WIF funding supports the participation of PfP countries in bilateral and  multilateral military exercises and military contact programs, including  seminars, workshops, conferences, exchanges, and visits. The PfP Has Evolved in Several Key Ways Due to Changing Political Circumstances and Security Threats

The PfP program has evolved in four key ways since July 2001, when we  last reported on the program. Second, NATO has developed  additional mechanisms for engaging with PfP countries, allowing partners  additional opportunities to tailor their participation in the PfP based upon  their individual objectives and capacities. Fourth, as NATO has taken steps to wind down its  peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans, it has increasingly used the PfP to  build cooperative relationships with countries in the region, marking a  shift in its role in stabilizing that part of Europe. The Number of PfP Countries Aspiring to Membership Has Declined

Since 2001, several PfP countries from Central and Eastern Europe have  become members of NATO, resulting in a decline in the total number of  PfP countries and the number of PfP countries aspiring to NATO  membership. Thirteen countries participate in the Operational  Capabilities Concept. NATO Has Placed an Increased Emphasis on Obtaining Support from PfP Countries for Its Operation in Afghanistan

The growing size and significance of the NATO operation in Afghanistan  has increased both NATO’s emphasis on developing PfP countries’  capabilities for participating in NATO military operations and the  strategic importance of the Caucasus and Central Asian PfP countries to  NATO, given their proximity to Afghanistan. NATO Is Considering Ways to Strengthen Its Partnerships as Part of the Development of Its New Strategic Concept

NATO’s new Strategic Concept is expected to highlight the importance of  the PfP and other NATO partnerships and discuss ways to strengthen  these partnerships further. Specifically, NATO is debating how to (1)  strengthen its partnerships with countries outside of the PfP, (2) enhance  routine and crisis consultations with PfP countries on security issues, (3)  more effectively engage with PfP countries, such as those in Central Asia,  that are not seeking membership, and (4) balance PfP countries’  aspirations for membership with Russian concerns about NATO  expansion. Some NATO members, including the United States, have advocated for  NATO to pursue a more global partnership agenda. Although Eligible Countries and the Focus of the WIF Program Have Changed, DOD Has Not Evaluated the Program since 2001

As a result of the changing composition of countries in the PfP program,  total WIF funding dropped significantly in 2006, and the majority of funds  are no longer distributed to countries aspiring to join NATO. DOD also  established the DIB program in 2006 as a key focus of the WIF program;  however, this relatively new program has faced challenges with its  implementation. According to DOD officials, the decline  in the number of WIF-eligible countries contributed to the decreases in  WIF budgets. From fiscal years 1996 through 2005, total annual WIF  funding averaged about $43 million. Approved activities in the fiscal year 2010 budget for the DIB program  included assisting with strategic defense reviews; developing defense  planning, budgeting, and resource management systems; developing  professional military education programs; improving human resource  management systems; and preparing countries to contribute to  peacekeeping operations. In addition, the challenges DOD has faced in implementing  the WIF-funded DIB program, including potential duplication of other  U.S.-funded assistance, heighten the need to assess whether the WIF  program is effectively supporting PfP countries’ goals for cooperation  with NATO and NATO’s efforts to deepen its relationships with partner  countries. Recommendation for Executive Action

We recommend that, following the establishment of NATO’s new  Strategic Concept, which could result in changes to NATO’s PfP program,  the Secretary of Defense conduct an evaluation of the U.S. WIF program  to ensure that it effectively supports the goals of NATO’s PfP program. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) describe how the Partnership for Peace (PfP)  program has evolved since GAO last reported on it; (2) describe options  the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is considering for the  future of the PfP and other partnership programs under the new Strategic  Concept; and (3) analyze support to PfP countries through the U.S.  Warsaw Initiative Fund (WIF) program. To address these objectives, we  analyzed NATO, Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of State  (State) documents; academic literature related to PfP and WIF programs;  and WIF funding data for fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
Why GAO Did This Study

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) established the Partnership for Peace (PfP) to increase cooperation with former Warsaw Pact members and provide many of these countries with a path to NATO membership. As NATO confronts new security challenges, including the war in Afghanistan, its relationships with partner countries have grown in scope and importance. Additionally, NATO is developing a new Strategic Concept to clarify its mission and activities, including its relationship with PfP countries and other partners. The Department of Defense (DOD)-funded Warsaw Initiative Fund (WIF) supports the goals of the PfP program. GAO was asked to review (1) how the PfP program has evolved since GAO last reported on it in 2001; (2) options NATO is considering for the future of the PfP and other partnership programs; and (3) support to PfP countries through the U.S. WIF program. GAO analyzed NATO, DOD, and State Department (State) documents; and WIF funding data. GAO also interviewed DOD, State, NATO, and selected country officials.

What GAO Found

The PfP program has evolved in four key ways since July 2001, when GAO last reported on it. First, several former PfP countries from Central and Eastern Europe have become NATO members, resulting in both a decline in the number of countries participating in the PfP and in the number of PfP countries seeking NATO membership. Second, NATO has developed additional mechanisms for engaging with PfP countries, allowing partners additional opportunities to tailor their participation in the PfP based upon their individual objectives and capacities. Third, the growing size and significance of the NATO operation in Afghanistan has increased NATO's emphasis on developing PfP countries' capabilities for participating in NATO military operations and the strategic importance of the Caucasus and Central Asian PfP countries. Fourth, as NATO has taken steps to wind down its peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans, it has increasingly used the PfP to build cooperative relationships with countries in the region, marking a shift in its role in stabilizing that part of Europe. NATO's new Strategic Concept is expected to highlight the importance of the PfP and other NATO partnerships, and discuss ways to strengthen them further. First, NATO is debating how to strengthen its partnerships with a growing number of countries outside of the PfP. Some NATO members disagree about the extent to which NATO should pursue a more global partnership agenda. Second, NATO is considering options to enhance its routine and crisis consultations with PfP countries on security issues. Third, NATO is evaluating how to more effectively engage with PfP countries, such as those in Central Asia, that are not seeking NATO membership. Fourth, NATO is debating how to best balance PfP countries' aspirations for membership with Russian concerns about NATO expansion. The changing composition of countries participating in the PfP program has affected the budget and focus of the WIF program, which supports the participation of PfP countries in military exercises and military contact programs. The decline in the number of countries in the PfP program contributed to a drop in average annual WIF funding from about $43 million in fiscal years 1996 through 2005 to about $29 million in fiscal years 2006 through 2010, according to a DOD official. Moreover, WIF funding is no longer concentrated on PfP countries aspiring to join NATO, as it was in the initial years of the program. In 2006, DOD established the Defense Institution Building program as a key focus of the WIF program to help PfP countries develop more professional and transparent defense establishments. Planned activities included assisting with strategic defense reviews; and developing defense planning, budgeting, and resource management systems, among others. DOD has encountered challenges implementing this program, including potential duplication with other U.S. assistance in some countries and limited interest from other countries, which have contributed to frequent cancellations of planned activities. DOD has not formally evaluated the WIF program since 2001, although there have been changes since then in the composition of participating countries and the focus of the WIF program.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that, following the establishment of NATO's new Strategic Concept, which could result in changes to NATO's PfP program, the Secretary of Defense conduct an evaluation of the U.S. WIF program to ensure that it effectively supports the goals of NATO's PfP program. DOD concurred with the recommendation.