Southeast Asia: Better Human Rights Reviews and Strategic Planning Needed for U.S. Assistance to Foreign Security Forces
GAO-05-793
Published: Jul 29, 2005. Publicly Released: Jul 29, 2005.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
The executive branch has bolstered assistance to the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand to contribute to U.S. foreign policy and security goals. To further human rights goals, Congress restricts certain security assistance funds from being provided to any units of foreign security forces when credible evidence exists that units have committed gross violations of human rights. GAO (1) describes the nature and extent of U.S. assistance to foreign security forces in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand, (2) assesses the controls used to achieve compliance with human rights restrictions on U.S. funding to foreign security forces in these countries, and (3) assesses the U.S. government's national security assistance strategy.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of State | To help provide assurance that foreign candidates of U.S. security assistance programs comply with existing legislative restrictions and State policies on human rights, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Justice should strengthen management controls by issuing new consolidated guidance for vetting foreign security units. As part of these new controls, posts and headquarters units should establish the roles and responsibilities of posts and headquarters units for vetting foreign candidates for human rights consideration. |
The State Department has taken several steps to strengthen its management controls for human rights vetting of foreign security forces (military and police). State has provided us with copies of its 31 USC 720 response to congressional committees and with a copy of its new vetting guidance to implement this recommendation.
|
| Department of State | To help provide assurance that foreign candidates of U.S. security assistance programs comply with existing legislative restrictions and State policies on human rights, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Justice should strengthen management controls by issuing new consolidated guidance for vetting foreign security units. As part of these new controls, posts and headquarters units should establish written policies and procedures covering all entities involved in the vetting process at posts, including documentation and record retention policies specifying what documentation is needed and where and how long vetting files should be maintained. |
The State Department has taken several steps to strengthen its management controls for human rights vetting of foreign security forces (military and police). State has provided us with copies of its 31 USC 720 response to congressional committees and with a copy of its new vetting guidance to implement this recommendation.
|
| Department of State | To help provide assurance that foreign candidates of U.S. security assistance programs comply with existing legislative restrictions and State policies on human rights, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Justice should strengthen management controls by issuing new consolidated guidance for vetting foreign security units. As part of these new controls, posts and headquarters units should establish monitoring mechanisms and a central focal point to verify that these procedures are being carried out properly. |
State had updated its guidance on human rights vetting of foreign military personnel receiving U.S.-training, which is posted on its intranet web site. The guidance defines the role of points of contact at posts to coordinate human rights vetting and the role of State's regional bureaus and desk officers to verify that vetting has taken place. In addition, a State official stated in an email and interview that the department is developing a worldwide vetting database that will automatically record every training candidate vetting transaction, thereby eliminating the recurring problem of lack of vetting records. The department hopes to have the new system in place worldwide by the end of FY 2009.
|
| Department of State | To help provide both State and Congress with the information needed on how U.S. security assistance programs help support U.S. foreign policy and security objectives, the Secretary of State should use existing plans and strategies within State and DOD as the basis for developing an integrated strategic plan for all U.S. government assistance programs that provide training, equipment, or technical assistance to foreign security forces (military and police). This multiyear plan should be periodically reported to Congress in response to the Security Assistance Act of 2000, which urged the Secretary of State to develop a multiyear security assistance plan. In addition, the strategy should be coordinated with the Departments of Defense and Justice and any other agencies providing assistance to foreign security forces. |
In a March 25, 2009, email, State reiterated its position that its completion of an annual performance summary for all U.S. government agencies, including Defense and Justice, would exceed its legislative mandate. Moreover, it stated that the Department does strategic planning and develops strategic planning documents that cover all agency programs that come under the purview of chiefs of mission overseas. For example, State said that its annual performance summary to congress is based on set performance targets for an integrated strategic plan on various topics. Together, these cover almost every U.S. government assistance program that provides training, equipment or technical assistance to foreign security forces, according to State. Also, State said that the performance summary is the culmination of performance plans originating in U.S. missions around the world. However, these performance summaries provide information for State and USAID only; they do not include information for security assistance programs funded and operated by other agencies, such as Defense and Justice. Therefore, these plans, while a useful component of the type of integrated strategic plan for all U.S. government assistance programs that we recommended, do not, by themselves, satisfy the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of State | To help provide both State and Congress with the information needed on how U.S. security assistance programs help support U.S. foreign policy and security objectives, the Secretary of State should use existing plans and strategies within State and DOD as the basis for developing an integrated strategic plan for all U.S. government assistance programs that provide training, equipment, or technical assistance to foreign security forces (military and police). This multiyear plan should be periodically reported to Congress in response to the Security Assistance Act of 2000, which urged the Secretary of State to develop a multiyear security assistance plan. In addition, the strategy should identify all federal agency programs providing assistance to foreign security forces, regardless of their funding source. |
In a March 25, 2009, email, State reiterated its position that its completion of an annual performance summary for all U.S. government agencies, including Defense and Justice, would exceed its legislative mandate. Moreover, it stated that the Department does strategic planning and develops strategic planning documents that cover all agency programs that come under the purview of chiefs of mission overseas. For example, State said that its annual performance summary to congress is based on set performance targets for an integrated strategic plan on various topics. Together, these cover almost every U.S. government assistance program that provides training, equipment or technical assistance to foreign security forces, according to State. Also, State said that the performance summary is the culmination of performance plans originating in U.S. missions around the world. However, these performance summaries provide information for State and USAID only; they do not include information for security assistance programs funded and operated by other agencies, such as Defense and Justice. Therefore, these plans, while a useful component of the type of integrated strategic plan for all U.S. government assistance programs that we recommended, do not, by themselves, satisfy the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of State | To help provide both State and Congress with the information needed on how U.S. security assistance programs help support U.S. foreign policy and security objectives, the Secretary of State should use existing plans and strategies within State and DOD as the basis for developing an integrated strategic plan for all U.S. government assistance programs that provide training, equipment, or technical assistance to foreign security forces (military and police). This multiyear plan should be periodically reported to Congress in response to the Security Assistance Act of 2000, which urged the Secretary of State to develop a multiyear security assistance plan. In addition, the strategy should describe all related resource allocations used to support program goals. |
In a March 25, 2009, email, State reiterated its position that its completion of an annual performance summary for all U.S. government agencies, including Defense and Justice, would exceed its legislative mandate. Moreover, it stated that the Department does strategic planning and develops strategic planning documents that cover all agency programs that come under the purview of chiefs of mission overseas. For example, State said that its annual performance summary to congress is based on set performance targets for an integrated strategic plan on various topics. Together, these cover almost every U.S. government assistance program that provides training, equipment or technical assistance to foreign security forces, according to State. Also, State said that the performance summary is the culmination of performance plans originating in U.S. missions around the world. However, these performance summaries provide information for State and USAID only; they do not include information for security assistance programs funded and operated by other agencies, such as Defense and Justice. Therefore, these plans, while a useful component of the type of integrated strategic plan for all U.S. government assistance programs that we recommended, do not, by themselves, satisfy the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of State | To help provide both State and Congress with the information needed on how U.S. security assistance programs help support U.S. foreign policy and security objectives, the Secretary of State should use existing plans and strategies within State and DOD as the basis for developing an integrated strategic plan for all U.S. government assistance programs that provide training, equipment, or technical assistance to foreign security forces (military and police). This multiyear plan should be periodically reported to Congress in response to the Security Assistance Act of 2000, which urged the Secretary of State to develop a multiyear security assistance plan. In addition, the strategy should incorporate quantitative and qualitative performance measures designed to determine the extent to which country programs contribute to broader U.S. foreign policy and security objectives. |
In a March 25, 2009, email, State reiterated its position that its completion of an annual performance summary for all U.S. government agencies, including Defense and Justice, would exceed its legislative mandate. Moreover, it stated that the Department does strategic planning and develops strategic planning documents that cover all agency programs that come under the purview of chiefs of mission overseas. For example, State said that its annual performance summary to congress is based on set performance targets for an integrated strategic plan on various topics. Together, these cover almost every U.S. government assistance program that provides training, equipment or technical assistance to foreign security forces, according to State. Also, State said that the performance summary is the culmination of performance plans originating in U.S. missions around the world. However, these performance summaries provide information for State and USAID only; they do not include information for security assistance programs funded and operated by other agencies, such as Defense and Justice. Therefore, these plans, while a useful component of the type of integrated strategic plan for all U.S. government assistance programs that we recommended, do not, by themselves, satisfy the intent of our recommendation.
|
Full Report
Topics
Federal aid to foreign countriesForeign aid programsHuman rights violationsForeign governmentsForeign military assistanceForeign military trainingForeign policiesInternational relationsPerformance measuresPolice trainingPolicy evaluationStrategic planningHuman rights