Principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy testimony before the house appropriations committee, foreign operations subcommitte



Download 48.17 Kb.
Date conversion13.05.2016
Size48.17 Kb.
MR. JAMES BODNER

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,

FOREIGN OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTE

6 April 2000
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss again with you the U.S. security assistance program and how it supports our national security interests. Your leadership and continued support have enabled us to stay engaged with the world and to shape events in regions vital to American interests.
Security assistance programs, as a key shaping tool, ensure our engagement promotes the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. By enhancing the capabilities of our friends and allies to address conflicts, humanitarian crises, and natural disasters, it is less likely that American forces will be called upon to respond to regional problems; it also limits their involvement when they are. Our security assistance programs ensure that foreign militaries can work more efficiently and effectively with ours rather than be hobbled by mismatched equipment, communications, and doctrine.
Military assistance, particularly the International Military Education and Training program, promotes the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. In addition to making the world a safer place, the spread of democratic principles contributes to a political environment more conducive to the global economic development so critical to our nation’s well being. Thus, there is a genuine linkage between military assistance programs and the day-to-day lives of Americans.
The IMET program remains one of DoD's highest priority military assistance programs, and its effective implementation is one of the U.S. military departments' most important international missions. It is one of the least costly and most effective programs for maintaining U.S. influence and assisting countries in their transitions to democracy. It provides grant military education and training to foreign military and civilian defense personnel. IMET fosters military-to-military relations and promotes military professionalism, both of which are key to our ability to conduct combined operations quickly and effectively and to enhancing the self-defense capabilities of our friends and allies. IMET also trains small-unit and field commanders in the conduct of operations that are both effective and respectful of the rights of combatants and non-combatants.

.

Under the Expanded International Military Education and Training (E-IMET) program, we train foreign military students and civilians in managing defense resources, in civilian control of the military, and in improving military justice systems in accordance with internationally recognized standards of human rights. E-IMET now represents almost 30% of the $50 million spent on the overall International Military Education and Training (IMET) program.


The monetary and technical benefits, however, are only a small part of the value of our training and engagement activities. These programs are critical components of the U.S. peacetime engagement strategy and play an essential role in supporting United States military and diplomatic relations. They expose thousands of current and future foreign military leaders to values essential to maintaining security forces in democratic societies.
There are certain aspects of the security assistance program which merit special attention. I would like to discuss these now in more detail.

Foreign Military Training Report

I’d like to address the Foreign Military Training Report that was due on March 1, 2000 under Section 575 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2000. This year’s report provides a more detailed description of operational benefits to U.S. forces, as well as the foreign policy justifications for our training activities at the individual country level. In addition to containing more information on the various funding sources for training activities, the report summarizes the activities for each country.


Overall the report is easier to read and allows a review of all activities for each country in a single section of the report. The programs and activities covered in the report support a strategic framework designed to promote peace and global stability through engagement. The report consists of three volumes. Volume I is unclassified and will be made available on Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of State (DoS) websites.
Due to force protection concerns, Volumes II and III are classified. The data elements in both volumes are identical and cover such specific information as the number of students and activities, the location of the training, the student’s units, the U.S. units involved, and the projected start/finish dates for over 17,705 individual events. In the case of Volume III, it lists approximately 271 individual Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) events, with the specific dates and location, conducted by U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF). As you can imagine, this type of information can place both U.S. trainers and foreign students at risk.
This year’s report was a “joint” effort by DoS and DoD and coordination between the two departments took more time than anticipated. Because of the staffing challenges, the report was just finalized last week and we apologize for the delay in submitting it to the committee. We are modifying the process for next year to ensure each DoD office that has cognizance over a specific DoD funded program is able to review the data for completeness before it is submitted to DSCA for inclusion in the report. We do believe, however, that you will find the quality and accuracy of this year’s report to have been worth the extra wait.

International Military Education and Training
The Administration is requesting $55 million for IMET in FY01, an increase of $5 million over the allocations for fiscal years 99 and 00. This increase is primarily to expand our programs in Central Europe both with new NATO members and with Partnership for Peace participants. For example, we are seeking to increase the program with the Czech Republic by $200K, Hungary by $230K, and Romania by $200K. In the Balkans, we plan to increase Albania’s and Bosnia & Herzegovina’s programs by $200K each. We are also requesting an increase of $140K for Colombia, and an increase of $100K for both Egypt and Jordan. The additional funds are also needed to support across-the-board increases in the course costs and travel and living allowances. Approximately $600K of the $5 million increase will support IMET and E-IMET course development and administration.
IMET is perhaps our most cost-effective security assistance program. IMET fosters the military-to-military relations and military professionalism necessary for conducting effective joint operations with allies and friends, as well as to contribute to the ability of our allies and friends to defend themselves. It also trains small-unit and field commanders in how to conduct operations in ways that are both effective and respectful of the rights of both combatants and non-combatants. The resulting military competence and self-sufficiency provided by the IMET program brings a wide range of benefits to the U.S. in terms of collective security, stability and peace. Military cooperation is strengthened as foreign militaries improve their knowledge of U.S. military principles. Similarly, the U.S. also benefits from opportunities for military-to-military interaction, information sharing, joint planning, and combined force exercises, as well as essential requirements to access to foreign military bases and facilities. In the Middle East, Jordan is one of the most significant long-term IMET success stories.
A subset of IMET, the Expanded International Military Education and Training (E-IMET) program addresses issues of military justice, respect for internationally recognized human rights, effective defense resources management, and improved civil-military relations. All of these issues contribute to our objectives of building democracy and broadening respect for American values in such places as Central America, Africa, and the Newly Independent States.
We achieve IMET objectives through a variety of military education and training activities conducted by the DoD for foreign military and civilian officials. These include formal instruction that involves over 2000 courses taught at approximately 150 military schools and installations for roughly 9500 foreign students. The interaction between foreign students and their U.S. counterparts, especially at the senior service school level, promotes effective, mutually beneficial defense relations between the U.S. and its friends and allies. Graduates of IMET and Expanded IMET programs frequently rise to positions of significant responsibility in their home countries. Numerous Defense Ministers, service Chiefs of Staff, and other high level officials around the world have trained under IMET programs. These examples illustrate why U.S. Commanders in Chief of the unified commands and U.S. Ambassadors have consistently identified IMET as an essential tool for enhancing political/military relations with the countries in their regions.
We are seeing increased evidence of militaries fostering the promotion of civilian control of the military, improved civil-military relations, and support for democratization. More nations have promulgated military regulations that improve military justice systems and procedures in accordance with internationally recognized human rights. For example, this past fall the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS) had an EIMET Mobile Education Team in Colombia. The participants came from a wide range of ministries, including Defense, Justice, Interior, Affairs, including participation by their Vice President. All participants remarked that having such a high level seminar helped create a dialogue for promoting interaction and understanding between the senior civilian and military leadership on the rule of law and human rights. Following this seminar, the Colombian Military began an initiative to create a JAG Corps within their military. In another specific example, the U.S. Ambassador to Lesotho requested DIILS assistance in advising the Lesotho government on how to bring 55 mutineers to trial in a manner consistent with international justice principals. Training to respond to this urgent and immediate need was created by DIILS and delivered to Lesotho within five weeks.
In two other examples, South African Members of Parliament and senior military officers reached important new points of consensus on legislative oversight of defense budgeting and agreed to build new institutional linkages to foster closer cooperation during an E-IMET program in February of this year. In Romania, their General Staff has restructured its Civil-Military cooperation programs and civilian oversight arrangements after participating in the E-IMET program.
The political and military benefits of the IMET program are the main reason why, this year, we are requesting funding to extend full IMET to Guatemala. The IMET program for Guatemala resumed in 1997, limited to E-IMET only, after being prohibited for two years. The program is designed to promote civil-military relations, the concept of civilian control of the military; to instill in the military an understanding of support for the protection of human rights; to improve the military justice system, and to improve the management of defense resources. This program has been extremely successful. For the first time in decades, Guatemalan civilians and military are discussing issues of importance to their country. The success of the E-IMET program along with some significant, positive events have led us to recommend that Guatemala be made eligible for full IMET in 2000. These positive events include:



  • A notable decline in human rights violations;

  • A significant improvement in respecting human rights under the previous administration as well as continued strong support under President Portillo;

  • More effective civilian control of the military;

  • The Guatemalan military’s vigorous efforts to comply with the Peace Accords;

  • The MOD’s gradual reduction of the military’s role involving internal security; and

  • The military’s significant and professional contributions to fighting devastating forest fires in the northern Peten and prompt, effective action that saved thousands of lives and provided disaster relief during and in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch.

We believe that IMET contacts will both promote democratic values and be effective tools for achieving U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives in Guatemala. Allowing the Administration to offer full IMET courses will help reform the Guatemalan military by exposing a new generation of officers to our standards of military professionalism. Having their officers attend such schools as the Air Command and Staff College, the Naval Staff College, and the Quartermaster Officer Basic Course would help them develop relationships with U.S. officers.


IMET will also provide the U.S., over time, with greater insight into and influence over their military. The program provides an opportunity for military personnel to experience U.S. doctrine and to observe our commitment to the rule of law, human rights, and democratic values. Full IMET can promote the Guatemalan military’s reorientation toward its new roles of countering the flow of narcotics, stemming illegal alien smuggling and assisting other Guatemalan agencies as they provide disaster relief.
Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
FMF enables important friends and allies to improve their defense capabilities by financing acquisition of U.S. military articles, services, and training. As a result, our friends and allies improve their capacity to contribute to international peacekeeping and joint operations, and we promote the rationalization, standardization, and interoperability with the military forces of friendly foreign countries and U.S. Armed Forces. In addition to these goals, the program can also play a role in strengthening local military support for democratically elected governments and containing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
The principal means of ensuring America’s security is through the deterrence of potential aggressors who would threaten the United States or its allies. Maintaining the strength of the U.S. military is the most critical strategic element for achieving this objective. U.S. military strength, however, is not enough. Strengthening US alliances, building cooperative military relationships, and stabilizing regional military balances also protect America’s security and reduce the likelihood of war. As such, the United States has a strong stake in helping allies and coalition partners strengthen their defense so they can share the common defense burden. U.S. security assistance programs enable our allies to become capable coalition partners and to defend their own security.

By enabling selected friends and allies to purchase needed U.S. defense goods and services, FMF also has the beneficial byproduct of encouraging demand for U.S. systems. This contributes to a strong U.S. defense industrial base -- a critical element of the national defense strategy -- by lengthening production runs, lowering unit costs for Department of Defense (DoD) purchases, and creating jobs for Americans.


This year, we are requesting $3.538 billion in FMF for FY01, an increase of $118 million over last year's request (excluding the Wye supplemental of $1.375 billion). We will again use FMF to promote regional peace in the Middle East and to facilitate integration of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. We also will use FMF for continued support of the Partnership for Peace program; to sustain small defense and maritime forces promoting peace and security in the Caribbean island nations; and to bolster the capabilities of African nations to respond to limited peace and humanitarian missions on the continent.

Middle East Peace
The vast majority of FMF goes to the Middle East to meet the legitimate security needs of the parties engaged in the peace process. This assistance supports the long-standing U.S. policy goal of seeking a just, lasting and comprehensive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians. The request for Israel of $1.98 billion is $60 million above their FY00 allocation in accordance with the plan to phase-out their economic assistance with partial offsets in military assistance. Israel’s FY01 FMF program is designed to contribute to the maintenance of Israel’s qualitative edge within the region by providing funding support to train and equip Israel’s military forces.
The $1.98 billion program requested will allow Israel to continue funding major multi-year procurements and follow-on support for programs such as F-16 and F-15I fighters; Beech King B200T aircraft; AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles; Joint Direct Attack Munitions; Cobra helicopter upgrades; jet fuel; and support for Israel’s Apache and Blackhawk helicopter squadrons. We anticipate that they will use their offshore procurement funds for major programs such as the new Merkava IV tank, the ELINT and COMINT systems for their Special Electronic Mission Aircraft, and tank and APC upgrade and maintenance.
The request for Egypt is holding steady from last year at $1.3 billion. Modernization of the Egyptian armed forces continues to be one of the major goals of this program. I would like to point out that our FMF assistance to Egypt plays an important role in promoting regional peace is building a strong and reliable coalition partner. Egypt continues to provide invaluable assistance in facilitating overflight permissions, use of their airfields and ports, and regular transits through the Suez Canal. This year's request will allow the Egyptians to continue such major programs as armor and air defense modernization, frigate acquisitions, and support for their F-16s and Apaches.
This year, we are again requesting your support for a $75M FMF baseline for Jordan. The request is $285 thousand above their FY00 allocation and is intended primarily for land forces readiness improvements. This support is critical to help Jordan as it continues to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq. Much of the money is slated to support Jordan’s aging inventory of military equipment, about 80% of which is U.S.-origin, that it cannot sustain without U.S. assistance. Much of this equipment is decades old and badly needs sustainment or upgrade and their priorities are defensive in nature (e.g., air defense, anti-tank, border security). Specifically, the funding will be used to help them meet such key readiness requirements as procurement of spare parts and services, replacement of JAF munitions stocks, modernization of their ground forces with transport vehicles and anti-armor systems. Additionally, the JAF plans to upgrade their HAWK air defense system to PIP-3 configuration and improve their border security with selected equipment.
We are working closely with Jordan on prioritizing their requirements and they have developed a Five-year plan clearly identifying military equipment requirements and funding levels through FY05. Jordan has agreed to a mid-year review of this plan with the U.S. The first review took place in August 1999 and second review occurred in the U.S. on 10 Mar. These meetings resulted in such changes as increasing the number of M113A1/2 APCs to be upgraded, limiting the upgrade of the 155mm SP howitzers, reducing funding for the TOW to TOW II upgrade, and reducing the quantity of patrol vehicles. The cost savings from these changes, amounting to almost $25 million, will be used to procure various vehicles (tactical trucks, transporters, pick-up trucks, commercial utility cargo vehicles, and water tanks), and ten Enhanced Position Laser Survey System (EPLSS) to replace the JAF’s obsolete Position Azimuth Determining System.
Central Europe and the Newly Independent States (NIS)
FMF support to the CE and NIS through PFP, EIPC, and bilateral programs, has enhanced stability and security in the region. FMF support has furthered goals of securing peace, deterring aggression, preventing, defusing and managing crises, and supporting the establishment and consolidation of new democracies throughout Central Europe and the NIS. Since FY 1995, the Central European and NIS countries have received over $480M in FMF grants and loans.
The majority of this FMF, provided under the auspices of the Warsaw Initiative program, was used to facilitate CE/NIS participation in Partnership for Peace (PFP) activities and NATO-led peacekeeping operations. It also helped forge strong security ties between NATO and Partner countries, and improve countries’ interoperability with NATO. These funds have primarily been spent on priorities such as the Regional Airspace Initiative (RAI)/Air Sovereignty Operations Center (ASOC), English language training, and NATO-interoperable equipment (tactical communications equipment, tactical vehicles, computers, search and rescue equipment. It has also gone to purchase uniforms and individual equipment to support peacekeeping units and units that participate in PfP activities.
FMF support has also increased the effectiveness of PfP Partner cooperation with NATO. A significant number of Partners have contributed to the military operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. FMF has also provided support to regional security arrangements such as BALTBAT and the Central Asian Peacekeeping Battalions (CENTRASBATS). This year, we are requesting $62 million, $28.6 million over the FY00 allocation of $33.4 million to support these efforts. This FY01 FMF request will further enhance PFP Partners’ capacity for joint efforts with NATO and prepare Partners for future NATO membership. It will also support emerging requirements in Southeastern Europe and the NIS, and assist new NATO members in acquiring additional NATO-compatible equipment. The money will help facilitate greater compatibility with NATO, strengthen democratic control of the military, and improve defense planning and budgetary processes.
In FY00, FMF is being provided to the three new NATO members—Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary—outside the auspices of the PFP, to help these countries maximize their contributions to NATO and target defense weaknesses. Previous FMF assistance facilitated their accession into NATO, and this year we are requesting $30.3 million in FMF, an increase of over $10 million above last year’s allocation to assist these countries as they proceed toward full military integration into NATO.
Other Programs Being Supported
Additionally, FY 2001 FMF grant programs will be used to sustain Caribbean defense and maritime forces, allowing these island nations to maintain small professional forces essential to regional peace and security. In conjunction with Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) funds, FMF will support efforts by the Africa Regional Stability initiative to improve and expand the capabilities of African militaries to respond to limited peace and humanitarian operations on the continent and to thwart terrorism and the disruption of humanitarian assistance. We also plan to focus on assisting selected countries to improve their peacekeeping capabilities with special emphasis on their communication systems, peacekeeping education and training programs.
Again this year, we intend to use FMF to enhance African regional stability. We are consolidating our requests for the African Crisis Response Initiative, East Africa Regional and Nigeria into one line for Africa Regional Stability. The $18 million request represents an increase of $6 million for Africa over the FY00 allocation of $12 million.
FMF Administrative Costs
Our FY 2001 budget request includes $33.0 million for support of the non-Foreign Military Sales (FMS) portion of the Defense Department's security assistance program. This represents an increase of $2.5 million over the FY 2000 level of $30.5 million in the FMF General Administrative Cost Account. This increase consists of $1.1 million to administer FMF direct commercial contracts (DCC), $0.9 million to administer non-FMS programs in the Defense Agencies, Military Departments, and Unified Commands, and $0.5 million for operational support associated with the start-up of new security assistance organizations (SAOs). These funds are essential to ensure the integrity of the non-FMS portion of the Defense Department’s security assistance program and to avoid using FMS customers’ funds for these purposes.
DSCA anticipates that it will have reviewed between 900 and 1200 FMF funded direct commercial contracts or purchase orders exceeding $100,000 for all eligible countries by the end of this year. During this same period, 1500 to 3000 purchase orders under $100,000 apiece for Israel will have been reviewed. The combined value of these procurements should total between 650 and 850 million dollars. Since 1997, there has been a 20-25% increase in the overall volume of FMF DCC and the costs of administering these contracts are being absorbed by the Foreign Military Sales administrative account into which FMS customers pay to cover the costs of managing their programs. The result of this situation is that it improperly moves the financial burden onto the shoulders of those not using the FMF DCC program. The reason for the proposed increase in the general FMF administrative account is to correct this discrepancy.
The FMS administrative account is also being used to cover costs associated with the administration of such non-FMS security assistance programs as FMF, IMET, and grant EDA. These costs, primarily for personnel, should instead be charged to the FMF general administrative account. The proposed increase of $900,000 will be used to add 7 workyears to the 8 already being applied to the very labor intensive process of managing and administering non-FMS programs.
Lastly, we are requesting additional funds to support the opening of new Security Affairs Offices in seven locations to accommodate new and expanding FMF/IMET programs. This is particularly true in the Newly Independent States and Central Europe. We project that we will have new SAOs in Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Nigeria and the additional funding will go a long way in meeting both the start-up costs and operational support of these new offices.
Re-Invention of FMS Effort

When I appeared before this committee last year, I reported to you that the Defense Department had undertaken an effort to streamline and improve the way the U.S. Government handles the arms sales process. The primary goals of this effort, led by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, have been to improve customer satisfaction, reduce business cycle times, promote an open business environment, use existing resources more efficiently, and leverage automation wherever possible. DoD has teamed with defense industry and international customers to fully identify the areas most in need of change and to develop, promote, and evaluate the effects of on-going changes.


Thus far, a series of joint DoD/industry conceptual white papers have been developed and released by DSCA. The published white papers describe the reinvention efforts and the road-ahead to “Process Transparency; Pricing, Financing; and, USG Cost Recovery and Arms/Technology Transfer.” We anticipate that the recommendations defined in these white papers, as well as, those that continue to surface in day-to-day business, will result in future policy changes. Initial feedback from foreign customers and U.S. industry leads us to believe that we are on the right track and that preliminary changes have positively influenced customer and industry perceptions of our effort. Further, we have seen an increased willingness by both groups to participate with trial test “reinvention” initiatives being pursued by the military departments.
This summer, DSCA will be hosting a three-day symposium focussing on security cooperation in the future. The theme will be “Perspective is Everything” and the intent is to bring together the major players in the FMS business to discuss their impressions of the re-invention effort to-date. The result should be that participants will come away with a more realistic vision of the effort, reflecting the various institutional interests and equities involved. Developing a common understanding of the different environmental and regulatory factors should go a long way in helping players maintain a clear focus on achievable goals.
We must strongly emphasize that “FMS Reinvention” is a continuing effort that will require time, resources, funding, and your continued support. These crucial changes are undoubtedly necessary for the U.S. national interest and preservation of the FMS program. We can not risk losing market share at the expense of American defense jobs. At the same time, we must continue to operate FMS as a foreign policy tool and maintain a balance between the business aspects of security assistance and execution of the U.S. foreign policy. We look forward to your continuing interest and support in this endeavor.

Conclusion

Changes in the international security environment will continue to provide challenges for the security assistance program. In many ways, the security assistance mission has grown in both scope and complexity alongside DoD’s expanded involvement in regional policy issues and coalition defense. It has also taken an important role in supporting peacekeeping and demining efforts. An effective security assistance program, supporting U.S. national security interests and foreign policy objectives, will remain key to the U.S. security strategy. These programs work directly for the U.S. taxpayer, producing national security and economic benefits that far exceed the money spent, are important to our foreign policy agenda, and represent good investments in a future international environment friendly to American interests. For all of these reasons, I strongly urge you to support our budget request.


Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, for your continued support of this vital program and for the opportunity to present our FY2001 security assistance budget request to you. I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you.



The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page