NATO Enlargement: U.S. and International Efforts to Assist Potential New Members

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-06-27.

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

                   United States General Accounting Office

GAO                Report to the Chairman, Committee on
                   International Relations, House of

June 1997
                   U.S. and International
                   Efforts to Assist
                   Potential New

      United States
GAO   General Accounting Office
      Washington, D.C. 20548

      National Security and
      International Affairs Division


      June 27, 1997

      The Honorable Benjamin Gilman
      Chairman, Committee on International Relations
      House of Representatives

      Dear Mr. Chairman:

      Since the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, the North Atlantic Treaty
      Organization (NATO) and its members have worked to promote democracy,
      economic growth, and military cooperation with Central and East
      European nations. Under its founding treaty, NATO may invite other
      European states to become members—if they can further NATO’s principles
      and the enhancement of security throughout the North Atlantic area.1 To
      advance its goal of enhancing security and stability in this area, NATO plans
      to extend invitations to one or more Central and Eastern European states
      at its July 1997 summit in Madrid, Spain.

      While NATO does not have a formal program dedicated to preparing nations
      for membership, in 1994 it launched a wide-ranging cooperative
      effort—known as the Partnership for Peace (PFP)—with nonmember
      countries to promote democracy, expand cooperation, and strengthen
      relationships between NATO and nonmember countries. NATO has stated
      that the participation of countries in PFP will play a role in its decisions
      regarding expansion. The United States and other NATO members have also
      initiated bilateral programs to help PFP partner nations.

      Although not all PFP partners now aspire to be NATO members, you asked
      us to examine how NATO and U.S. assistance programs are helping those
      that do wish to join. Our specific objectives were to determine how
      (1) NATO’s PFP program is helping aspiring members prepare for possible
      NATO membership, (2) U.S. assistance efforts are helping aspiring partner
      countries to prepare for possible NATO membership, (3) other NATO
      members’ efforts are being coordinated with NATO and U.S. efforts, and
      (4) aspiring countries are preparing themselves for possible NATO
      membership. In addressing these objectives, we focused on efforts aimed
      at improving partners’ ability to work militarily with NATO. We did not
      evaluate prospective members’ political and economic efforts to prepare

       Twelve nations initially signed the NATO treaty in 1949. NATO has since expanded three times to its
      current 16-nation membership of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy,
      Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United

      Page 1                                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

                   for membership. As agreed with your office, we focused on the Czech
                   Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

                   You also asked us to address several issues concerning estimates of the
                   cost of expanding NATO. As agreed with your office and that of the Ranking
                   Minority Member of the Committee, we will review the executive branch’s
                   estimate of the cost of expanding NATO in a separate report.

                   NATO, the United States, and other NATO members are assisting prospective
Results in Brief   new members in areas relevant to NATO’s principles for expansion (e.g.,
                   promoting civilian control over the military, civil and military cooperation,
                   and interoperability with NATO). Our analysis indicates the assistance
                   provided under these programs is generally consistent with prospective
                   members’ needs, as those needs were identified to us by NATO, U.S., and
                   prospective member officials.

                   Through exercises, symposia, training, and other activities, NATO’s
                   $26.2 million PFP program is helping partner countries begin to improve
                   their ability to work more closely with NATO in PFP-related activities. The
                   six countries that we reviewed are using PFP primarily to take part in
                   hundreds of NATO-sponsored exercises, training sessions, communications
                   efforts, and other activities. These events are limited to peacekeeping,
                   search and rescue, and similar missions. While U.S. and NATO officials
                   cannot quantitatively measure the extent to which such events would
                   enhance a future member’s ability to work closely with other NATO
                   members on the full range of NATO activities, they believe that the events
                   are improving the ability of partner forces to interoperate with NATO.

                   U.S. bilateral assistance efforts generally complement NATO’s PFP program.
                   They fall within areas of cooperation designated by NATO and its PFP
                   partners and reflect an emphasis on helping PFP forces work with NATO
                   forces.2 U.S. programs include providing training in English, providing data
                   on U.S. defense programming and budgeting practices, undertaking
                   studies and paying for equipment to improve air traffic control systems
                   and tactical communication, and providing support for partners’
                   participation in U.S. and NATO exercises. While it has programmed
                   $308.6 million in fiscal year 1995-97 funds for such assistance to 23 PFP
                   partners, the United States has focused 46 percent ($142.7 million) of this
                   amount on efforts involving Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary,

                    See appendix I for a list of 18 designated areas of cooperation.

                   Page 2                                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

             Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.3 About 60 percent of these funds for the
             six countries is for the purchase of nonlethal military hardware, such as
             air traffic control equipment.

             Other NATO members—including Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom,
             France, and Denmark—are also assisting PFP partners, although we could
             not determine the overall value of such aid. While NATO seeks to improve
             its mechanism for coordinating members’ assistance efforts, the United
             States and other major donors are attempting to coordinate directly with
             one another by exchanging detailed information among themselves. Also,
             NATO’s military command has set up a database on PFP and bilateral events.

             Each of the six countries that we reviewed has formally informed NATO of
             its interest in joining NATO and has identified various steps it believes are
             needed to address NATO’s expectations for new members. Each is actively
             involved in PFP. All are participating in the NATO-led peacekeeping
             operation in Bosnia. Some are seeking to meet NATO interoperability
             standards, develop new arrangements with neighbors, and streamline their

             In 1994, NATO stated that it would invite other European countries to join
Background   the alliance. Twelve Central and Eastern European nations expressed
             interest in doing so4 and have taken part in so-called “intensified
             dialogues” with NATO to help them learn more about NATO’s requirements.
             Although NATO has no formal program to prepare such nations for NATO
             membership, it has taken steps to strengthen certain non-NATO members’
             relationships with NATO.

             These steps include the PFP program, which NATO initiated in 1994.
             Twenty-seven non-NATO members now participate in PFP (see fig. 1). PFP
             objectives include fostering democratization in partners’ defense
             establishments; encouraging joint planning, training, and military
             exercises with NATO forces; promoting the ability of partner nations to
             operate with NATO forces in humanitarian relief, search and rescue,
             peacekeeping, and other agreed-upon missions; and developing forces that
             are better able to operate with NATO forces. To implement the program,
             NATO and each PFP partner develop a plan that depicts NATO-proposed

              The Department of Defense (DOD) plans to spend additional fiscal year 1997 funds in these six
             countries, but has not yet determined how much.
             Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Former Yugoslav
             Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

             Page 3                                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

exercises and other PFP-related activities of interest to the partner and lists
the partner’s military and other assets that might be used for PFP activities.
NATO expects partners to fund their participation. NATO views partners’
level of participation in PFP activities as an important indicator of their
interest in joining NATO and, according to DOD officials, has structured PFP
as one means of helping partners become better integrated with NATO

Page 4                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

Page 5     GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

Figure 1: Eurasian NATO Members and PFP Partners

                                                                                                                       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                              Sea
                                                                                                                       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                              Norwegian Sea
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                             Sweden    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,     Gulf,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                    of ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,  Bothnia
                                                                                                                       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                     North Atlantic                                                           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   la ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                                  of Fin ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                                          n d               Russia
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                             ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                        Ocean                                                                                                  lf
                                                                                                                           G u
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                  Estonia    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                             ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                 North Sea                    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                           ,, ,,                           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                           ,, ,,                           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                     Denmark  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                           ,,                       Latvia
                                                                                                           ,,               ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,
                                                                                                           Baltic Sea       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                          Lithuania        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,      ,,,,,   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                      Russia,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                    ,,,,,   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                               Sea United
                                                         Kingdom                                              Poland ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                      Germany                             ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                         Belgium                                          ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                    Czech                 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                      li sh C h                    Lux.                                   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                         ,,,,,,,,,,              Slovakia,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                E n g                                                Republic
                                                                                         ,,,,,,,,,,                       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                 ,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,                       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                 ,,,,,,  ,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                   Austria Hungary ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                 ,,,,,,   ,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                   Switzerland                            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                 ,,,,,,                                   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                        France                                            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                                                                        Italy                             ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                                             Bay of Biscay
                                                                                                                                           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,     ,,,,,,,,
                                                                                           Slovenia Adriatic
                                                                                                                                                     Black Sea         ,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                       Sea                    Bulgaria
                                                                                                                                           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,     ,,,,,,,,
                                                                                                                                           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,     ,,,,,,,,  ,,
                                                                                            Tyrrhenian                                                                       ,,,,
                                                                                                                       Greece                              Turkey            ,,,,,,
                                                    Spain                                      Sea

                                      Strait of
                                                   Gibraltar (U.K.)                                     Ionian               Sea
                                      Gibraltar                                                          Sea
                                                                                                                    Mediterranean Sea

                                                  Page 6                                                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

               ,,,,,,,,,                                   ,,
     ,,,               ,,,

                  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                  ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                  Turkmenistan            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
              ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                                 Legend
                                                                         NATO members

                                                                         Partners that have formally indicated
                                                                         interest in joining NATO
                                                                ,,,,, Other partners

                                     Page 7                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

                     In July 1994, the U.S. President announced the Warsaw Initiative, a U.S.
                     bilateral program designed to (1) facilitate the participation of partner
                     states in exercises and interoperability programs, (2) promote
                     interoperability with NATO, (3) support efforts to increase defense and
                     military cooperation with PFP partners, and (4) develop strong candidates
                     for NATO membership. The Departments of State and Defense jointly fund
                     and administer the initiative. The Department of State funds equipment
                     transfers and training, while DOD supports partners’ participation in joint
                     exercises and NATO-PFP interoperability projects. Also, the Department of
                     State and DOD provide training and advice through the International
                     Military Education and Training (IMET) program and the Joint Contact
                     Team (JCT) program and donate excess defense articles.

                     The Department of State and DOD agencies programmed about
                     $308.6 million in fiscal year 1995-97 funds to support these efforts in 23 PFP
                     partner states. The Department of State’s programs are funded through the
                     150 international affairs budget function and account for about 48 percent
                     of these funds. The DOD programs are funded through the 050 national
                     defense budget function and account for about 52 percent of the funds.

                     To facilitate NATO expansion, the President and Congress enacted the NATO
                     Participation Act of 1994 and the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of
                     1996, which authorized the President to establish security assistance
                     programs for Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and any
                     other countries the President believes have made progress in achieving PFP
                     goals. The fiscal year 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act also
                     earmarked $30 million for foreign military financing grants for the Czech
                     Republic, Hungary, and Poland and allocated $20 million5 to subsidize
                     lending up to $242.5 million for purchases of U.S. defense articles,
                     services, and training by these three countries.

                     The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia
NATO’s PFP Program   are extensively involved in NATO’s PFP program. NATO, U.S., and partner
Helps Partners       officials agree that PFP is improving the ability of potential new members
Prepare for          and other PFP partners to work with NATO in key areas but they cannot
                     quantifiably measure the extent to which it will improve such abilities
Membership           across the full range of NATO activities.

                      These funds serve as a subsidy that has been set aside to cover the potential cost to the U.S.
                     government in the event that the loan recipients default. The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990
                     required U.S. agencies to estimate and budget for the long-term costs of a loan or guarantee in the year
                     authorized. See our report entitled Credit Reform: U.S. Needs Better Method for Estimating Cost of
                     Foreign Loans and Guarantees (GAO/NSIAD/GGD-95-31, Dec. 1994).

                     Page 8                                                        GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

Needs of PFP Partner       PFP partners need to improve their ability to work closely with NATO in
States                     numerous areas, according to U.S., NATO, and partner officials. These areas
                           include (1) cultivating a larger cadre of officers fluent in NATO’s languages,
                           (2) training officers in NATO practices and acquiring a greater and more
                           detailed understanding of NATO standards and procedures, (3) developing
                           civilian expertise in and control over defense matters (e.g., defense
                           programming and budgeting), (4) promoting the use of interoperable
                           command and control systems, and (5) establishing modern airspace
                           management systems. Some partner nation officials told us that they will
                           modernize their armed forces regardless of whether they join NATO.

Partners’ Involvement in   Each of the six nations has taken or plans to take part in numerous
the PFP Program            NATO-sponsored PFP events.6 According to Supreme Headquarters Allied
                           Powers in Europe (SHAPE) and U.S. officials, these events were partially
                           shaped by more than 40 PFP interoperability objectives developed by NATO
                           military commands (see app. II).

                           As shown in figure II, about 64 percent of the NATO activities in which the
                           six nations are participating involve joint exercises, training,
                           standardization and interoperability, communications, and civil emergency
                           planning. Examples of such activities include exercises on naval
                           peacekeeping in hostile environments, staff studies on the practicalities of
                           conducting out-of-area multinational peacekeeping air operations, staff
                           meetings on tactical communications interoperability, seminars on
                           command and control systems, training in NATO operational terminology,
                           search and rescue and explosive ordinance disposition working parties,
                           and discussions of NATO reconnaissance and surveillance procedures
                           related to peacekeeping. The remaining 36 percent of the activities involve
                           13 other PFP cooperation areas.

                            The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia had participated or were
                           scheduled to participate in 129, 169, 197, 297, 156, and 190 NATO events, respectively. NATO officials
                           were unable to provide us with a country-by-country breakdown of the $26.2 million budgeted by
                           NATO for PFP activities during fiscal years 1995-97.

                           Page 9                                                        GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

Figure II: Major NATO PFP Areas
Participated in by the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,                               Exercises   27.0%
and Slovenia
                                                                                                        Civil Emergency
                                               Standardization                                           Civil Emergency
                                                                                                        Planning  6.5% Plan
                                         andardization 8.4%

                                            Training   16.8%

                                                                                              Other   35.8%

                                            NATO has also offered partners the opportunity to take part in a planning
                                            and review process aimed at helping them meet NATO’s PFP interoperability
                                            standards. Seventeen partners—including the six countries we
                                            reviewed—have agreed to do so. NATO has recently set milestones for their
                                            compliance with its objectives and released most of its unclassified
                                            standardization agreements and publications.

PFP’s Impact                                NATO, U.S., and partner officials in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and
                                            Poland expressed positive views regarding the PFP program. NATO officials
                                            asserted that PFP has become a permanent part of the European security
                                            architecture, resulted in closer political consultations among partners, and
                                            improved the ability of partners to work with NATO on peacekeeping
                                            missions. Partner nation officials indicated that PFP has helped expose
                                            them to NATO methods and practices.

                                            However, according to NATO and U.S. officials, the extent to which PFP has
                                            helped prepare aspiring members for full participation in NATO (1) cannot
                                            be measured in quantifiable terms and (2) is limited by the scope of the
                                            program. PFP’s scope does not include preparing partners for the major
                                            war-fighting tasks that NATO’s collective defense responsibilities might
                                            require. Therefore, according to NATO officials, PFP interoperability goals

                                            Page 10                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

                   do not cover the full range of interoperability objectives that NATO has
                   established for its members and a partner’s achievement of PFP
                   interoperability objectives would not necessarily be an indicator of how
                   well that partner would perform in collective security activities.

                   Current uncertainties regarding the forces and missions that will be
                   required of the nations invited to join NATO7—and the time frames for
                   achieving future interoperability goals for new NATO members—further
                   complicate the task of assessing PFP’s impact on future NATO members.
                   Some partner nation officials told us that they would like to have more
                   specific data from NATO to guide their future interoperability efforts.

                   The United States has focused its Warsaw Initiative and other U.S.
U.S. Programs      assistance programs heavily on the six countries that we reviewed. These
Support NATO PFP   efforts generally address areas of interest to NATO—including air traffic
Efforts            control, defense planning and budgeting, and English language training.

                   The executive branch programmed about $308.6 million for fiscal years
                   1995-97 for Warsaw Initiative efforts and other related bilateral assistance
                   programs. It has directed about 46 percent ($142.7 million) of these funds
                   to the six countries that we reviewed. These six countries received about
                   71 percent of all foreign military financing (FMF) funds provided to PFP
                   partners and about 44 percent of the IMET training funds provided to PFP
                   partners. Figure III depicts the allocation of fiscal year 1995-97 U.S.
                   Warsaw Initiative, IMET, and JCT funds by the six countries and the other
                   PFP partner recipients.

                    According to DOD officials, NATO plans to finalize target force goals for new members in 1998.

                   Page 11                                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

Figure III: U.S. Warsaw Initiative and
Other Aid Provided by Country

                                                                 Romania 8.1%
                                                                                                             Czech Republic         8.9%
                                                        Hungary 7.8%

                                               Slovakia      5.3%
                                                                                                                              Poland 14.0%
                                            Slovania     2.3%

                                                                     17 other53.8%
                                                       17 other PFP partner   PFP partners 53.8%

                                           Table I presents the allocation of U.S. funds in the six countries, by

Table 1: U.S. Warsaw Initiative and Related Assistance to Six Countries (fiscal years 1995-97)
Dollars in thousands
                                   DOD programs
PFP partner                         and exercises            State FMF               DOD JCT               State IMET                       Total
Czech Republic                             $6,461               $17,400                  $1,392                 $2,095                 $27,348
Hungary                                     6,548                12,700                   1,841                   2,830                $23,919
Poland                                      9,050                29,475                   1,765                   2,768                $43,058
Romania                                     4,902                15,775                   2,335                   2,018                $25,030
Slovakia                                    3,516                  9,550                  1,872                   1,326                $16,264
Slovenia                                    3,485                  1,400                  1,398                     803                 $7,086
Total                                    $33,962a               $86,300                $10,603                 $11,840               $142,705
                                           Note: The DOD programs depicted in this table are funded through the 050 national defense
                                           budget function and account for about 31 percent of the funds programmed for these six
                                           countries. The State programs are funded through the 150 international affairs budget function
                                           and account for about 69 percent of the funds programmed for these six countries.
                                            This total, which includes $26,680,000 in exercise costs, understates the actual amount because
                                           DOD was unable to provide total cost for all exercises planned for fiscal year 1997 that would
                                           involve these six countries. DOD’s primary interoperability programs, which account for almost all
                                           of the remaining $7,282,000, are detailed in appendix III.

                                           Page 12                                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

                                         Figure IV depicts the allocation of the $142.7 million programmed for the
                                         six countries that we addressed in our review by program type. As it
                                         illustrates, about 60 percent of U.S. assistance to these nations has been in
                                         the form of financing for defense articles and services.8

Figure IV: U.S. Warsaw Initiative and
Other Aid Provided to the Six
Countries, by Program                                                                           DOD Warsaw     Initiati23.8%
                                          DOD Joint                                           DOD Warsaw Initiative
                                  DOD JointContact
                                                    Te 7.4%

                                                                                                                         State IMET 8.3%

                                                     State FMF        60.5%

U.S. Assistance and NATO                 U.S. assistance to the six countries that we included in our review is
PFP Areas                                addressing NATO PFP cooperation areas. For example, the largest single U.S.
                                         effort in the six countries—the $32.8 million Regional Airspace
                                         Initiative—could help address one PFP area of cooperation (air traffic
                                         control) by providing five of the six countries with air sovereignty
                                         operations centers. Funded primarily with Warsaw Initiative FMF funds, the
                                         Regional Airspace Initiative is intended to help Central and East European
                                         countries make the transition to western air traffic management practices,
                                         including those used by NATO members. A DOD study, partially funded by
                                         the Warsaw Initiative, concluded that all aspects of the region’s air
                                         sovereignty operations needed improvement and that the pace of
                                         modernizing outdated systems was being constrained by cost, operational,
                                         and transitional implications. We found that other FMF-funded purchases in

                                          The United States has given Romania $4.3 million in excess defense articles.

                                         Page 13                                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

the region also correspond to NATO-designated objectives, including

Similarly, DOD has used the Warsaw Initiative’s Defense Resources
Management Studies project to support PFP’s defense planning and
budgeting cooperation area by programming about $2.8 million in fiscal
years 1995-9710 to expose the six countries to U.S. defense budget planning
and programming practices. DOD also programmed about $26.7 million
during fiscal years 1995-97 to support the six countries’ participation in
NATO- and U.S.-sponsored exercises.

The U.S. European Command is now focusing its JCT program—which is
not part of the Warsaw Initiative—on NATO PFP areas of cooperation. The
Command established the program in 1992 to introduce Central and East
European defense officials to U.S. programs and practices by detailing
U.S. military teams to their militaries. Command officials told us that in
1994 they began focusing the program on PFP areas of cooperation. Our
analysis of DOD data indicates that during 1995-97, the six countries took
part in 1,532 JCT-facilitated events. Almost 92 percent of these events were
related to NATO PFP areas of cooperation—primarily standardization,
communications, exercises, logistics, and training.

The U.S. program is also helping to train officers from the six countries to
speak English, one of NATO’s official languages. According to NATO and DOD
officials, English language training is particularly needed. While NATO has
made language training for officers a PFP interoperability objective, it
opted to leave foreign language training to its members. We found that the
United States had allocated about 20 percent of fiscal year 1995-96 IMET
funds ($1.43 million) for these six countries for English language training.
DOD also provided almost $3 million in fiscal year 1996 FMF funds for
English language training.

U.S. and recipient officials believe that the U.S. assistance is helping to
promote closer working relationships among the recipients and NATO.

 The United States has not yet provided Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic with the FMF loans
that Congress authorized for them in 1997. According to a State Department official, the Czech
Republic has requested a loan of $80 million, while officials of the other two countries have expressed
 DOD provided $500,000 in fiscal year 1994 funds for the Polish component of this project prior to the
establishment of the Warsaw Initiative.

Page 14                                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

                        Several NATO members are providing bilateral assistance to PFP partners.
Efforts to Coordinate   NATO and some of its members are seeking to exchange data about
Allied Support          PFP-related efforts in several different forums. However, consistent data
                        concerning the cost and scope of all non-U.S. bilateral programs is
                        generally not available.

                        We determined that several other NATO members—including Germany,
                        Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada—are
                        providing bilateral assistance in support of PFP objectives in one or more
                        of the six countries that we reviewed. For example, data provided by
                        German officials reveals that Germany’s 1996-97 program is heavily
                        focused on these six countries. About two-thirds of the partner
                        participation of German-sponsored events—including ministerial visits,
                        defense staff talks, expert talks, armed forces personnel exchanges, and
                        military training and language assistance—involved the countries that we

                        According to DOD officials, Denmark is leading NATO efforts to engage its
                        Baltic neighbors in PFP. Danish officials told us that Denmark is focusing
                        its efforts on Poland and other states in the Baltic region. They informed
                        us that Denmark is allocating almost 10 percent of its $10.8 million 1997
                        military assistance budget to help reorient Polish forces to NATO standards.

                        To facilitate the sharing of information on such efforts, NATO has organized
                        a voluntary PFP data-sharing process, known as the clearinghouse. The
                        clearinghouse involves periodic exchanges of data by member states
                        regarding their PFP-related bilateral programs. NATO has not charged this
                        forum with the task of organizing bilateral assistance efforts, however, and
                        the clearinghouse’s ability to gather and disseminate complete data about
                        the full range of bilateral programs has been hampered by certain
                        members’ sensitivities regarding disclosure of data about their programs.
                        These members initially presented only general information about their
                        programs. DOD officials informed us that—despite these
                        difficulties—clearinghouse sessions are becoming increasingly useful and
                        that NATO hopes to work through the clearinghouse to encourage donors to
                        collaborate in a given region (e.g., joint English language training

                        DOD officials have coped with the clearinghouse’s limitations by meeting
                        outside of the clearinghouse with several other donor states. Officials from
                        the United States, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom meet after
                        clearinghouse sessions to exchange more detailed information. DOD

                        Page 15                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

                      officials hope to increase the size of this group. Clearinghouse limitations
                      also prompted SHAPE’s PFP unit to develop its own database to help ensure
                      that participating units are not inadvertently scheduled to take part in
                      multiple events at once. In addition, the defense attaches of some NATO
                      member donor states work to coordinate their nations’ efforts in the
                      countries that we visited. However, their data is not necessarily official or
                      complete, according to one U.S. defense attache.

                      Although data on other nations’ programs is limited, according to DOD,
                      NATO has not identified cases in which a nation is wastefully duplicating
                      aid provided by another. In some cases—such as English language
                      training—nations are working separately to address what NATO and U.S.
                      officials believe is a very large need.

                      The six countries that we reviewed have taken several steps to
Prospective New       demonstrate their interest in joining NATO and to prepare for possible
Members Preparing     membership. Officials in the countries that we visited informed us that
for NATO Membership   they view PFP as an important opportunity to demonstrate their interest in
                      joining NATO and to develop a better understanding of NATO procedures.
                      The six countries plan to take part in an average of 190 PFP
                      activities—ranging from the Czech Republic’s 129 to Romania’s 297. Each
                      of the six countries has also volunteered to participate in NATO’s planning
                      and review process and has responded in detail to NATO questions
                      concerning their forces’ compliance with NATO interoperability objectives.
                      Poland has established a 25-person unit in its Ministry of Defense to
                      oversee Polish incorporation of NATO standardization agreements.

                      Each of the six countries has also engaged in NATO’s “intensified” dialogues
                      on the possibility of joining NATO and reviewed NATO’s 1995 study
                      concerning NATO’s expectations of potential new members. Each then
                      prepared detailed responses addressing its status and plans concerning
                      topics raised in the NATO study—such as democratic control over armed
                      forces, restructuring of armed forces, interoperability with NATO, ability to
                      pay for defense expenses, and relations with neighboring states. Examples
                      of actions taken to address NATO expectations include Poland’s efforts to
                      increase civilian control over its military and a Hungarian-Romanian
                      accord to resolve issues concerning Hungarian minorities in Romania.

                      All six of these countries have also demonstrated their interest in NATO by
                      volunteering units to support the NATO-led peace operation effort in

                      Page 16                                        GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

                  Bosnia.11 NATO officials informed us that the Bosnia mission has greatly
                  promoted the interoperability of these nations’ units with those of NATO

                  All six nations have also streamlined portions of their Soviet-era force
                  structures. For example, according to U.S. officials, Poland has cut its
                  military manpower in half since the end of the Cold War and is seeking to
                  develop more mobile units for possible use by NATO. The other five nations
                  have also reduced much of their force structures.

                  In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD and the Department of State
Agency Comments   stated that they concurred with the report. DOD’s comments are presented
                  in appendix IV. The Department of State provided its comments verbally.
                  DOD and Department of State officials also provided several technical
                  comments and we have incorporated them into this report.

                  To address our objectives, we interviewed officials and gathered and
Scope and         analyzed information from officials in the Department of State; the Office
Methodology       of the Secretary of Defense; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Defense
                  Intelligence Agency; the Defense Security Assistance Agency; the U.S.
                  Mission and Military Delegation to NATO, Brussels, Belgium; the U.S.
                  European Command in Germany; the U.S. Atlantic Command, Norfolk,
                  Virginia; NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium; SHAPE in Mons, Belgium;
                  U.S. country delegations in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and
                  Germany; and recipient governments in the Czech Republic, Poland, and
                  Hungary, and Germany, and Denmark.

                  In determining how NATO PFP programs are assisting the six aspiring NATO
                  members that we addressed in our review, we obtained and analyzed
                  information pertaining to PFP program implementation, planning, and
                  budgeting, including the individual partnership plans that NATO has
                  completed with each of the six nations and their responses to NATO
                  interoperability surveys. We used the data in the individual partnership
                  plans to determine (1) the total number of NATO-sponsored PFP events that
                  each country had opted to participate in and (2) the number of such events
                  in each PFP area of cooperation. We then aggregated the results to
                  determine the areas of cooperation the six countries were focusing on as
                  they volunteered for NATO-sponsored PFP events. We also obtained the

                   See our report entitled Bosnia Peace Operation: Progress Towards Achieving the Dayton
                  Agreement’s Goals (GAO/NSIAD-97-132, May 5, 1997).

                  Page 17                                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

views of officials concerning PFP performance and its impact on
operational capabilities.

In reviewing U.S. bilateral assistance projects for PFP partners and aspiring
NATO members, we obtained and analyzed information pertinent to U.S.
bilateral assistance. Using this data, we analyzed the extent to which the
United States is focusing on these countries and the nature of the aid. We
also compared the stated purpose of the U.S. programs to the needs of the
six countries and NATO’s designated cooperation areas.

In ascertaining how NATO and member countries’ efforts were being
coordinated, we analyzed summary information and minutes from NATO’s
clearinghouse database and reviewed detailed data obtained from other
donors of PFP-related aid.

In obtaining information on how the six potential members mentioned
above are preparing for possible admission into NATO, we obtained and
analyzed information on their force structures, participation in NATO
exercises, and training requirements to support improved capabilities.

We conducted our review between November 1996 and June 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are providing copies of this report to other congressional committees,
the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense. Copies will be
provided to others upon request.

Page 18                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

Please contact me on (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Harold J. Johnson, Associate Director
International Relations and Trade Issues

Page 19                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

Letter                                                                                            1

Appendix I                                                                                       22

Partnership for Peace
Areas of Cooperation
as of May 1996
Appendix II                                                                                      23

North Atlantic Treaty
Organization PFP
Objective Topics
Appendix III                                                                                     25
                        Regional Airspace Initiative                                             25
Department of           Defense Resource Management Exchange                                     25
Defense Warsaw          Defense Planners Exchange                                                25
                        Defense Public Affairs Exchange                                          26
Initiative              Partnership Information Management System                                26
Interoperability        Command and Control Studies                                              26
Programs                Personnel and Readiness Exchange                                         26

Appendix IV                                                                                      27

Comments From the
Department of
Appendix V                                                                                       28

Major Contributors to
This Report
Table                   Table 1: U.S. Warsaw Initiative and Related Assistance to Six            12
                          Countries Countries

                        Page 20                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion

Figures   Figure 1: Eurasian NATO Members and PFP Partners                          6
          Figure II: Major NATO PFP Areas Participated in by the Czech             10
            Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia
          Figure III: U.S. Warsaw Initiative and Other Aid Provided by             12
          Figure IV: U.S. Warsaw Initiative and Other Aid Provided to the          13
            Six Countries, by Program


          DOD        Department of Defense
          FMF        Foreign Military Financing
          FYROM      Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
          JCT        Joint Contact Team
          IMET       International Military Education and Training
          NATO       North Atlantic Treaty Organization
          PFP        Partnership for Peace
          SHAPE      Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe

          Page 21                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion
Appendix I

Partnership for Peace Areas of Cooperation
as of May 1996

               Air defense
               Air traffic management/control
               Consultation, command, and control/communications and information
               Civil emergency planning
               Coordination of Partnership for Peace (PFP) activities
               Crisis management
               Democratic control of forces
               Defense planning and budgeting
               Defense procurement programs
               Defense policy/strategy
               Defense research and development
               Defense structures
               Military infrastructure
               Consumer logistics

               Page 22                                  GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion
Appendix II

North Atlantic Treaty Organization PFP
Interoperability Objective Topics

               Command and control organization
               Command and control process
               Command and control procedures
               Command and control systems architecture
               Deployable command and control systems
               Logistics doctrine and procedures
               Logistics command and control
               Logistics reporting
               Centralized contracting and reimbursement procedures
               Logistical sustainability of units
               Supply standards and equipment availability—land
               Automated data-processing support—logistics
               Medical support
               Medical standards in search and rescue
               Blood and blood donor procedures
               Aeromedical evacuation
               Replenishment in harbor
               Replenishment at sea (liquid)
               Replenishment at sea (solid)
               Fuel standards
               Fuel handling for land vehicles
               Ground fuel handling for aircraft
               Air-to-air refueling
               Self-sufficient potable water supply and installations
               Cargo handling and transportation
               Auxiliary electrical power generation systems
               Land operations
               Combat support and combat service support units
               Maritime operations
               Close air support
               Air reconnaissance
               Forward air control
               Air transport
               Search and rescue operations
               Airborne air defense
               Ground-based air defense
               Aircraft transponders and air traffic control
               Availability of units
               Movement planning
               Maps and symbologies
               Marking and reporting of hazardous areas
               Airfield infrastructure and procedures
               Air navigation aids

               Page 23                                    GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion
Appendix II
North Atlantic Treaty Organization PFP
Interoperability Objective Topics

Language requirement
Weather support

Page 24                                  GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion
Appendix III

Department of Defense Warsaw Initiative
Interoperability Programs

                    During fiscal years 1995-97 the Department of Defense (DOD) programmed
                    almost $7.3 million to support U.S. interoperability programs in the six
                    countries included in our review, including about $7.2 million for the
                    following programs. The United States also allocated over $1 million in
                    fiscal year 1994 funds for two of these programs before the establishment
                    of the Warsaw Initiative.

                    The Regional Airspace Initiative Program seeks to help develop civil and
Regional Airspace   military airspace regimes that are fully interoperable with West European
Initiative          civilian airspace organizations. Using its Warsaw Initiative funds, DOD first
                    studies Partnership for Peace partner requirements for building and
                    operating an effective air sovereignty system. For the six countries that we
                    reviewed, DOD programmed about $594,000 for such studies in fiscal year
                    1995-97 funds, in addition to $508,000 in fiscal year 1994 funds.

                    The partners are responsible for implementing the studies’ results. To
                    encourage them to do so, the United States has offered to provide partner
                    states air sovereignty operations centers if they provide funds needed to
                    otherwise complete implementation. The centers will be bought with
                    $32.3 million in State Department Foreign Military Financing funds.

                    DOD’s Defense Resource Management Exchange Program involves
Defense Resource    country-specific exchanges on defense planning and force structure
Management          methodology. Its objective is to expose partner countries to defense
Exchange            management systems similar to those of North Atlantic Treaty
                    Organization (NATO) members. DOD hopes that the program will also help
                    partner states’ civilian officials assert control over their military
                    structures. DOD has programmed about $2.8 million for such studies in
                    fiscal year 1995-97 funds in addition to $500,000 in fiscal year 1994 funds.

                    The Defense Planners Exchange Program hosts working-level Central
Defense Planners    European officials to (1) familiarize them with U.S. methods for building a
Exchange            strategy-based and balanced defense program, (2) promote openness by
                    allowing foreign officials to provide briefings on their defense planning
                    processes, (3) help the officials address defense planning problems, and
                    (4) enhance their intensified dialogues with NATO. DOD programmed about
                    $60,000 in fiscal year 1995-97 funds for this program in the Czech Republic,
                    Romania, and Slovenia.

                    Page 25                                        GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion
                         Appendix III
                         Department of Defense Warsaw Initiative
                         Interoperability Programs

                         Through this program DOD has sponsored information exchanges with
Defense Public Affairs   defense public affairs offices in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.
Exchange                 DOD programmed about $84,000 in fiscal year 1996-97 funds for this
                         program in the six countries that we reviewed.

                         The Partnership Information Management System plans to establish a
Partnership              computer network that will link partners’ capitals, U.S. government
Information              facilities (such as the European Command), and the Supreme
Management System        Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe’s partnership coordination unit. DOD
                         programmed about $852,000 in fiscal year 1995-97 funds for this program
                         in the six countries that we reviewed.

                         DOD  is studying the command and control systems of partner countries to
Command and              help assess their interoperability with those of U.S. forces in peacekeeping
Control Studies          and peace enforcement efforts and the readiness of their military
                         capability for NATO membership. The studies will focus on the weaknesses
                         of the partners’ systems and propose corrective actions. DOD programmed
                         almost $2.7 million in fiscal year 1995-97 funds for such studies and a
                         navigational aids study for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.

                         DOD hosts U.S.-partner data exchanges concerning how each nation is
Personnel and            addressing personnel and readiness issues associated with the reform of
Readiness Exchange       Soviet-era militaries. DOD programmed about $30,000 in fiscal year 1995-97
                         funds for this program in the Czech Republic and Hungary.

                         Page 26                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of Defense

              Page 27        GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion
Appendix V

Major Contributors to This Report

                        David Martin
National Security and   James Shafer
International Affairs   Joseph Brown
Division, Washington,   Hynek Kalkus
                        Gregory Nixon
D.C.                    Pierre Toureille

(711239)                Page 28            GAO/NSIAD-97-164 NATO Expansion
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:


or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:


United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested