       program
effectiveness         because      it is not measuring           the progress      made in
addressing        any of the six program objectives.                   Several U.S.
officials       also stated        that many of these individuals               would have
achieved      prominent       positions      regardless       of whether they attended
training      in the United States because they were among the most
highly     qualified      personnel        in their    military     organizations.
Unified     Command inspectors         general    conduct periodic         management
evaluations       of SAOs in countries         under their      areas of
responsibility.           These inspections       are primarily       concerned with
the daily       administration       of security     assistance     programs and
emphasize compliance            with various     DOD and service       regulations.
According       to U.S. officials,        these inspections        are not designed
to compare the progress             made in meeting stated         objectives     as a
means of measuring           program effectiveness.
                                              18
APPENDIX I                                                                         APPENDIX I



Lack of Evaluation    System
Hinders Assessments of
Proaram Effectiveness
A formal assessment         system     would assist        responsible       officials      in
the SAOs and the Unified           Commands in periodically                and
systematically       evaluating      the effectiveness            of training       programs
and in realistically         determining        the advisability           of continuing
the IMET Program at established               funding      levels     within     each
country    or military      service.       Furthermore,        such a system could
aid decisionmakers        in identifying          training     priorities        within   the
countries.
Programs have continued   from year to year even though the
military, economic,   or political    relationships      between the United
States and the host country      had changed.       For example:
--   In fiscal    years 1988 and 1989, State allocated                 $80,000 for
     IMET training      in Austria.          Austria     used approximately       $45,725
     for 10 personnel         to provide       air traffic    control    training     and
     professional      military      education.        The training     official    stated
     that Austrian      military      officials       could not use the amount
     allocated    because       they did not have a need for more training
     than they used and that they could not afford                    to pay the
     additional     travel      and living      allowances     even if more training
     were needed.
--   Peru's IMET Program for fiscal                 years 1988 and 1989 was based
     primarily     on host-country          objectives       rather   than on U.S.
     objectives.        The primary       training      objectives      were to protect
     Peruvian    territory       and sovereignty         against     external    aggression
     or incursion,        combat    insurgency       and terrorism,       and produce a
     multi-role     navy.       Only the second objective             (combatting
     insurgency     and terrorism)          was identified         by the Ambassador as
     a U.S. objective         in Peru.
--   U.S. officials       in Spain stated            that high-cost        pilot     training
     is included     in the IMET Program even though Spain can afford
     to pay for its own pilot              training.         Approximately        70 percent,
     or $1.5 million,        of the fiscal           year 1989 IMET Program in Spain
     was used to train        pilots       in the Spanish military               services.      A
     significant     portion      of this training            was based on a commitment
     made by U.S. military           officials         during    the early 1980s when
     Spain was not capable of paying for this training.                              Because of
     political     and economic changes in the last few years,
     including     Spain's    membership in the North Atlantic                      Treaty
     Organization      and the European Community,                  Spain no longer          needs
                                                19
APPENDIX I                                                               APPENDIX I


    u. s. funds   for this training.         According  to U.S. officials       in
    Spain,  IMET funding         for Spain could gradually      be reduced
   because    Spain has the capability          and the willingness      to fund
   its own pilot       training,     as demonstrated   by Spain's     purchase of
   $4.8 million      in high-cost      pilot  training  under the Foreign
   Military    Sales Program in fiscal          year 1989.
A State Department          official     told us that beginning      in fiscal  year
1991, funding        levels     for Austria   and Spain will    be   reduced from
their    fiscal     year 1988 and 1989 levels.         According     to current
plans,     Austria     will   be allocated    $15,000 and Spain      will  be
allocated       $1.5 million.
We previously        reported     on the importance       of establishing     an
evaluation      system for grant training.2              As we found, the military
assistance      training      program was difficult        to assess because      of
the lack of established            measurable   criteria.       As a result,     DOD
had no assurance         that the purposes of the program were being
fully    achieved.       We concluded     that,   in the interest        of good
management, an evaluation            system would be useful          as a management
tool.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Departments     of State and Defense generally               comply with the
policies   and regulations     of the IMET Program during               the planning
and development     phases.    However, the lack of procedures                for
reviewing   new training    requirements        that are added after         programs
are approved at the training         workshops,       guidelines      for monitoring
the use of IMET graduates       upon their        return    from training,       and a
system to evaluate      the effectiveness         of the IMET Program
contribute    to the Departments'      inability        to ensure that IMET
funds are used efficiently        and effectively.
To further      improve program management, we recommend that the
Secretary    of Defense consider         requiring     the Director   of DSAA to
develop procedures         for reviewing     additions    to approved programs
and to work with the Unified           Commands in developing        guidelines
that specify      how U.S. officials        should monitor     the use of IMET
graduates.       These guidelines      should,     at a minimum, require        SAOs
to periodically       verify   how countries        use IMET graduates.
Furthermore,      because it is difficult          to assess the success of the

2Problems in Administration   of the Military              Assistance     Training
Program (B-163582,   Feb. 16, 1971).


                                          20
APPENDIX I                                                       APPENDIX I


program, we also recommend that the Departments             of State and
Defense jointly     develop a system to evaluate       the effectiveness    of
the IMET Program.        This system should identify      changes in U.S.
objectives    or training     needs and prioritize   training
requirements.




                                      21
APPENDIX II                                                                     APPENDIX II


                                       OTHER ISSUES
STUDENTS EXPOSED TO
U.S. VALUES, INCLUDING
HUMAN RIGHTS
A key objective        of the IMET Program is to expose participants                        to
U.S. values,     citizens,        institutions,      and commitment  to human
rights.      The training       installations       address this objective
through both the formal training                process and planned
extracurricular       activities.
Lesson plans for various            formal training            courses included         topics
such as the Geneva Convention,                the Law of Land Warfare,               the My
Lai incident        in Vietnam,     and aspects         of the U.S. system of
government.        Lesson plans included            lectures,        visual
presentations,         and small group discussions                 in which some of these
topics    were frequently        discussed       in more detail,            often using the
experiences       of the students.          For example, a psychological
operations       course curriculum        included       discussions         on selected
aspects of international            law, descriptions              of the Law of War as
presented      in the Geneva Convention,              the International            Human
Rights Standards,         and the U.S. position              with respect        to torture.
A course on counter-narcotics               included       U.S. rules of evidence as
part of its curriculum.             Professional          military       education     courses,
which are higher-level           courses for officer               development      such as
those offered         at the War College         or the Command and Staff
schools,     included      in their    lesson plans topics              on the
relationship       between the military            and the civilian            governments,
the three branches of government,                  and U.S. stances on human
rights.
Each training       installation     has various methods for evaluating    the
quality     of instruction       and the content of the courses.
Instructions      on U.S. values and human rights       were included   in
these evaluations.            For example:
--   At all three installations,              students    complete standard
     critique    forms that include           their   views on the quality            of
     information     provided  in the         course.
--   A Curriculum     Review Committee           reviews current and proposed
     courses    at the Inter-American            Air Forces Academy.
--   An Evaluation      and Standardization         Directorate       at the School
     of the Americas evaluates         both instructors           and courses by
     obtaining    students'    views,    interviewing        instructors,    and by
     attending    portions   of courses.
                                               22
APPENDIX II                                                                  APPENDIX II



--   After-Action     Review Working Groups at the School                  of the
     Americas meet to resolve         problems in instruction              or course
     content     that are identified.
In addition,         the IMET Program includes            planned extracurricular
activities       in the United States.            Known as the Informational
Program, these activities             include     presentations       on U.S. customs
and culture        and the historical        development        of the U.S.
government:        travel   to various      places,     including     those of
historical       interest,      local   city and state government
institutions,          museums, and Washington,           D.C. t and interaction     with
local      U.S. citizens      through a volunteer          sponsorship      program.
While U.S. officials            said that the Informational             Program is
intended       to expose foreign        personnel     to U.S. people,
institutions,          and values,    it is not designed          to change their
behavior.
VIEWS INDICATE THAT THE PROGRAM
PROVIDES NUMEROUSADVANTAGES
A recent DSAA study includes              substantial      testimonial         evidence to
support      the premise that the IMET Program is one of the most
cost-effective          programs for pursuing         U.S. foreign        policy     and
national       security     objectives.     Our interviews         with U.S. and
foreign     military       officials    and former students          indicate      unanimous
agreement that the program provides                 numerous advantages            to both
the United States and the participating                   countries.
The following       examples illustrate       joint and country-specific
benefits    that    U.S. officials      stated were provided     by the IMET
Program:
we
     U.S. officials       in Guatemala,        Haiti,      and Peru stated      that IMET
     graduates     were helpful      in addressing           U.S. counter-narcotics
     efforts--   an important      U.S. objective            in each country.       For
     example, a high-ranking           embassy      official      in Peru stated      that
     the ability      of Peruvian      officers       to speak English,       to
     understand      U.S. policies      and objectives,          and to have a
     positive    point of view of the United States contributed                       to the
     counter-narcotics        agreement between the United States and
     Peru.     U.S. officials      in Guatemala also stated              that officers
     who trained      under the IMET Program had contributed                  towards
     U.S. counter-narcotics          goals.
--   U.S. officials      in Austria mentioned      two specific    benefits
     received     from the IMET Program.      First,     IMET graduates     are
     instrumental     in resolving  operational       issues pertaining      to
                                             23
APPENDIX II                                                                  APPENDIX II


     U.S. forces.      For example, the United States              receives
     permission    for about  1,500    military      overflights        a year.
     Permission    for each overflight        is obtained       on a case-by-case
     basis from an Austrian      officer      who is an IMET graduate.
     Second, Austria     has provided     the United States with free
     annual mountaineering      and alpine      helicopter       training     for
     about   50 U.S. military    personnel.
     U.S. officials        stated    that IMET has contributed              to the key
     U.S. objective         of ensuring       the continued       democratization       of
     the Guatemalan government.                 U.S. officials      stated     that the
     IMET Program contributed             to the changes that were being made
     in the Guatemalan military               to support democratization.             For
     example, the Defense Minister                 acted to subordinate          the
     military's       role to civilian          leadership     and depoliticize       the
     military,      human rights       violations        were reduced, a public
     relations      section     was created        to improve the military's          image
     with the population,           and an Inspector          General position       was
     created     to address abuses within              the military      system.
     According      to the U.S. Ambassador,              the IMET Program is one of
     the most valuable          programs he has to accomplish               U.S. foreign
     policy     goals in Guatemala.
--   U.S. officials          said that the IMET Program encourages              the
     purchase of U.S. equipment by exposing                foreign   personnel       to
     U.S. doctrine         and equipment.      U.S. officials      partially
     attributed      the planned sale of 24 new howitzers               to Austria       to
     the familiarity          with U.S. equipment      that Austrians        received
     through the IMET Program.             U.S. officials       in Spain also
     partially     attributed        to the IMET Program the successful             sale
     of several      billion      dollars  worth of U.S. equipment.
--   U.S. officials      in Spain said that one particular              IMET
     graduate    is responsible    for overseeing         the implementation       of
     the new defense cooperation         treaty     between the United States
     and Spain.      According   to U.S. officials,          this official      is
     familiar    with U.S. procedures,        requirements,       and limitations
     and is able to informally        resolve     potential      problems between
     the United States and Spain regarding              the treaty's
     implementation.
Foreign military   officials   and IMET Program graduates                     commented
as follows   on the advantages   of the IMET Program:
--   Officials   in Guatemala,  Haiti,    and Peru said that the IMET
     Program contributed    to professionalizing     their armed forces
     and emphasized that this was important       if democracy was to
     continue  flourishing.    For example, the Commander-in-Chief      of
                                              24
APPENDIX II                                                                      APPENDIX II


     the Haitian   military   said that one of the most important
     aspects of the IMET Program is the exposure of its military
     officials   to the professionalism   of the U.S. armed forces                          and
     to U.S. values.
--   Officials      in each country      said that the IMET Program gave
     their     personnel    an opportunity    to observe U.S. culture       and
     institutions,       giving  them a better      understanding of U.S.
     policies      and values and a basis       for establishing  military-
     to-military       rapport.
--   Military    officials    in each country     stated    that the IMET
     Program provides       exposure to updated U.S. doctrine        and
     technology.        For example, officials      from South Korea said
     that the IMET Program increased           the interoperability    between
     South Korean and U.S. forces.
--   IMET graduates   in four countries               stated  that training in the
     United States has enhanced their                 careers and sometimes
     resulted  in promotions.
--   Military  officials  in Guatemala,    Haiti, and Peru said that
     the program provides   access to U.S. doctrine    and teaching
     aids that are not otherwise    available.
VIEWS INDICATE THAT
NATION-BUILDING TRAINING
SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED
Nation-building       can be applied     to any military        endeavor that is
part of the development       of a country's       infrastructure.             The
concept of using the military          in a nation-building           role is not
new, having been part of security           assistance      legislation         and
various     programs since their     inception     following       World War II.
Since the concept generally         applies    to the developing           countries
of Asia, Africa,       the Near East, and Latin America,              military
assistance      cannot be thought of only in military              terms: it must
be thought      of in economic and political         terms as well.
While the military            plays almost no role in nation-building
activities      in Austria,          South Korea, and Spain, the potential
military     role is much larger            in Guatemala,           Haiti,      and Peru.     U.S.
and foreign       officials       we interviewed           indicated       that training      the
military     in nation-building            skills       should be considered           on a
country-by-country            basis.      Furthermore,          these officials        said that
IMET already       provides       the types of training              that could be used by
the military       but     that specific         policies      may have to be changed.
U.S. officials         also said that if nation-building                      training    were
                                                25
APPENDIX II                                                                         APPENDIX II


provided,      it should be additional                 to and not     in place      of existing
education      and training.
Desirability     of Using the
Military     in Nation-Building
U.S. officials       generally     considered    using the military    to develop
nation-building        skills    desirable    in Haiti   and Peru but
undesirable       in Guatemala because of a tenuous civil-military
relationship.        Officials     with the U.S. Agency for International
Development and the U.S. Information              Service   in Guatemala and
Peru indicated       that nation-building        should be considered     a
civilian      sector   role and that their       agencies   should provide
nation-building        training.
--   Both U.S. officials                and high-ranking             Guatemalan military
     officials       stated       that the military               should not become
     extensively         involved         in the nation-building                needed to improve
     the country's          infrastructure.                 They stated       that nation-
     building      should be the role of the civilian                           government.
     However, these officials                    stated       that the military        could build
     roads and provide               medical assistance              in those areas where
     there was a guerrilla                  insurgency.           According      to these
     officials,        this type of involvement                     would be based more on a
     counter-insurgent               strategy        than a nation-building             strategy.    A
     high-ranking          U.S. military             official       said that because          the
     Guatemalan military                has very few military                personnel      and very
     little     equipment          in engineering             and medical       units,    it is
     highly     unlikely        that the Guatemalan military                     would place a
     high priority          on such training.                   Rather,    the military        will
     continue      to place priority                 on training        along current        lines,
     that is, professional                  military        education.
--   U.S. officials            and Haitian        military     officials    agreed that it
     would be desirable                for the military        to attain    the nation-
     building       skills       needed to improve the country's
     infrastructure.                According     to an Agency for International
     Development          official,        the civilian       government's      ability    to
     fulfill      its nation-building               mission     is limited    to the capital
     city of Port-au-Prince.                   According      to other officials,        the
     military       faces no external             threats     but does face internal
     opposition.           These officials           believed      that the military       could
     become a positive               force in the country           and its image would
     improve if it were used in nation-building.                           U.S. officials
     stated     that while it may be desirable                     to use IMET to train        the
     military       in areas like            engineering      and medicine,      this training
     would be wasted unless related                      equipment was also provided.
     They also pointed               out that it might take a substantial                amount
                                                  26
APPENDIX II                                                                       APPENDIX II


     of aid to improve          the military         because   Haiti     is an extremely
     poor nation.
--   U.S. officials       in Peru said that while it might be desirable
     for the military        to become involved        in nation-building,           it
     would be impossible         because of current         internal    threats      and
     economic conditions.          Peru is being threatened           by two violent
     groups intent      on overthrowing         the government and by drug
     traffickers.       In addition,       as one of the poorest          countries        in
     South America,       Peru faces severe economic problems that affect
     the resources      allocated     to the military.           U.S. officials         said
     that Peru has previously           trained    personnel      in skills     that
     could be used in nation-building              support.       However, this
     training     is currently     being used to combat the insurgents.
Feasibility  of Usinq
the IMET Program
The IMET Program is not primarily      designed  to develop nation-
building   skills.    However, components of nation-building        skills
have been offered     through the IMET Program, including      training                         in
communications,    electronics,  maintenance,   health   care, logistics,
and management.
U.S. officials            stated    that if the IMET Program were to be
redesigned        to emphasize nation-building,               several     changes to
existing       policy      would have to be made.            Current     policy     emphasizes
professional          military      education      in the United States for officers
who might reach positions                of influence      or prominence,
particularly          senior-level       officers.       Further,     the current        policy
discourages         the use of mobile training             teams to train         foreign
military      personnel         in their     own country     because     such training
does not expose these personnel                    to the United States.            According
to training         officials,        if the program were to be refocused,                  more
junior     officer        and enlisted       personnel    would have to be trained              in
technical       fields        such as engineering        and medicine,        and the use of
mobile training             teams would have to be increased              because      they
could train         greater       numbers of personnel         within    a given time
frame.
U.S. officials     stated  that they would like to retain     the current
structure     but expand it to accommodate the nation-building       role.
They also said that they did not want to see the current          IMET
programs reduced to focus on a nation-building       mission.
U.S. officials     also indicated    that other programs might
complement the IMET Program in providing          nation-building
training.      For example, training     for U.S. National       Guard units                    in
                                                27
APPENDIX II                                                                   APPENDIX II


Guatemala during         engineering      and medical    readiness     exercises,
commonly referred          to as Title     10, might complement nation-
building      IMET.    U.S. and foreign        officials    pointed    out  that
nation-building        training      in poor countries      is ineffective       unless
the country      has resources         to accompany it.       For example, training
in road building         is not effective        if the country     has no
bulldozers.        Currently,      the IMET Program does not provide
equipment with training.
OTHER PROGRAMSPROVIDE
MILITARY TRAINING
In the six countries   we reviewed,      a number of training    programs
have been provided   to foreign   military    officials.     For example:
Be
      The Foreign Military       Sales Program was used to train
      officials    in Guatemala,     Peru, South Korea, and Spain in
      courses that were also provided         under IMET.    The program's
      training   objectives    and goals are similar      to those of IMET,
      except that the country        pays for its own training.       For
      example, Spain spent $4.8 million         in fiscal   year 1989 for
      training   from the United States,       mostly for pilot    training.
      Also, Guatemala spent $23,477 in fiscal           year 1988 for the
      training   of an officer     at the Army War College.
me
      The United States sponsors a variety                 of exchange programs
      with other countries,          mostly to establish         military-to-
      military    relationships,         foster    a mutual appreciation            and
      understanding       of policies       and doctrines      of the participating
      count ri es, and provide         training      for U.S. and foreign
      personnel.       For example, the Personnel             Exchange Program--a
      l-year    or longer     reciprocal        exchange program--was         used in Peru
      and Spain.       At the time of our review,             Peru exchanged four
      Army personnel        in the infantry,         armor, and field        artillery
      units and the signal          corps.       Other positions       were available
      for the Navy and Air Force.                In addition,     the Subject Matter
      Expert Exchange Program, which involves                  short-term        exchanges
      of experts,      was used in Guatemala and Peru.                 In Guatemala,       two
      U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General officers                      were exchanged
      with two Guatemalan officers               when Guatemala was beginning            to
      establish     its own Judge Advocate General corps.
 --   Reciprocal     unit exchange programs are similar       to the
      personnel     exchange programs.     The intent   is to provide     host-
      nation personnel      with experiences   in the United States and to
      provide    U.S. personnel   with experiences    in foreign    nations.
      Guatemala,     Peru, and Spain have reciprocal      unit exchange
      programs with the United States.         For example, a special
                                               28
APPENDIX III                                                                  APPENDIX III


                       OBJECTIVES,      SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The objectives       of our review were to (1) describe              how IMET
programs in selected        countries     were planned and determine              the
extent    to which they complied         with established       policies      and
procedures     during   planning,     (2) determine     how program
implementation       compared with approved plans and programs and
verify    that any changes complied          with established        policies       and
procedures,      (3) describe     how the State and Defense Departments
evaluated     the program's     success in meeting program objectives,
and (4) determine       whether SAO officials         monitored      the use of IMET
graduates.       We performed     our review at the following             locations:
--   Departments of State and Defense,   including                   DSAA, Army,         Air
     Force, and Navy, Washington,  D.C.;
--   Inter-American      Air   Forces     Academy,      Homestead      Air   Force      Base,
     Miami, Florida;
--   U.S. Army School of the Americas                and the     Infantry     Officer
     School, Fort Benning,  Georgia:
--   U.S.   European    Command, Stuttgart,           West Germany;
--   U.S.   Pacific    Command, Honolulu,           Hawaii:
--   U.S.   Forces,    Caribbean,       Key West,     Florida;      and
--   U.S.   Central    Command, Tampa,       Florida.
In addition,      we interviewed        officials  from the Southern Command.
We also obtained        detailed     information   on the IMET Program and
other military       and civilian       training  programs in six countries:
Austria,     Guatemala,     Haiti,     Peru, South Korea, and Spain.
In Washington,    we obtained   information     on U.S. foreign     policy   and
IMET Program objectives      and training    courses provided.       We also
analyzed  IMET policies     and regulations,     studies,   and information
on the number of students      and funding    levels    for the six
countries   we visited.
At the European and Pacific        Commands, we interviewed       officials      to
determine   the Commands' roles and responsibilities           in IMET
management and analyzed      policies   and procedures,     studies,       and
other information   related     to program management.       At four Unified
Commands, we attended     the fiscal    year 1991 Command training
workshops to observe how training        programs for 28 countries           were
reviewed and approved.
                                             31
APPENDIX III                                                                        APPENDIX III



In each country,          we interviewed            officials       from the U.S. embassy
and SAO and military              officials       in the country's            Ministry        of
Defense to obtain           information         about      program management.                We also
discussed       with these officials              and IMET graduates              their     views on
the program's         benefits        and shortcomings.             We analyzed         planning
documents,       training       files      and correspondence,             detailed       training
lists,      Inspector     General reports,              and other documents to
determine       how the training            programs were managed during                    fiscal
years 1988 and 1989.                In Guatemala,          Haiti,     and Peru, we obtained
the views of U.S. and country                    officials        on the desirability              and
feasibility        of emphasizing           nation-building           training       in the
program.
At each of the schools,    we interviewed   instructors,   students,    and
other officials  to determine    how IMET participants   were exposed
to U.S. values,  including    human rights.    We also analyzed    lesson
plans for courses that were taken by IMET students.
We performed    our work between September 1989 and May 1990 in
accordance   with generally   accepted auditing standards.




                                                   32
APPENDIX II                                                                         APPENDIX II


     forces unit from Peru trained                 with a U.S. special             forces unit
     at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.                   The Peruvian  unit           received
     training  in small unit tactics                and patrolling.
--   The Latin American Cooperation           Program is a short-term
     training     program in which military         personnel    from Latin
     American countries        are sent to the United States for a 2- or
     3-week period.        The program,    funded through      the military
     departments,       is designed    to enhance military-to-military
     relationships.        Guatemala and Peru both received            program
     funds to send personnel         to various     types of training.         For
     example, Guatemalan officers          were sent to a U.S. training
     facility     for a series     of seminars    that focused on logistics
     management concepts and practices.               The goal of the seminars
     was to promote sound logistics           practices    and familiarize
     participants      with U.S. logistics       systems.
we
     The United States participates                   in a variety        of joint        or U.S.-
     sponsored       exercises.         For example,        the United States annually
     participates         in large joint          exercises      with South Korea that
     are designed        to promote interoperability                 by practicing           wartime
     skills      and developing         operational        planning      skills.       A U.S.
     exercise      program,       called     Deployment       for Training,         gives U.S.
     troops an opportunity               to train     on foreign      soil.        Training       can
     last from 15 to 45 days.                 Other examples are a special                   forces
     light     infantry      training       exercise     that occurred           in February and
     March 1989 and a training                exercise,       funded through Title              10,
     for U.S. National            Guard and reserve units              in medical and
     engineering        readiness,        both in Guatemala.             As a side benefit,
     host-country         forces      received     on-the-job       or observer         training.
--   The Inter-American   Geodetic   Survey, which is part of the
     Defense Mapping Agency, provided      U.S.-funded      training    to
     Guatemala and Peru.     The Defense Mapping Agency relocated             its
     school from Panama to the continental         United States in 1989.
     Training,   which is given in Spanish,      is related      to map-making,
     a skill   used by the host country     for both military        and nation-
     building   purposes.   Seven Guatemalan students         were trained      in
     four mapping courses in 1989.
U.S. officials          stated  that these programs are used to complement
U.S. objectives           in one or more of the countries  we reviewed.
They also said          that these programs are not designed    to be
alternatives    to        the IMET Program.




                                                 29
APPENDIX II                                                                APPENDIX II


CIVILIAN    PROGRAMSPROVIDE TRAINING
The U.S. Information         Service and the Agency for International
Development    provide     a variety     of training  programs.   Although
military   personnel      can participate      in some of them, the primary
focus is on training        civilians.
Training      programs offered          by the U.S. Information      Service    include
the Fulbright          Scholarship      Program, which provides      funding    for
students      to obtain        masters'    degrees at U.S. universities,        and the
International          Visitors     Program, through which foreign         personnel
are brought         to the United States for training           or exposure to a
specific      activity       or event.      For example, during    fiscal    years
1988 and 1989, seven Haitians                were brought  to the United States
under the Fulbright             Scholarship     Program to obtain    graduate
degrees in engineering,              water conservation,    and other nation-
building      skills.
The U.S. Agency for International             Development      training      programs
include   the Central       American and Andean Peace Scholarships,                 which
allow poor individuals         from the Central        American and Andean ridge
countries    to be trained       in a specific     skill    in the United States
and to be exposed to U.S. values.              Nearly 1,300 Guatemalans were
brought   to the United States during           fiscal    year 1989 for training
under the Central        American Peace Scholarship           Program.       Training
areas included       primary   health   care and nutrition,           business
management, improvement          of rural   teaching     methods,      nontraditional
exports,    agricultural      science,    computer science,         and engineering.
Officials       from the U.S. Information          Service and the Agency for
International         Development   stated     that their    programs were
designed      for civilian     rather    than military     training.     They said
that their        programs therefore       could not replace       the IMET Program.




                                            30
APPENDIX IV                                              APPENDIX IV


                     MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS DIVISION. WASHINGTON, D.C.
Charles A. Schuler, Assistant     Director
Ronald D. Hughes, Evaluator-in-Charge
Robert E. Sanchez, Evaluator
EUROPEAN OFFICE
Jeffrey    K. Harris,    Site Senior
Patrick    E. Gallagher,     Evaluator
FAR EAST OFFICE
Peter Konjevich,   Regional     Assignment    Manager
Richard W. Meeks,     Site Senior
Judith  A. McCloskey,     Evaluator




(465293)


                                         33