This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-918 
entitled 'Persian Gulf: U.S. Agencies Need to Improve Licensing Data 
and to Document Reviews of Arms Transfers for U.S. Foreign Policy and 
National Security Goals' which was released on September 28, 2010. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO: 

September 2010: 

Persian Gulf: 

U.S. Agencies Need to Improve Licensing Data and to Document Reviews 
of Arms Transfers for U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Goals: 

GAO-10-918: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-918, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The United States uses arms transfers through government-to-government 
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and direct commercial sales (DCS) to 
support its foreign policy and national security goals. The 
Departments of Defense (DOD) and State (State) have authorized arms 
worth billions of dollars to six Persian Gulf countries: Bahrain, 
Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). 
The United States established the Gulf Security Dialogue (GSD) to 
discuss security issues with these countries. GAO was asked to 
determine (1) the dollar value and nature of U.S. arms transfers 
authorized for the Gulf countries’ governments, (2) the extent to 
which U.S. agencies documented how arms transfers to Gulf countries 
advanced U.S. foreign policy and national security goals, and (3) the 
role of the GSD. 

To conduct this work, GAO analyzed U.S. government regional plans, 
arms transfer data from fiscal years 2005 to 2009, case-specific 
documentation for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and program guidance; 
and interviewed officials in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO cannot determine the total value of authorized arms transfers to 
the governments of Gulf countries in part because State’s DCS database 
also includes arms transfers authorized for U.S. military units 
stationed in those countries. GAO’s review of State’s database 
determined that at least $6 billion of the $21 billion of authorized 
transfers between fiscal years 2005 and 2009 were for U.S. military 
units in Gulf countries. In addition, some license values were counted 
twice. State’s database system does not have the capability to 
separate authorizations by end-user or separate multiple 
authorizations that cover the same equipment. Consistent with 
statutory requirements, State included this data in reporting all 
license authorizations to Congress. In contrast, GAO could determine 
that the DOD-administered FMS program authorized about $22 billion in 
arms transfers to the six Gulf countries. Authorized transfers 
included air and missile defense systems, with the UAE and Saudi 
Arabia accounting for over 88 percent of total FMS authorizations. 

Figure: Examples of Arms Transfers Authorized to Persian Gulf 
Countries (Fiscal Years 2005 to 2009): 

[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs] 

Javelin missile: 
Patriot missile defense system: 
F-16 aircraft: 

Source: DOD. 

[End of figure] 

State and DOD did not consistently document how arms transfers to Gulf 
countries advanced U.S. foreign policy and national security goals for 
GAO selected cases. State assesses arms transfer requests against 
criteria in the Conventional Arms Transfer policy, including 
interoperability with the host nation and the impact on the U.S. 
defense industrial base. Additionally, DOD assesses FMS requests for 
significant military equipment against criteria in DOD policy, such as 
the impact on the recipient’s force structure and the ability to 
monitor sensitive technology. GAO’s analysis of 28 arms transfer 
authorizations—15 DCS and 13 FMS—found that State did not document how 
it applied its criteria to arms transfers, while DOD could not provide 
documentation on its review of release of technology for 7 of 13 FMS 
authorizations. Due to a lack of complete documentation, we cannot 
verify if U.S. agencies consistently reviewed authorizations. 

When established in 2006, GSD was intended to enable multilateral 
cooperation on six security-related topics between the United States 
and six Gulf countries, but it instead operates as a bilateral forum 
between the United States and five Gulf countries due to the 
preference of these countries. Saudi Arabia does not participate in 
GSD, but discusses security concerns at other forums. According to 
U.S. officials, GSD’s agenda has evolved to focus on regional security 
and other concerns specific to the country participants. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that (1) State take steps to improve the clarity and 
usefulness of DCS license data, and (2) State and DOD document their 
reviews of arms transfer requests. State and DOD agreed with the 
recommendations, but State noted that it would need additional 
resources to improve DCS reporting. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-918] or key 
components. For more information, contact Joseph A. Christoff at (202) 
512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Value of U.S. Arms Transfer Authorizations to Gulf Countries Cannot be 
Determined Due to Limitations in Capability of State's DCS Database 
System: 

U.S. Agencies Did Not Consistently Document How Arms Transfers 
Advanced U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Goals for Selected 
Cases: 

Though Intended to Enable Multilateral Cooperation, GSD Operates as a 
Bilateral Mechanism to Discuss Security Issues Between the United 
States and Each of the Five Gulf Countries: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Highest Value FMS Authorizations for Gulf Countries: 

Appendix III: Select High Value DCS Authorizations for Gulf Countries: 

Appendix IV: U.S. Organizations Involved in Review of DCS Requests for 
Gulf Countries: 

Appendix V: U.S. Organizations Involved in Review of FMS Requests for 
Gulf Countries: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Key Information on FMS and DCS: 

Table 2: Conventional Arms Transfer Policy Criteria: 

Table 3: Country Team Assessment Criteria: 

Table 4: Highest Value FMS Authorizations for Gulf Countries, Fiscal 
Years 2005 to 2009: 

Table 5: High Value DCS Authorizations for Gulf Countries, Fiscal 
Years 2005 to 2009: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Map of Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: 

Figure 2: Total FMS Authorizations for Gulf Countries (Fiscal Years 
2005 to 2009): 

Figure 3: Examples of Arms Authorized for Sale to Gulf Countries 
between Fiscal Years 2005 and 2009: 

Figure 4: FMS and DCS Review Process for Arms Transfer Requests That 
Result in Authorization: 

Figure 5: U.S. Organizations Involved in the Review of DCS Requests 
for Gulf Countries: 

Figure 6: U.S. Organizations Involved in the Review of FMS Requests 
for Gulf Countries: 

Abbreviations: 

AECA: Arms Export Control Act: 

CAT: Conventional Arms Transfer: 

DCS: direct commercial sales: 

DDTC: Directorate of Defense Trade Controls: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DTSA: Defense Technology Security Administration: 

FMS: Foreign Military Sales: 

GSD: Gulf Security Dialogue: 

LOA: Letter of Offer and Agreement: 

State: Department of State: 

UAE: United Arab Emirates: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 20, 2010: 

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Affairs: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Dan Burton: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia: 
Committee on Foreign Affairs: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Mike Pence: 
House of Representatives: 

The Persian Gulf remains a volatile region for the United States as it 
continues to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq and confronts Iran's 
attempts to develop nuclear weapons. In the Gulf region and elsewhere, 
the United States uses two key arms transfer[Footnote 1] programs to 
support foreign policy and national security goals: (1) Foreign 
Military Sales (FMS) that the Department of Defense (DOD) implements 
[Footnote 2] and (2) direct commercial sales (DCS) that the Department 
of State (State) implements.[Footnote 3] Between fiscal years 2005 and 
2009, State and DOD authorized arms transfers worth billions of 
dollars to Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United 
Arab Emirates (UAE). In May 2006, the Bush administration created the 
Gulf Security Dialogue (GSD) as a mechanism for the United States to 
discuss regional security issues with these six countries. 

In response to congressional requesters, we reviewed (1) the dollar 
value and nature of U.S. arms transfers authorized to the governments 
of Gulf countries, (2) the extent to which U.S. agencies documented 
how arms transfers to Gulf countries advanced U.S. foreign policy and 
national security goals, and (3) the role of the GSD. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed and analyzed U.S. government 
regional plans and strategies, arms transfer data, case-specific 
documentation, program regulations and guidance, and reports on arms 
transfers to Gulf countries. We obtained agency data on arms transfers 
authorized between fiscal years 2005 and 2009 for the six Gulf 
countries. For FMS, DOD provided data from its Defense Security 
Management Systems and 1200 system databases that included dollar 
values and item descriptions. For DCS, State provided data from its 
license database system[Footnote 4] that included dollar values, types 
of licenses, destination countries, and descriptions of items or end- 
users. From this data, we selected a judgmental sample of 28 cases (13 
FMS and 15 DCS) from fiscal years 2008 and 2009, based on a mix of 
criteria, including high dollar values overall and per country; 
sensitivity of equipment, such as if the authorization approvals were 
conditional; and destination country. We selected 15 cases for the UAE 
and Saudi Arabia, which had a larger share of authorizations, compared 
to 13 cases for the remaining Gulf countries, which had a lower share 
of authorizations. For these case studies, we requested documents that 
would show the agencies' review and decisions. We interviewed agency 
officials from State and DOD, as well as subject matter experts, in 
Washington, D.C. We met with officials from the Departments of Army, 
Navy, and Air Force; the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff; and the U.S. Central Command. Additionally, we 
interviewed U.S. embassy officials and host country officials in three 
Gulf countries (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE). At each embassy, 
we met with the Ambassador, State officials representing political and 
economic offices, and DOD officials who manage the FMS program. We 
also interviewed U.S. embassy officials from the countries we did not 
visit (Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar). 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to September 2010 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix I 
provides a more detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

We cannot determine the total value of authorized arms transfers to 
the governments of Gulf countries in part because State's DCS database 
also includes arms transfer authorizations to U.S. military units 
stationed in those countries.[Footnote 5] Our review of State's 
database determined that at least $6 billion of the $21 billion in 
arms transfer authorizations between fiscal years 2005 and 2009 were 
for U.S. military units in the Gulf countries, such as an 
authorization of radar equipment for $1.4 billion to the U.S. Navy in 
Bahrain. We could not determine the exact value of authorizations to 
U.S. government entities because State's database system does not have 
the capability to separate authorization data by end-user. Moreover, 
the remaining $15 billion of the $21 billion includes both the value 
of authorizations for the overall arms agreement and the value of 
authorizations for equipment included in the agreement, because State 
is required to report the aggregate dollar value and quantity of all 
such authorizations. For example, in 2008, State authorized a $47 
million arms agreement with Bahrain and a subsequent $43 million 
license for aircraft parts. Because the $43 million license was part 
of the $47 million agreement, the value of this equipment is included 
twice. Consistent with its statutory requirements, State reported all 
arms transfer authorizations in its annual reports to Congress; 
however, State noted for the first time in its 2008 report that the 
data included authorizations for U.S. government entities. Moreover, 
State did not provide the magnitude of such authorizations. Since 
State's database system does not have the capability to separate 
authorizations for arms transfers to U.S. government entities as well 
as multiple authorizations that cover the same equipment, we could not 
determine the total value of arms transfers authorized for the 
governments of Gulf countries under the DCS program. In contrast, we 
could determine that the FMS program, administered by DOD, authorized 
about $22 billion in arms transfers to the six Gulf countries between 
fiscal years 2005 and 2009. Authorized transfers included advanced air 
and missile defense systems, with the UAE and Saudi Arabia accounting 
for more than 88 percent of total FMS authorizations. Overall, these 
six countries primarily used their own funds to purchase U.S. arms and 
services including the Patriot missile defense system for UAE, 
training for the Saudi Arabian National Guard, Patriot missile defense 
system upgrades for Kuwait, transport aircraft for Qatar, antitank 
missiles for Oman, and aircraft parts for Bahrain. 

State and DOD did not consistently document how arms transfers to Gulf 
countries advanced U.S. foreign policy and national security goals for 
cases we selected. According to federal internal controls standards, 
all significant events need to be clearly documented. Our analysis of 
15 DCS and 13 FMS authorizations showed that State and DOD did not 
document their reviews for many of these cases. Specifically, for the 
15 DCS authorizations, State did not document how it applied criteria 
such as interoperability with the host nation and the impact on the 
U.S. defense industrial base, as stated in the Conventional Arms 
Transfer policy. Eight of 13 FMS authorizations required the U.S. 
embassy's assessment of criteria such as the impact of the sale on 
recipient's force structure and plans for monitoring sensitive 
technology.[Footnote 6] DOD documented how it applied these criteria 
for 6 of 8 FMS authorizations. These 6 assessments addressed the 
majority of the criteria stated in DOD policy guidance. Further, State 
did not document its review of regional security for 2 of 15 DCS 
authorizations, while DOD could not document its review of the impact 
of releasing requested technology for 7 of 13 FMS authorizations. As a 
result of incomplete documentation, we cannot verify if State and DOD 
consistently considered U.S. foreign policy and national security 
goals in authorizing these arms transfers. While documentation was 
incomplete, U.S. officials stated that arms transfers to Gulf 
countries are an effective tool to advance U.S. foreign policy and 
national security goals. For example, U.S. officials noted that Gulf 
countries support the United States by providing basing rights for the 
U.S. military in the region and supporting operations in Afghanistan. 

At the time of its establishment in 2006, GSD was intended to enable 
multilateral cooperation on six security-related topics between the 
United States and six Gulf countries, instead it operates as a 
bilateral discussion mechanism between the United States and five Gulf 
countries; Saudi Arabia does not participate. GSD discussions, co-led 
by State and DOD, initially focused on six topics: (1) enhancing 
defense capabilities and interoperability, (2) addressing regional 
security issues, (3) countering weapons proliferation, (4) countering 
terrorism and enhancing internal security, (5) protecting critical 
infrastructure, and (6) stabilizing Iraq. However, U.S. officials 
stated that GSD's agenda has evolved to focus on regional security 
concerns and other areas of interest to the participants. 
Additionally, GSD has not succeeded in enabling multilateral 
cooperation among Gulf countries because these countries prefer 
bilateral discussions with the United States on security concerns, 
according to U.S. officials. Moreover, while five Gulf countries have 
had bilateral GSD meetings with the United States, U.S. officials 
stated that Saudi Arabia chose not to participate in the GSD, but it 
addresses security concerns through other bilateral mechanisms, such 
as meetings between U.S. and Saudi defense officials. 

In this report we are making recommendations to the Secretaries of 
State and Defense. Specifically, to ensure that State reports more 
clear and useful information on DCS arms transfers authorized to the 
governments of Gulf countries, we recommend that the Secretary of 
State (1) provide more details related to data in reports on arms 
transfer authorizations to Congress, and (2) modify the DCS database 
system so that it has the capability to identify and separate licenses 
issued for arms transfers to U.S. government entities and overlapping 
values of related licenses. We are also recommending that the 
Secretaries of State and Defense document reviews of arms transfer 
requests, including assessments against Conventional Arms Transfer 
policy criteria, for foreign policy and national security 
considerations to provide reasonable assurance that such reviews are 
conducted. 

We provided DOD and State with a draft of this report for their review 
and comment. DOD concurred with our recommendation and noted that it 
will identify better processes to ensure that key assessments are 
documented against national security goals. In comments on a draft of 
this report, State generally agreed with our recommendations, but 
noted that implementation of these recommendations may require 
additional resources. Specifically, in response to our first 
recommendation, State said that it recognizes the importance of 
reporting reliable data on defense exports to Congress and public. 
State noted that it is not currently possible to identify the U.S. 
government end-users in the database without a manual search, but that 
the department will continue to make such identifications with 
existing resources. State also noted that devising additional 
reporting formats would require the commitment or allocation of 
significant additional resources. We agree that State should identify 
U.S. government end-users in its reports to Congress. In considering 
modifications to its case management system, State should also ensure 
that the system has the capability to identify overlapping dollar 
values of authorizations. State concurred with our third 
recommendation and noted that it is already taking steps, such as 
improving documentation of FMS and DCS case review for human rights 
concerns. However, State disagreed with our conclusion that the 
partial absence of documentation of agencies' reviews raises concerns 
that U.S. priorities are not consistently considered before such sales 
are authorized. It stated that the documentation that we reported as 
"missing" for two DCS cases can be found in previously authorized 
licenses. However, these authorizations were notified to Congress and, 
pursuant to State's guidance, required a review. Federal internal 
control standards require that in addition to clearly documenting 
transactions and all significant events, agencies should ensure that 
documentation be readily available for examination. State did not 
provide us documentation that its Office of Regional Security and Arms 
Transfers reviewed the two DCS cases. 

Background: 

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE border the 
Persian Gulf and, with the exception of Bahrain and Oman, have large 
oil or gas reserves. Although some of these predominantly Sunni 
[Footnote 7] Arab countries have a history of territorial disputes, 
they have made attempts to increase cooperation. For example, in 1981 
these countries founded the Gulf Cooperation Council as a means to 
resolve internal political and economic issues and coordinate on 
security concerns. Figure 1 shows Persian Gulf countries that we 
included in our review. 

Figure 1: Map of Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: map] 

The map depicts the following countries: 

Bahrain; 
Kuwait; 
Saudi Arabia; 
Oman; 
Qatar; 
United Arab Emirates (UAE). 

Source: Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

The United States has longstanding security relationships with some 
Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and developed closer 
security relations with Kuwait and the UAE following the 1991 Persian 
Gulf War. Throughout the 1990s, the United States tried to contain 
potential conventional military threats from Iraq and Iran through its 
military posture and attempts to promote Gulf Cooperation Council 
security coordination. The security environment in the region has 
changed with the emergence of transnational terrorist and 
proliferation networks, the removal of Saddam Hussein's government in 
Iraq, and the relative strengthening of Iran's military. According to 
U.S. regional and country-specific plans, key U.S. goals in the region 
include: (1) preventing Iran's development of nuclear weapons 
capability, (2) gaining support for operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, (3) protecting critical infrastructure, (4) enhancing 
internal security, and (5) improving maritime security. 

Several U.S. laws authorize the transfer of arms from the U.S. 
government or U.S. companies to foreign countries, or in certain cases 
foreign entities, and establish requirements to review requests for 
such transfers and report on them to Congress. The Arms Export Control 
Act of 1976 (AECA), as amended, provides the President the authority 
to control the transfer of arms.[Footnote 8] The AECA authorizes the 
Foreign Military Financing program, which provides U.S. funds for 
foreign governments to purchase defense articles and services through 
FMS or DCS programs. In addition, the Foreign Assistance Act, as 
amended, provides authority for the transfer of excess defense 
articles to foreign governments.[Footnote 9] Section 1206 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act, as amended, authorizes DOD to use 
its funds to train and equip partner nations' military.[Footnote 10] 
Foreign governments may purchase arms or receive U.S. security 
assistance through these programs. Furthermore, pursuant to a 2008 
amendment to the AECA, State must assess arms transfer requests from 
Middle East countries, including the six in this review, for the 
sales' potential impact on Israel's military capability, also known as 
Israel's qualitative military edge.[Footnote 11] 

The United States sells arms to foreign governments or international 
organizations through FMS and authorizes the sale of arms for foreign 
governments or entities through DCS. While State has overall approval 
authority for both FMS and DCS, DOD's Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency administers the FMS program. An FMS authorization is a 
negotiated agreement between the U.S. government and a foreign 
government for the purchase of arms, which results in a contract 
termed Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA). Under the AECA, it is the 
sense of Congress that FMS requests should only be approved when 
consistent with U.S. foreign policy interests. Further, these sales 
must strengthen U.S. security. DOD policies to implement AECA 
requirements for FMS are in the Security Assistance Management Manual. 
State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) administers the 
DCS license process. Under DCS, a private U.S. corporation and a 
foreign buyer negotiate the sale of arms and State issues an export 
license for the sale. The license may or may not result in a contract 
between the U.S. corporation and the foreign buyer. Under the AECA the 
DCS process is to be conducted in furtherance of the security and 
foreign policy of the United States. State implements AECA 
requirements for DCS through the International Traffic in Arms 
Regulations. Table 1 compares key aspects of FMS and DCS. 

Table 1: Key Information on FMS and DCS: 

FMS: 
Administrating agency: DOD--Defense Security Cooperation Agency; 
Description: Government-to-government sales program that produces a 
negotiated agreement between the U.S. government and a foreign 
government for arms transfer; 
Authorized request: Authorized requests result in an agreement that 
serves as a contract between the U.S. government and foreign 
government, called a Letter of Offer and Acceptance; 
Payment mechanism: The foreign government may pay the United States 
for defense articles and services or may receive security assistance 
from the United States, such as Foreign Military Financing and excess 
defense articles. 

DCS: 
Administrating agency: State--Directorate of Defense Trade Controls 
(DDTC); 
Description: Licensing process for sales negotiated between a U.S. 
corporation and a foreign entity for arms on the U.S. Munitions List 
that require an export license; 
Authorized request: The commercial exporter is required to obtain a 
license from DDTC before it can export defense articles and services. 
Once DDTC approves the request, it issues a license, which may or may 
not result in a contract; 
Payment mechanism: Generally the buyer pays the exporter for arms. In 
some instances, the United States may provide security assistance to 
foreign governments. 

Source: GAO summary based on State and DOD information. 

[End of table] 

Value of U.S. Arms Transfer Authorizations to Gulf Countries Cannot be 
Determined Due to Limitations in Capability of State's DCS Database 
System: 

We cannot determine the overall value of U.S. arms transfer 
authorizations to Gulf countries because of limitations in capability 
of State's DCS database system, but we determined that authorized arms 
transfers to these countries between fiscal years 2005 and 2009 
included aircraft, helicopters, and missiles. In contrast, for FMS we 
determined that the United States authorized about $22 billion in 
government-to-government arms transfers to Gulf countries between 
fiscal years 2005 and 2009. Gulf countries primarily use their own 
funds to purchase arms through DCS and FMS. 

State's Database System Does Not Have the Capability to Provide the 
Value of U.S. Arms Transfer Authorizations to the Governments of Gulf 
Countries: 

Section 655 of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, requires the 
President to report each year on the aggregate dollar value and 
quantity of defense articles, services, and other transfers authorized 
by the United States to each foreign country and to international 
organizations.[Footnote 12] According to State officials, the DCS 
licensing database is designed to capture information on all licenses 
irrespective of the end-user and is used to generate information on 
authorizations by country for State's annual reports. According to 
State's database, State authorized $21 billion in arms transfers to 
the six Gulf countries between fiscal years 2005 and 2009. However, we 
found that total authorizations included at least $6 billion in arms 
transfers authorized for U.S. government entities, such as the U.S. 
military operating in these countries.[Footnote 13] For example, the 
database included $1.4 billion in radar equipment for the U.S. Navy in 
Bahrain. While State's database specifies the destination for each 
license, it does not have the capability to generate reports on arms 
transfers based on end-users such as the host government or U.S. 
government entities operating in the host country. Consistent with its 
statutory requirements, State reported all arms transfer 
authorizations in its annual reports to Congress; however, State 
acknowledged for the fist time in fiscal year 2008 report that these 
data included authorizations to U.S. government entities in other 
countries. Moreover, State did not provide the magnitude of such 
authorizations. For the 2009 report, State officials said that they 
would manually review licenses to distinguish between sales to host 
governments and U.S. government entities. However, since the DCS 
database system does not have the capability to report information by 
end-user, State may not be able to accurately estimate the value of 
licenses to U.S. government entities. Further, State noted that 
because of the size of the database, which includes more than 84,000 
licenses, they cannot guarantee that every authorization to a U.S. 
government end-user can be manually identified. 

State proposes to clarify regulations that specify when exports to 
U.S. government entities need a license. According to the 
International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a license is not required 
for permanent export of defense articles and services for end-use by a 
U.S. government agency in a foreign country if the following 
conditions are met: (1) the export is pursuant to a contract with a 
U.S. government agency, (2) the end-user in the foreign country is a 
U.S. government agency or facility and the defense article or 
technical data will not be transferred to any foreign person, and (3) 
an appropriate export license or U.S. government bill of lading cannot 
be obtained in a timely manner due to the urgency of the U.S. 
government's requirement. According to State officials, U.S. companies 
selling arms to a U.S. government agency may still apply for a license 
to ensure that they do not encounter any legal or regulatory issues 
when transferring arms. 

Further, the remaining $15 billion in DCS authorizations includes both 
the value of the overall arms agreement and the value of equipment 
included in the agreement. For example, in 2008, State authorized a 
$47 million arms agreement for Bahrain and a subsequent $43 million 
license for aircraft parts. According to State officials, both these 
values were included in State's 2008 report on arms transfer 
authorizations to Congress because State is required to report all 
authorizations by country.[Footnote 14] Similarly, in 2009 State 
authorized a $614 million arms agreement, which included two C-17 
transport aircraft and related services, for Qatar's Ministry of 
Defense. In the same year, State also authorized a separate license to 
export C-17 aircraft for $460 million to Qatar. Aggregating the total 
value of these two distinct licenses would repeat the $460 million 
value of the second license. State officials noted that the values of 
licenses may be repeated because State's database is designed to 
capture information on all DCS licenses authorizing arms transfers to 
each foreign country. Further, State officials noted that they are 
required to report all authorizations in their annual report, pursuant 
to Section 655. However, State did not clarify in its annual reports 
on arms transfer authorizations to Congress that values of licenses 
may be repeated in reporting different types of licenses. 

In Contrast to State, DOD Data Show that the U.S. Government 
Authorized about $22 Billion in FMS Arms Transfers to Six Gulf 
Countries Over 5 Years: 

In contrast to our examination of State's DCS data, we could determine 
that the DOD-administered FMS program authorized about $22 billion in 
arms transfers to six Gulf countries between fiscal years 2005 and 
2009. Although FMS authorizations to these countries generally 
increased since 2005, they increased significantly in 2009, partly due 
to a $6.5 billion authorization for the UAE to purchase the Patriot 
missile defense system. See figure 2 for FMS authorizations to Gulf 
countries from fiscal years 2005 to 2009. 

Figure 2: Total FMS Authorizations for Gulf Countries (Fiscal Years 
2005 to 2009): 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
UAE: 40; 
Saudi Arabia: 717; 
Other gulf countries[A]: 261; 
Total: 1,018. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
UAE: 972; 
Saudi Arabia: 1,153; 
Other gulf countries[A]: 821; 
Total: 2,946. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
UAE: 1,596; 
Saudi Arabia: 1,560; 
Other gulf countries[A]: 356; 
Total: 3,512. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
UAE: 478; 
Saudi Arabia: 2,100; 
Other gulf countries[A]: 676; 
Total: 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
UAE: 7,887; 
Saudi Arabia: 2,762; 
Other gulf countries[A]: 535; 
Total: 11,184. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[A] Other countries are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar. 

[End of figure] 

Various factors may have contributed to Gulf countries' preference to 
obtain arms through FMS. First, the United States allows the sale of 
certain highly sensitive equipment--such as Javelin missiles and the 
Patriot missile defense system--through the FMS program only. The U.S. 
government authorized these FMS-only arms transfers for several Gulf 
countries. Second, some Gulf countries preferred the FMS program 
because of accountability mechanisms that reduce the risk of 
corruption in host governments, according to U.S. officials. Third, 
many Gulf countries do not have sophisticated procurement 
capabilities, so they prefer the established system within the FMS 
program to negotiate with the defense industry on their behalf, 
according to U.S. officials. 

Combined UAE and Saudi Arabia arms transfer authorizations represent 
more than 88 percent of the total value of arms transfer 
authorizations for the six Gulf countries. Between 2005 and 2009, the 
UAE had about $11 billion in authorized arms transfers; Saudi Arabia 
was next with about $8 billion. 

In general, Gulf countries use their own funds to purchase arms 
through DCS and FMS. Oman and Bahrain, however, received $179 million 
from the United States to assist in their acquisition of arms between 
fiscal years 2005 and 2009. Oman received about $59 million from the 
Foreign Military Financing program, while Bahrain received about $120 
million from the Foreign Military Financing program, Section 1206 
funds, and the excess defense articles grant program. 

U.S. Agencies Authorized Sales of Aircraft and Missiles, among Other 
Items, to Gulf Countries: 

The U.S. government authorized arms transfers of equipment--including 
aircraft, helicopters, missiles, and military vehicles--to Gulf 
countries through both FMS and DCS between fiscal years 2005 and 2009. 
However, the U.S. government authorized more sensitive equipment, such 
as missiles, through FMS. 

The highest dollar value arms transfers authorized through the FMS 
program included missiles, helicopters, tanks and munitions, and 
training and support services. For example, to strengthen air defense 
systems of Gulf countries, the United States authorized the sale of 
the Patriot missile defense system and associated upgrades for the UAE 
and Kuwait, respectively; and Black Hawk and Apache helicopters for 
the UAE and Saudi Arabia.[Footnote 15] Additionally, DOD authorized 
the sale of light armored vehicles and tanks, as well as training and 
support services, to Saudi Arabian security forces including the Saudi 
Arabian National Guard that, among other things, protect critical 
infrastructure including oil installations. See appendix II for FMS 
authorizations representing highest dollar value arms transfers 
authorized for the six Gulf countries between fiscal years 2005 and 
2009. 

The high dollar value arms transfers authorized via DCS included 
aircraft, helicopters, and spare parts and maintenance for existing 
arms.[Footnote 16] For example, the United States authorized the sale 
of: 

* Chinook helicopters, F-16 Block 60 aircraft related equipment, and 
maintenance for C130 and L100 aircraft for the UAE;[Footnote 17] 

* S-92 helicopters, F-15 aircraft spare parts, and maintenance of 
light armored vehicles for Saudi Arabia;[Footnote 18] and: 

* C-17 transport aircraft and spare parts for Qatar. 

See appendix III for DCS licenses representing high dollar value arms 
transfers authorized for the six Gulf countries between fiscal years 
2005 and 2009. Figure 3 provides photos and descriptions of some of 
these arms authorized for sale via FMS and DCS to Gulf countries. 

Figure 3: Examples of Arms Authorized for Sale to Gulf Countries 
between Fiscal Years 2005 and 2009: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 6 photographs and associated data] 

Patriot missile defense system: An advanced surface-to-air guided 
missile air defense system. This system includes radars, missiles, 
launchers, vehicles, and other related equipment. It has four major 
operational functions: communications, command and control, radar 
surveillance, and missile guidance. 

Equipment authorized via FMS. 

Authorized for sale to: UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. 

Source: DOD (photographer: Frank Trevino). 

Javelin missiles: A portable antitank weapon that is highly lethal 
against conventional and reactive armor. It is hardened against 
countermeasures and does not require extensive training for effective 
employment. 

Equipment authorized via FMS. 

Authorized for sale to: UAE and Oman. 

Source: DOD (photographer: Roddney Jackson). 

F-16 aircraft: A compact, multirole fighter with air-to-air combat and 
air-to-surface attack capabilities. 

F-16 spare parts and technical data authorized via DCS; munitions and 
other support authorized via FMS. 

Authorized for sale to: UAE, Bahrain, and Oman. 

Source: DOD). 

Hellfire missiles: This air-to-ground missile is the primary antitank 
armament of the Army’s Apache, Kiowa Warrior, and special operations 
helicopters; the Marine Corps’ Super Cobra helicopter; and the Navy’s 
Sea Hawk helicopter. The Hellfire uses semi-active laser terminal 
guidance. 

Equipment authorized via FMS; parts authorized via DCS. 

Authorized for sale to: UAE and Saudi Arabia. 

Source: DOD (photographer: Sinoe Orbe). 

C-17 transport aircraft: A multi-engine, turbofan, wide-body aircraft 
capable of rapid strategic delivery of troops and all types of cargo 
to main operating bases or directly to forward bases in the deployment 
area. It can perform tactical airlift and airdrop missions and can 
also transport ambulatory patients during aeromedical evacuations when 
required. 

Equipment authorized via DCS; support and parts authorized via DCS and 
FMS. 

Authorized for sale to: Qatar. 

Source: DOD. 

Light armored vehicles: An 8x8 wheeled light armored, all-terrain, all-
weather vehicle with day and night capability. It is fully amphibious 
with a maximum of three minutes preparation. 

Equipment authorized via FMS; maintenance and repair services 
authorized via DCS and FMS. 

Authorized for sale to: Saudi Arabia. 

Source: DOD (photographer: K. T. Burch). 

Overall Source: GAO and DOD. 

[End of figure] 

U.S. Agencies Did Not Consistently Document How Arms Transfers 
Advanced U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Goals for Selected 
Cases: 

State and DOD did not consistently document how arms transfers to the 
six Gulf countries advanced U.S. foreign policy and national security 
goals for 28 cases that we selected. State assesses arms transfer 
requests against criteria stated in the Conventional Arms Transfer 
(CAT) policy.[Footnote 19] Additionally, DOD assesses FMS arms 
transfer requests for significant military equipment against criteria 
stated in DOD policy guidance.[Footnote 20] Our analysis of 15 DCS and 
13 FMS authorizations found that State did not document how it applied 
criteria to review arms transfers, while DOD documented how it applied 
criteria for 6 of 8 authorizations. Further, State did not document 
its review of regional security for 2 of 15 DCS authorizations and DOD 
did not document its reviews of the impact of releasing sensitive 
technology for 7 of 13 FMS authorizations. While documentation was 
incomplete, U.S. officials explained that arms transfers to Gulf 
countries are an effective tool to advance U.S. foreign policy and 
national security goals. 

State and DOD Officials Stated that They Consider Foreign Policy and 
National Security Goals During the Arms Transfer Review Process: 

State and DOD share responsibilities in reviewing arms transfers 
requested through DCS and FMS. Figure 4 illustrates the FMS and DCS 
review process for arms transfer requests. 

Figure 4: FMS and DCS Review Process for Arms Transfer Requests That 
Result in Authorization: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Foreign Military Sales: 
Arms Transfer Mechanism: Letter of request; 
U.S. Embassy: Country team assessment[A] (conditional process); 
Defense Department: Technical review; Release of technology[B] 
(conditional process); 
State Department: Foreign Policy and National Security review; 
Congress: Congressional notification[C] (conditional process); 
Result: Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA). 

Direct Commercial Sales: 
Arms Transfer Mechanism: License application; 
U.S. Embassy: no action; 
Defense Department: Release of technology[B] (conditional process); 
Foreign Policy and National Security review; 
Congress: Congressional notification[C] (conditional process); 
Result: License approval or License approved with conditions. 

Sources: GAO analysis of U.S. agency information; Corel (clip art). 

Note: FMS and DCS arms transfer requests that State or DOD do not 
approve may result in denial or be returned without action. 

[A] Until April 2010, DOD policy required country team assessments for 
defense articles considered to be significant military equipment, 
which are arms that warrant special export controls because of their 
capacity for substantial military utility or capability. 

[B] DOD components and interagency committees are involved in 
decisions regarding release of certain technologies and what, if any, 
restrictions are placed on the use of technology authorized for 
foreign entities. 

[C] Pursuant to the AECA, FMS and DCS requests require congressional 
notifications if defense articles and services (1) exceed $50 million 
or (2) are for major defense equipment worth at least $14 million. 
Additionally, congressional notifications are also required for FMS 
requests for design and construction services worth at least $200 
million and for DCS requests to export firearms in the amount of $1 
million or more. 

[End of figure] 

State Reviews Focus on Foreign Policy Goals: 

According to State officials, different offices within State may 
review arms transfer requests for their potential impact on regional 
security, human rights, and other concerns. For example, State's 
Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers and Bureau of Near 
Eastern Affairs review requests for the impact of arms transfers on 
regional security, including an assessment of Israel's qualitative 
military edge.[Footnote 21] State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 
and Labor may review requests for human rights concerns and its Bureau 
of International Security and Nonproliferation may review arms 
transfer requests for proliferation concerns. For DCS requests, 
State's Directorate for Defense Trade Controls may ask State offices 
to review the request for foreign policy concerns. Similarly, for FMS, 
State's Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers receives all 
requests and may refer these to other State offices for their review. 
Figure 5 identifies U.S. organizations involved in the review of DCS 
requests. 

Figure 5: U.S. Organizations Involved in the Review of DCS Requests 
for Gulf Countries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive illustration] 

National Security and Foreign Policy Review: 
(Administrating agency: State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls): 

Release of technology: 
* Defense Technology Security Administration: 
* Military departments: 
– Department of the Air Force; 
– Department of the Army; 
– Department of the Navy; 
* Office of the Secretary of Defense; 
* Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
* National Security Agency; 
* Defense Intelligence Agency; 
* Defense Security Cooperation Agency; 
* Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. 

Regional impact: 
* Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Regional Security 
and Arms Transfers; 
* Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. 

Human rights: 
* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 

Proliferation: 
* Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; 
* Missile Technology Export Control Committee. 

Other agencies: 
* Department of Energy; 
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Interactivity instructions for more information: 

Roll your mouse over the blue text for online version; see appendix IV 
for print version. 

Source: GAO analysis based on State and DOD information. 

[End of figure] 

DOD Reviews Focus on National Security Goals: 

For DCS, State may refer license applications to the Defense 
Technology Security Administration (DTSA) to determine if the United 
States should release the requested technology to the requesting 
foreign government. Specifically, DTSA assesses the sale's impact on 
preserving critical U.S. military technological advantages, among 
other things. Not all DCS licenses are referred to DTSA for their 
review; for example, State's Directorate for Defense Trade Controls 
may not refer license requests to DTSA for spare parts or equipment 
previously authorized for the requesting government. DTSA may 
recommend approval of the license, the addition of specific 
limitations on the requested technology, return without action for 
additional information, or denial of the license. To assist in 
formulating DOD's position, DTSA may also refer a DCS license 
application to other DOD components, such as the military departments, 
or other U.S. agencies for further reviews. 

For FMS, prior to April 2010, DOD's Security Assistance Management 
Manual required U.S. embassy personnel to conduct an initial 
assessment of requests for significant military equipment. These 
country team assessments provide a justification for the arms transfer 
request and an overall recommendation on whether the U.S. government 
should authorize the sale. This recommendation is based on foreign 
policy and national security considerations. In April 2010, DOD 
changed its policy to require this assessment only for major defense 
equipment.[Footnote 22] 

As part of DOD's review for national security considerations, multiple 
DOD entities may conduct technical reviews of arms transfer requests 
and determine if DOD allows the requested technology's release to the 
foreign country. The U.S. agency or military department that 
implements an FMS authorization has authority to determine if the U.S. 
government may release the requested technology in accordance with the 
U.S National Disclosure Policy guidelines.[Footnote 23] Specialized 
DOD and interagency committees may need to conduct additional reviews 
for sensitive technologies. For example, all night vision device 
requests are referred to DTSA for approval, according to agency 
officials. Similarly, equipment involving stealth technology is 
referred to the Low-Observable/Counter-Low-Observable Executive 
Committee. The Committee on National Security Systems reviews requests 
that include sensitive communications technology. If the requested 
technology exceeds the military department's approval authority, the 
department will elevate the request to the interagency National 
Disclosure Policy Committee, which can approve exceptions to the 
National Disclosure Policy. In addition to reviews to determine if the 
equipment should be released, military departments also conduct 
technical reviews of requested equipment to ensure safeguards, such as 
anti-tamper measures, are included for the protection of critical 
information. As the administrating entity for FMS, DOD's Defense 
Security Cooperation Agency ensures that all appropriate reviews are 
conducted before offering the agreement to the foreign country. Figure 
6 identifies the U.S. organizations involved in the FMS request review 
process. 

Figure 6: U.S. Organizations Involved in the Review of FMS Requests 
for Gulf Countries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive illustration] 

Technical reviews: 
Security Assistance Organizations: 
* Implementing agencies: 
- Department of the Air Force; 
- Department of the Army; 
- Department of the Navy; 
- Other organizations. 

Release of technology: 
* Military department’s review: 
- Navy’s Technology Transfer Security Assistance Review Board; 
- Army’s Technology Transfer Security Assistance Review Panel; 
- Air Force’s Topline; 
* Special committees: 
- National Disclosure Policy Committee; 
- Low-Observable/Counter-Low-Observable Executive Committee; 
- Tri-Service Committee; 
- Committee on National Security Systems. 

National security policy and strategy: 
* U.S. Central Command; 
* Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
* Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

Regional impact: 
* U.S. Embassy county team, including: 
- Ambassador; 
- Political and Political-Military Counselors; 
- Security Cooperation Organizations; 
* Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Regional Security 
and Arms Transfers; 
* Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. 

Human rights: 
* U.S. Embassy; 
* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 

Proliferation: 
* Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; 
* Implementing agencies. 

Interactivity instructions for more information: 

Roll your mouse over the blue text for online version; see appendix V 
for print version. 

Source: GAO analysis based on State and DOD information. 

[End of figure] 

U.S. Agencies Could Provide Limited Documentation for their Review of 
Arms Transfer Requests: 

State and DOD could provide limited documentation for their review of 
arms transfer requests for cases we selected. GAO's Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government require that agencies 
should clearly document transactions and all significant events, and 
the documentation should be readily available for examination. 
Therefore, we requested that State and DOD provide us documentation on 
how they assessed 28 arms transfer authorizations against agency-
specific criteria. We selected 15 DCS and 13 FMS arms transfer 
authorizations for the 2008-2009 time period based on a mix of 
criteria such as high dollar values overall and per country, 
sensitivity of equipment such as if the authorization approvals were 
conditional, and destination country. [Footnote 24] The 15 DCS 
authorizations totaled more than $3 billion in value.[Footnote 25] The 
13 FMS authorizations we selected represented about 40 percent of 
dollar value of total authorizations. For these cases, we requested 
documentation of State and DOD's reviews, including U.S. embassy 
assessments, DOD offices' technical review to determine the 
sensitivity and release of technology, and State offices' review for 
foreign policy and national security goals, such as regional security. 
Additionally, for authorizations that required informing Congress, we 
requested that State and DOD provide these notifications. 

State Does Not Document Its Review of Arms Transfer Requests Against 
Policy Criteria, But DOD Generally Does: 

According to State officials, they assess all arms transfer requests 
against 12 criteria specified in the CAT policy; these criteria 
include maintaining regional stability, supporting U.S. interests 
through increased interoperability, protecting human rights, 
protecting sensitive technology, and the impact on U.S. defense 
industrial base. However, State officials noted that they do not 
document these assessments. Table 2 identifies the CAT policy criteria. 

Table 2: Conventional Arms Transfer Policy Criteria: 

1. Consistency with U.S. regional stability interests, especially when 
considering transfers involving power projection capability or 
introduction of a system which may foster increased tension or 
contribute to an arms race. 

2. The degree to which the transfer supports U.S. strategic and 
foreign policy interests through increased access and influence, 
allied burden sharing, and interoperability. 

3. The human rights, terrorism and proliferation record of the 
recipient and the potential for misuse of the export in question. 

4. Consistency with international agreements and arms control 
initiatives. 

5. Appropriateness of the transfer in responding to legitimate U.S. 
and recipient security needs. 

6. The impact of the proposed transfer on U.S. capabilities and 
technological advantage, particularly in protecting sensitive software 
and hardware design, development, manufacturing, and integration 
knowledge. 

7. The degree of protection afforded sensitive technology and 
potential for unauthorized third-party transfer, as well as in-country 
diversion to unauthorized uses. 

8. The ability of the recipient effectively to field, support, and 
appropriately employ the requested system in accordance with its 
intended end-use. 

9. The risk of revealing system vulnerabilities and adversely 
impacting U.S. operational capabilities in the event of compromise. 

10. The impact of U.S. industry and the defense industrial base 
whether the sale is approved or not. 

11. The availability of comparable systems from foreign suppliers. 

12. The risk of adverse economic, political or social impact within 
the recipient nation and the degree to which security needs can be 
addressed by other means. 

Source: State. 

[End of table] 

For 13 FMS arms transfer authorizations we selected, agency officials 
provided U.S. embassies' country team assessments for 6 out of 8 
requests that required such an assessment. Four of 6 country team 
assessments addressed all applicable criteria, while the remaining 2 
assessments each addressed a majority of, but not all, criteria stated 
in DOD's policy guidance--such as the sale's potential impact on 
recipient's force structure and the ability to monitor sensitive 
technology. DOD policy guidance, as stated in the Security Assistance 
Management Manual, required U.S. embassies to conduct assessments for 
all requests for significant military equipment. However, DOD 
officials stated that they conduct and document these assessments only 
for arms that constitute a new introduction or significant upgrade of 
equipment to a country, or require a congressional notification. Table 
3 identifies the criteria addressed in country team assessments. 

Table 3: Country Team Assessment Criteria: 

1. Reason the purchaser desires the articles or services. 

2. How the articles or services would affect the recipient's force 
structure. 

3. How the articles or services would contribute to both the U.S. and 
the recipient's defense or security goals. 

4. Justification for the type and quantity of articles or services 
requested. 

5. Combatant Commander's concurrence to the introduction of a new 
warfighting capability to the nation or region. Combatant Commander's 
assessment can be provided separately. 

6. Anticipated reactions of neighboring nations. 

7. Assessment of the nation's ability to account for, safeguard, 
operate, maintain, and support the articles. 

8. Training required either in-country or in the United States and 
anticipated reactions resulting from the presence of U.S. trainers in- 
country. 

9. Possible impact of any in-country U.S. presence that might be 
required as a result of providing the article. 

10. Source of financing and the economic impact of the proposed 
acquisition. 

11. Human rights considerations relevant to the proposed acquisition. 

12. A plan for end-use monitoring for sensitive and advanced 
warfighting technology and the Security Cooperation Organization's 
plan for compliance verification. 

13. Recommendation whether the U.S. government should approve transfer 
of the article and justification. 

14. If the request is for Night Vision Devices, additional information 
must be provided such as (a) the justification for the type and 
quantity of Night Vision Devices requested, and (b) the operational 
plan for use and specific end-users. 

Source: DOD Security Assistance Management Manual 5105.38. 

[End of table] 

DOD Provided Documentation of Its Reviews for All DCS Authorizations, 
but Few FMS Authorizations: 

For DCS arms transfer authorizations we selected, DOD's DTSA provided 
documentation of its national security review decisions for all 
authorizations. Specifically, DTSA provided documentation of its 
review for all 14 cases that needed a national security review. 
[Footnote 26] Although DTSA approved all 14 authorizations, it imposed 
restrictions for 8. 

For FMS arms transfer authorizations we selected, DOD could not 
provide documentation of its national security reviews for 7 out of 13 
authorizations. For example, for 3 authorizations, the Department of 
the Navy--the implementing agency--did not provide us documentation of 
their approval to release the requested technology. However, for 6 
authorizations, the Departments of the Air Force and the Army provided 
documentation of DOD offices' reviews for the requested technology, 
such as approvals to provide the requested arms and waivers to 
authorize the sale of night vision devices. According to DOD 
officials, although the Defense Security Cooperation Agency is the 
administrating authority for FMS cases and provided the final review 
to ensure all required reviews were conducted for the cases we 
selected, DOD guidance requires that each DOD component maintain the 
official documentation of its review. As such, according to DOD 
officials, FMS documentation is scattered among multiple offices and 
not easily retrievable. 

State Does Not Document Its Review of All FMS Authorizations and Did 
Not Document its Review of DCS Authorizations in Two Instances: 

According to State officials, although DOD provides State all FMS arms 
transfer requests for approval, State documents its review only for 
requests that require congressional notification. The AECA requires 
U.S. agencies to notify Congress of proposed FMS arms transfers that 
are more than $14 million for major defense equipment, more than $50 
million in defense articles and services, and more than $200 million 
in defense-related design and construction. For FMS requests, State 
officials noted that they develop a foreign policy and national 
security justification that is part of the notification to Congress. 
Six of 13 FMS authorizations we selected that required congressional 
notification included a justification based on the sale's impact on 
regional security, U.S. and host country security goals, and the host 
country's capability to utilize arms. 

Of 15 DCS arms transfer authorizations we selected, State officials 
noted that they conducted the necessary reviews but could not provide 
documentation of regional security review for 2 authorizations that 
required such review pursuant to State's internal guidance. According 
to State officials, State's Office of Regional Security and Arms 
Transfers[Footnote 27] and the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs review 
arms transfer requests for Gulf countries for impact on regional 
security, including an assessment of Israel's qualitative military 
edge, and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor reviews 
arms transfer requests for human rights concerns. However, according 
to State's internal guidance, these reviews are not required if an 
applicant requests a license for spare parts or equipment that is part 
of a previously authorized arms agreement. State officials also noted 
that reviews are not required for arms similar to what the recipient 
has already received. Since the majority of cases we selected related 
to previously authorized arms agreements or for spare parts, these 
authorizations did not require additional reviews for foreign policy 
and national security, pursuant to State's guidance. However, for two 
cases we selected that required a foreign policy review, State could 
not provide documentation that Office of Regional Security and Arms 
Transfers reviewed these cases for regional security considerations. 
These authorizations--$613 million for technical data and defense 
services to support aircraft to Qatar and $133 million of technical 
data and services to Saudi Arabia--were notified to Congress as their 
values met reporting threshold. 

U.S. Officials Stated that Arms Transfers to Gulf Countries Advance 
U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Goals: 

According to agency officials, arms transfers are a key component of 
the U.S. security relationship with Gulf countries and help to advance 
U.S. foreign policy and national security goals. Gulf countries 
support the United States by providing basing rights for the U.S. 
military in the region, allowing the U.S. military to use their 
airspace, participating in operations in Afghanistan, and supporting 
other U.S. initiatives and priorities, such as countering terrorism 
and bolstering regional allies. 

For example, some Gulf countries provide important basing rights for 
the U.S. military, including transit for military supplies and 
personnel bound for Iraq and Afghanistan. Bahrain hosts the U.S. 
Navy's Central Command (the Fifth Fleet) and Qatar hosts the U.S. 
Central Command forward operating headquarters. Gulf countries also 
allow the U.S. military to utilize their air space. 

Two Gulf countries have led an international maritime security task 
force and provided logistical support for operations in Afghanistan, 
according to the U.S. ambassadors in both countries. One country has 
provided troops for operations in Afghanistan. According to U.S. 
officials, Gulf countries also contribute to U.S. regional priorities 
such as support for regional neighbors including Iraq and Yemen, 
countering terrorism and piracy, and protecting critical 
infrastructure. U.S. officials noted that two Gulf countries supported 
U.S. goals in Iraq by re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iraq. 

Further, U.S. officials noted that as large purchasers of U.S. arms, 
Gulf countries support the U.S. defense industrial base. In general, 
FMS sales help lower unit costs by consolidating purchases for FMS 
customers with those of DOD. For example, according to U.S. officials, 
the UAE's purchase of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system 
is expected to reduce production costs for the U.S. military.[Footnote 
28] 

Though Intended to Enable Multilateral Cooperation, GSD Operates as a 
Bilateral Mechanism to Discuss Security Issues Between the United 
States and Each of the Five Gulf Countries: 

At the time of its establishment in 2006, GSD was intended to 
encourage multilateral cooperation on six security-related topics 
between the United States and six Gulf countries. However, GSD 
operates as a bilateral discussion mechanism between the United States 
and five Gulf countries; Saudi Arabia does not participate. 

GSD Operates as a Bilateral Discussion Mechanism between the United 
States and Each of the Five Gulf Countries: 

In 2006, the U.S. government established the GSD to enable 
multilateral cooperation on security issues between the United States 
and the six Gulf countries. According to U.S. officials, the GSD was 
not intended to be a program with associated funding. Co-led by State 
and DOD, GSD discussions were to address six specific U.S. priorities: 
(1) enhancing defense capabilities and interoperability, (2) 
addressing regional security issues, (3) countering weapons 
proliferation, (4) countering terrorism and enhancing internal 
security, (5) protecting critical infrastructure, and (6) stabilizing 
Iraq. However, Gulf countries prefer to discuss security concerns in a 
bilateral forum, according to U.S. officials. As a result, the GSD has 
not succeeded in enabling multilateral cooperation among Gulf 
countries, but operates as a bilateral mechanism to discuss security 
issues between the United States and each of the five Gulf countries. 
U.S. officials stated that Saudi Arabia does not participate in GSD 
meetings but it addresses security concerns through existing bilateral 
mechanisms, such as military-to-military discussions. According to 
U.S. officials, the GSD complements other bilateral security 
discussions with Gulf countries, which include DOD-led Joint Military 
Committee meetings. 

While GSD Agenda Has Evolved, the Meetings Have Not Been as Frequent 
as Originally Intended: 

U.S. officials in several Gulf countries stated that GSD meetings have 
facilitated strategic discussions on security concerns among senior 
U.S. and Gulf country officials from civilian and military agencies. 
Additionally, U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. and several Gulf 
countries noted that the agenda of more recent GSD meetings has 
changed to focus on evolving regional security concerns and other 
areas of interest to the participating country. 

Although GSD meetings were to occur on a 6-month basis in rotating 
capitals, these meetings have occurred every 18-24 months and, in some 
instances, the United States has not hosted meetings, according to 
U.S. officials. For example, U.S. officials in one Gulf country noted 
that while the host country hosted several GSD meetings, the United 
States has not hosted any. Additionally, U.S. officials in another 
Gulf country noted that the United States has not held GSD meetings as 
frequently as promised. 

Conclusions: 

While DOD provided data on arms transfer authorizations to six Gulf 
countries through the FMS program since 2005, State could not provide 
data on authorizations through direct commercial sales to the 
governments of Gulf countries. Further, while State noted for the 
first time in its 2008 report to Congress that the DCS authorization 
data by country included the value of authorizations to U.S. 
government entities in foreign countries, State did not provide the 
magnitude of these authorizations. Therefore, Congress may not have a 
clear understanding of DCS authorizations intended for foreign 
governments. Additionally, as arms transfer authorizations increase to 
this part of the world, the U.S. government needs to ensure that it 
reviews requests for arms transfers, especially for significant 
military equipment, for their foreign policy and national security 
implications. The partial absence of documentation of agencies' 
reviews, however, raises concerns that U.S. priorities are not 
consistently considered before such sales are authorized. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In order to address the data and documentation deficiencies noted in 
our report, we are making the following three recommendations. 

To ensure that State reports more clear and useful information on DCS 
arms transfers authorized to the governments of Gulf countries, we 
recommend that the Secretary of State: 

1. Provide more details related to data in reports on arms transfer 
authorizations to Congress. For example, for greater clarity, State 
should specify where authorization data for a country include licenses 
for U.S. government entities in that country as well as the value of 
those licenses. 

2. Modify the DCS database system, also called the case management 
system, so that it has the capability to identify and separate 
licenses issued to U.S. government entities and overlapping values of 
related licenses. 

3. To ensure that arms transfers are consistent with U.S. foreign 
policy and national security goals, we recommend that the Secretaries 
of State and Defense require documentation of key reviews and written 
assessments against policy criteria, especially for sales of 
significant military equipment. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided DOD and State with a draft of this report for their review 
and comment. DOD and State provided written comments, which we have 
reprinted in appendixes VI and VII, respectively. In its written 
comments, DOD concurred with our recommendation and noted that it will 
identify better processes to ensure that key assessments are 
documented against national security goals. 

In its written comments, State generally agreed with our 
recommendations, but noted that implementation of these 
recommendations may require additional resources. Specifically, in 
response to our first recommendation, State said that it recognizes 
the importance of maintaining and reporting reliable data on defense 
exports to Congress and the public. State noted that, while it is not 
currently possible to identify U.S. government end-users in the 
database without a manual search, the department will continue to make 
such identifications with existing resources. State also noted that 
devising additional reporting formats would require the commitment or 
allocation of significant additional resources. Accordingly, State 
will encourage Congress to furnish criteria as decisions are made on 
Export Control Reform. We agree that State should identify U.S. 
government end-users in its reports to Congress. In considering 
modifications to its case management system, State should also ensure 
that the system has the capability to identify overlapping dollar 
values of authorizations. Since State believes that these 
modifications would require additional resources, we will monitor 
agency fiscal year 2012 budget requests for this purpose. 

State concurred with our third recommendation, stating that 
documentation of its reviews of foreign policy and national security 
justifications for all arms transfer authorizations could be improved. 
State noted that its Political-Military Affairs Bureau and the Bureau 
of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor are already developing a better 
means of documenting FMS and DCS case reviews for human rights 
concerns. However, State disagreed with our conclusion that the 
partial absence of documentation of agencies' reviews raises concerns 
that U.S. priorities are not consistently considered before such sales 
are authorized. It stated that the documentation we reported as 
"missing" in certain Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA) amendments 
was present in the base TAAs associated with those amendments. We 
agree that State should take additional steps to improve documentation 
of FMS and DCS case reviews. GAO's Standards for Internal Control in 
the Federal Government requires that agencies clearly document 
transactions and all significant events. The agencies could not 
provide documentation of reviews for all the FMS and DCS cases we 
selected. State notes that the missing documentation for two DCS cases 
can be found in previously authorized licenses. These agreements were 
notified to Congress and, pursuant to State's guidance, required a 
review. Federal internal control standards also require that 
documentation of decisions should be readily available for 
examination. State did not provide us documentation that the Office of 
Regional Security and Arms Transfers reviewed these cases. 

DOD and State also provided technical comments, which we incorporated 
in this report as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. We are sending copies of the report to the 
Secretaries of Defense and State and other interested parties. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web 
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact 
me at (202) 512-8979 or at christoffj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix VIII. 

Signed by: 

Joseph A. Christoff: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To determine the value and nature of arms transfers the U.S. 
government authorized for the governments of six Gulf countries 
(Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab 
Emirates) through direct commercial sales (DCS) and the Foreign 
Military Sales (FMS) program between fiscal years 2005 through 2009, 
we interviewed officials and requested data from the Departments of 
State (State) and Defense (DOD). We found FMS data to be sufficiently 
reliable; however, we found that DCS data on dollar value of licenses 
authorized to the governments of Gulf countries was not retrievable 
and, as a consequence, we could not accurately report the magnitude of 
DCS arms transfer authorizations. 

We interviewed officials from State and DOD responsible for reviewing 
and approving DCS and FMS arms transfer requests. At DOD we spoke to 
officials from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Defense 
Technology Security Administration, Defense Intelligence Agency, U.S. 
Central Command, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. At State we spoke to officials from the Directorate 
of Defense Trade Controls and the Office of Regional Security and Arms 
Transfers--both these offices are under the Bureau of Political- 
Military Affairs. We interviewed U.S. embassy officials in Bahrain, 
Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and by telephone for 
Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar. We also interviewed host country officials in 
Bahrain and the UAE. 

We obtained State's DCS license database, which contained 11,058 
licenses of which 6,638 licenses were approved or approved with 
conditions for the six Gulf countries between fiscal years 2005 and 
2009. Among other things, this database included the dollar value, 
description, and date of all approved licenses. We analyzed State's 
DCS database to determine the value and type of equipment approved for 
sale to Gulf countries. We assessed the reliability of DCS data by 
comparing the total value of DCS licenses authorized by fiscal year to 
State's annual 655 reports. We found that while the DCS data closely 
matched the data reported in the 655 reports for fiscal years 2006 
through 2008, the data were significantly different for fiscal year 
2005. According to a State official, this difference may be because 
the 655 report presents license information at a specific point in 
time, while the information in the database may change if a license is 
amended, revoked or suspended. Additionally we reviewed licenses for 
end-user information and tried to determine cases where licenses were 
related to each other and, thus, may have overlapping values. The 
details of our data reliability assessment are noted below. Because of 
limitations in the capability of State's database system, we could not 
determine the total dollar value of DCS licenses for the governments 
of Gulf countries between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2009. 

To identify the licenses where the U.S. government was the end-user, 
we performed two searches on the database. First, we searched the 
"description" field in the database for keywords--such as U.S. 
military and Operation Iraqi Freedom--that were typically used for 
U.S. government entities. Based on the keyword search, we separated 
the licenses for defense articles and services where the U.S. 
government was listed as the end-user. Second, to ensure that the 
keyword search correctly identified licenses to U.S. government 
entities in Gulf countries, we manually searched the top 100 highest 
value licenses and removed any licenses where a Gulf country was the 
end-user. We then summed the top 100 highest value licenses to U.S. 
government entities in Gulf countries to determine the extent to which 
the database includes these licenses. While we were able to determine 
that at least $6 billion was authorized for U.S. government entities, 
because the "description" fields did not always contain information 
indicating the end-user, we cannot determine the exact value of 
authorizations to U.S. government entities. 

To identify instances where the license values overlapped, we searched 
the description field in the database for keywords such as "in 
furtherance" to identify licenses that were issued "in furtherance" of 
an initial agreement. Based on the keyword search, we identified 
license values that may be counted more than once over one year or 
multi-year period. We then submitted examples from the keyword search 
to State officials to confirm whether this listing of a license in 
furtherance of an initial agreement represented a risk of being 
counted twice. 

For FMS, DOD provided 1,123 actions that included new Letters of Offer 
and Acceptance (LOA), as well as amendments or modifications to 
existing LOAs, for the six Gulf countries between fiscal years 2005 
and 2009. This data was extracted from DOD's Defense Security 
Assistance Management System and 1200 system databases and included 
information such as dollar value, item description, the implementing 
agency, and date of approval for each action. We determined the data 
provided by DOD for FMS to the six Gulf countries between fiscal years 
2005 and 2009 were both complete and sufficiently reliable for our 
use. We verified that the correct databases were used to generate the 
FMS data and cross-referenced numerous datasets provided by DOD. 

To identify the nature of equipment authorized to Gulf countries 
between fiscal years 2005 and 2009 we did the following: 

* For FMS, we identified cases that represented highest value 
authorizations for Gulf countries. For illustrative purposes, we 
identified the top 10 highest value authorizations for the UAE and 
Saudi Arabia, since authorizations to these countries is significantly 
higher than to other Gulf countries. We identified the top five 
highest value authorizations for the remaining four Gulf countries. 

* For DCS, some highest value licenses did not have a description. As 
a result, we only included information where both the value and the 
description for the DCS license were available. For illustrative 
purposes, we selected the top 10 high value authorizations for UAE and 
Saudi Arabia, and top five high value authorizations for the remaining 
four Gulf countries. 

To assess agencies' review of arms transfer requests for foreign 
policy and national security considerations, we reviewed agency 
guidelines, policies, and other documents, and interviewed agency 
officials from State and DOD. To obtain information on the role of key 
implementing agencies in reviewing arms transfer requests, we obtained 
documents and interviewed officials from: 

* Department of the Army's U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Defense Exports and 
Cooperation, and the Office of the Program Manager--Saudi Arabian 
National Guard; 

* Department of the Navy's International Programs Office; and: 

* Department of the Air Force's Secretary of the Air Force/ 
International Affairs. 

We selected a judgmental sample of FMS and DCS approved requests to 
determine the nature and extent of the review process and verify 
agency officials' statements that they reviewed FMS and DCS cases for 
national security and foreign policy considerations. We selected 
requests approved in 2008 and 2009 only, as agency officials stated 
relatively recent cases would be more easily retrievable for 
examination. Because we selected a judgmental sample, we cannot 
generalize our findings to all FMS and DCS authorizations for this 
time period. We selected cases based on a mix of criteria such as high 
dollar values overall and per country, sensitivity of equipment, and 
destination country. We selected 15 cases for the UAE and Saudi 
Arabia, which had a larger share of authorizations, compared to 13 
cases for the remaining Gulf countries, which had a lower share of 
authorizations. 

For FMS, we selected a judgmental sample of 13 cases based on the DOD- 
provided LOA data. These cases represented about 40 percent of the 
total dollar value of FMS authorization for 2008-2009 time period. We 
used the following criteria to select our sample: (1) fiscal year, (2) 
requesting country, (3) high dollar values overall and per country, 
(4) sensitivity of arms requested such as night vision devices, and 
(5) agency implementing the case. We selected six cases for the UAE 
and Saudi Arabia, which had a larger share of authorizations, compared 
to seven cases for the remaining Gulf countries, which had a lower 
share of authorizations. Although we chose at least one case for each 
of the six countries, we selected 8 of the 13 LOAs from agreements 
offered to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait, as they accounted for 
about 96 percent of the total value of agreements. Finally, we chose 
at least one case in which the Army, Navy, or Air Force served as the 
implementing agency. 

For DCS, we selected a judgmental sample of 20 approved licenses from 
State's DCS database to determine the nature and extent of the DCS 
review process and verify agency officials' statements that they 
reviewed DCS cases for national security and foreign policy 
considerations. We subsequently found that five licenses were for U.S. 
government entities, which do not require foreign policy and national 
security review. We therefore removed these cases from our sample and 
were left with 15 DCS licenses. These licenses had a value of more 
than $3 billion. We used the following criteria to select our sample: 
(1) fiscal year; (2) destination country; (3) sensitivity of the 
defense article or service requested, such as if the authorization 
approvals were conditional; and (4) high dollar value licenses overall 
and per country. We selected nine cases for the UAE and Saudi Arabia, 
which had a larger share of authorizations, compared to six cases for 
the remaining Gulf countries, which had a lower share of 
authorizations. 

We requested DOD and State provide documentation related to important 
decisions or milestones for our judgmental sample of 13 FMS and 15 DCS 
approved requests to verify their consideration of foreign policy and 
national security during the review process. The documents we 
requested included: (1) decisions related to the release of the 
requested technology including any conditions placed upon the sale of 
defense articles and services; (2) evidence of referrals to internal 
components, committees, or other agencies for specific reviews; (3) 
country team assessments, if needed; (4) congressional notifications, 
if needed; (5) approved agreement or license; and (6) other 
documentation illustrating the review and approval process such as 
internal memos, correspondence, tracking sheets, or checklists. 

To understand the purpose of the Gulf Security Dialogue (GSD), we 
interviewed officials from State and DOD headquarters. Additionally, 
we interviewed U.S. officials in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE; 
and conducted phone interviews with U.S. officials in Kuwait, Oman, 
and Qatar. We also reviewed State department reporting cables 
describing the agenda and nature of the GSD meetings. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to September 2010 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Highest Value FMS Authorizations for Gulf Countries: 

The table below represents the highest value agreements in descending 
order, by country, signed between the United States and the country 
between fiscal years 2005 and 2009. The totals include new agreements, 
as well as amendments and modifications to agreements that may have 
occurred over several years between fiscal years 2005 and 2009. 

Table 4: Highest Value FMS Authorizations for Gulf Countries, Fiscal 
Years 2005 to 2009: 

UAE: 

Defense article or service: Patriot missile defense system; 
Total value: $6.516 billion; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense article or service: UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters; 
Total value: $1.554 billion; 
Fiscal year: 2007-2009. 

Defense article or service: AH-64A Apache helicopters; 
Total value: $743 million; 
Fiscal year: 2006, 2008-2009. 

Defense article or service: F-16 aircraft munitions; 
Total value: $700 million; 
Fiscal year: 2008-2009. 

Defense article or service: High Mobility Artillery Rocket System; 
Total value: $595 million; 
Fiscal year: 2007. 

Defense article or service: Hellfire missiles; 
Total value: $149 million; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense article or service: Javelin launchers and missiles; 
Total value: $118 million; 
Fiscal year: 2006, 2009. 

Defense article or service: F-16 Block 60 training; 
Total value: $113 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005, 2007-2009. 

Defense article or service: Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles; 
Total value: $108 million; 
Fiscal year: 2006, 2009. 

Defense article or service: AH-64A Apache helicopters; 
Total value: $72 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005-2006, 2008-2009. 

Saudi Arabia: 

Defense article or service: F110 engines and buildings for aircraft; 
Total value: $866 million; 
Fiscal year: 2007-2008. 

Defense article or service: F-15 sustainment and support; 
Total value: $801 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005-2009. 

Defense article or service: Saudi Arabian National Guard-Training and 
local procurement of services; 
Total value: $495 million; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense article or service: Saudi Arabian National Guard-Construction; 
Total value: $450 million; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense article or service: Light Armored Vehicles; 
Total value: $403 million; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense article or service: UH60L Black Hawk helicopters; 
Total value: $343 million; 
Fiscal year: 2006, 2008. 

Defense article or service: Apache helicopters; 
Total value: $339 million; 
Fiscal year: 2007-2008. 

Defense article or service: M1A2 and M1A2S tanks; 
Total value: $316 million; 
Fiscal year: 2006-2009. 

Defense article or service: Saudi Arabian National Guard-Services and 
support; 
Total value: $285 million; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense article or service: F-15 aircraft engine repair; 
Total value: $263 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005-2006 2008-2009. 

Kuwait: 

Defense article or service: Patriot Advanced Capability III upgrade; 
Total value: $256 million; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense article or service: Fast interceptor boats and support; 
Total value: $167 million; 
Fiscal year: 2006, 2008. 

Defense article or service: F/A-18 C/D follow-on material; 
Total value: $158 million; 
Fiscal year: 2006, 2009. 

Defense article or service: Patriot missile support follow-on services; 
Total value: $109 million; 
Fiscal year: 2006, 2008. 

Defense article or service: Tube-launched optically-tracked, wire-
guided (TOW) 2A and 2B missiles; 
Total value: $103 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005, 2008. 

Bahrain: 

Defense article or service: UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters; 
Total value: $208 million; 
Fiscal year: 2007, 2009. 

Defense article or service: Follow-on support for F-16 C/D aircrafts; 
Total value: $51 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005-2009. 

Defense article or service: Multiple Launch Rocket System Fire Control 
upgrade; 
Total value: $33 million; 
Fiscal year: 2008-2009. 

Defense article or service: Hawk missile system support; 
Total value: $22 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005-2009. 

Defense article or service: Air Defense System Integrator; 
Total value: $17 million; 
Fiscal year: 2007-2008. 

Qatar: 

Defense article or service: Support for C-17 Globemaster A/C; 
Total value: $168 million; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense article or service: Training; 
Total value: $13 million; 
Fiscal year: 2007. 

Defense article or service: Training; 
Total value: $13 million; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense article or service: F-117 engines for C-17; 
Total value: $11 million; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense article or service: Communication Security custodians; 
Total value: $4 million; 
Fiscal year: 2008-2009. 

Oman: 

Defense article or service: F-16 sustainment case; 
Total value: $38 million; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense article or service: Approach radar system; 
Total value: $27 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005-2008. 

Defense article or service: Radio equipment; 
Total value: $20 million; 
Fiscal year: 2007. 

Defense article or service: Javelin missiles and launchers; 
Total value: $15 million; 
Fiscal year: 2005. 

Defense article or service: Javelin weapon system; 
Total value: $11 million; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Source: DOD. 

[A] Total value refers to the total dollar amount of all agreements 
signed between 2005 and 2009 (including amendments, modifications, and 
new LOAs). 

[B] Fiscal year refers to the year in which the basic agreement, 
modifications, or amendments were offered by the U.S. government to 
the foreign government. A range of years indicates that at least one 
agreement, modification or amendment was offered in each of the years 
within the range. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Select High Value DCS Authorizations for Gulf Countries: 

The table below represents a selection of the high value licenses, 
where a description was available, by country, for all new licenses 
authorized between fiscal years 2005 and 2009. Information for high 
value DCS licenses is based on cases where State's database included a 
description of the defense article or service authorized via a 
license. If the value of the license was among the highest values, but 
did not include a description, we were unable to use it to describe 
the nature of equipment authorized. We did not include licenses where 
the U.S. government was listed as the end-user. 

Table 5: High Value DCS Authorizations for Gulf Countries, Fiscal 
Years 2005 to 2009: 

UAE: 

Defense articles or services: Equipment related to the F-16 Block 60 
aircraft; 
Value: $1,011; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: D3 satellite; 
Value: $180; 
Fiscal year: 2006. 

Defense articles or services: Modification and upgrade of aircraft; 
Value: $178; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: CH-47F Chinook helicopters; 
Value: $159; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: Support equipment for vehicles; 
Value: $54; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: F-16 Block 60 defense articles; 
Value: $50; 
Fiscal year: 2005. 

Defense articles or services: Spare parts for repair and maintenance 
of C130 and L100 aircraft; 
Value: $40; 
Fiscal year: 2005. 

Defense articles or services: F-16 Block 60 defense articles; 
Value: $35; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: Marketing license for vessels; 
Value: $32; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Repair and maintenance of C130 and L100 
aircraft; 
Value: $25; 
Fiscal year: 2007. 

Saudi Arabia: 

Defense articles or services: S-92 helicopters; 
Value: $512; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Overhaul and repair for F100-W-220/220E 
and 229 engines; 
Value: $315; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Hardware for the Eurofighter aircraft; 
Value: $34; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: Spare parts and components for the F15S 
aircraft; 
Value: $34; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: Repair and maintenance of Light Armored 
Vehicles; 
Value: $34; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: Marketing license for vessels; 
Value: $32; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Hardware for HAWK air defense system; 
Value: $30; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Munitions and training bombs; 
Value: $27; 
Fiscal year: 2007. 

Defense articles or services: Military radio and communications 
equipment; 
Value: $26; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: Spare parts for F15S aircraft; 
Value: $26; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Kuwait: 

Defense articles or services: Marketing license for vessels; 
Value: $32; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Helicopters; 
Value: $14; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Vehicles; 
Value: $14; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: Repair of F/A 18 aircraft; 
Value: $13; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Repair of Patriot missile defense system; 
Value: $13; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Bahrain: 

Defense articles or services: Model 412EP helicopters with NVG 
lighting; 
Value: $48; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: F-16 spare parts; 
Value: $43; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Marketing license for vessels; 
Value: $32; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: S-70 helicopter repair; 
Value: $4; 
Fiscal year: 2006. 

Defense articles or services: Spare parts for AH-1 and 212 helicopters; 
Value: $4; 
Fiscal year: 2007. 

Qatar: 

Defense articles or services: C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft; 
Value: $460; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: C-17 spare parts and support equipment; 
Value: $70; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: C-17 spare parts; 
Value: $18; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Defense articles or services: Equipment to be installed on Sea King 
aircraft for security and surveillance, and search and rescue; 
Value: $5; 
Fiscal year: 2006. 

Defense articles or services: Maintenance and repair of Sea King 
Commando helicopters; 
Value: $3; 
Fiscal year: 2009. 

Oman: 

Defense articles or services: Marketing license for vessels; 
Value: $32; 
Fiscal year: 2008. 

Defense articles or services: Spare engines; 
Value: $17; 
Fiscal year: 2005. 

Defense articles or services: Radar; 
Value: $7; 
Fiscal year: 2007. 

Defense articles or services: Security and surveillance; 
Value: $3; 
Fiscal year: 2005. 

Defense articles or services: Maintenance for Super Lynx 300 
helicopters; 
Value: $3; 
Fiscal year: 2005. 

Source: State. 

Note: The information in this table represents values from individual 
DCS licenses. Thus, some defense articles or services may be repeated 
because they appeared on more than one license. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: U.S. Organizations Involved in Review of DCS Requests for 
Gulf Countries: 

National Security and Foreign Policy Review: 

(Administrating agency: State's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls): 

Release of technology: 

Defense Technology Security Administration: 

* Military departments: 

- Department of the Air Force: 

- Department of the Army: 

- Department of the Navy: 

* Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

* Joint Chiefs of Staff: 

* National Security Agency: 

* Defense Intelligence Agency: 

* Defense Security Cooperation Agency: 

* Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: 

Regional impact: 

* Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Regional Security 
and Arms Transfers: 

* Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs: 

Human rights: 

* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor: 

Proliferation: 

* Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation: 

* Missile Technology Export Control Committee: 

- Department of State (Committee Chair): 

- Defense Technology Security Administration: 

- Department of Commerce: 

- Department of Homeland Security: 

- Department of Energy: 

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

- Representatives from the Intelligence Community: 

Other agencies: 

* Department of Energy: 

* National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: U.S. Organizations Involved in Review of FMS Requests for 
Gulf Countries: 

National Security and Foreign Policy Review: 

(Administrating agency: DOD's Defense Security Cooperation Agency): 

Technical reviews: 

Security Assistance Organizations: 

* Bahrain--Office of Military Cooperation: 

* Kuwait--Office of Military Cooperation: 

* Oman--Office of Military Cooperation: 

* Qatar--United States Liaison Office: 

* Saudi Arabia: 

- Office of the Program Manager-Facilities Security Forces: 

- United States Military and Training Mission: 

- Office of the Program Manager-Saudi Arabian National Guard: 

* United Arab Emirates-United States Liaison Office: 

Implementing agencies: 

* Department of the Air Force: 

* Department of the Army: 

* Department of the Navy: 

* Other organizations: 

- Defense Contract Management Agency: 

- Defense Information Systems Agency: 

- Defense Logistics Agency: 

- Defense Security Cooperation Agency: 

- Defense Threat Reduction Agency: 

- National Geospatial Intelligence Agency: 

- National Security Agency: 

Release of technology: 

* Military department's review: 

- Navy's Technology Transfer Security Assistance Review Board: 

- Army's Technology Transfer Security Assistance Review Panel: 

- Air Force's Topline: 

Special committees: 

* National Disclosure Policy Committee: 

- Secretary of State: 

- Secretary of Defense: 

- Secretary of the Army: 

- Secretary of the Navy: 

- Secretary of the Air Force: 

- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: 

- Special Members (who vote on issues that only pertain to them) 
include: the Secretary of Energy; the Director of National 
intelligence; the Director of Central Intelligence the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Policy; the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics; the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and 
Information Integration/DOD Chief Information Officer; the Assistant 
to the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense 
Programs); the Director of Defense Intelligence Agency; the Director 
of Missile Defense Agency; the Director of National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency; and the Director of National Security Agency: 

* Low-Observable/Counter-Low-Observable Executive Committee: 

- Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics (Committee Chair): 

- Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: 

- Army, Service Acquisition Executive: 

- Navy, Service Acquisition Executive: 

- Air Force, Service Acquisition Executive: 

- Under Secretary of Defense for Policy: 

- Under Secretary for Defense for Intelligence: 

- Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics: 

- Director of Defense Research and Engineering: 

- Director of Strategic and Tactical Systems: 

- Director of Operational Test and Evaluation: 

- Missile Defense Agency representative: 

- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency representative: 

* Tri-Service Committee: 

- Director of the Office of Special Programs, Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
(Committee Chair): 

- Air Force representative: 

- Navy representative: 

- Army representative: 

- Director of Special Programs Staff: 

- Joint Staff representative: 

- Defense Technology Security Agency representative: 

* Committee on National Security Systems: 

- Director National Security Agency-National Manager: 

- Secretary of State: 

- Secretary of Treasury: 

- Secretary of Defense: 

- Attorney General: 

- Secretary of Commerce: 

- Secretary of Transportation: 

- Secretary of Energy: 

- Director of the Office of Management and Budget: 

- National Security Advisor: 

- Director of Central Intelligence: 

- Defense Intelligence Agency: 

- Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

- Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

- General Services Administration: 

- Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps representatives: 

National security policy and strategy: 

* U.S. Central Command: 

* Joint Chiefs of Staff: 

* Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

Regional impact: 

* U.S. Embassy country team, including: 

- Ambassador: 

- Political, and Political-Military Counselors: 

- Security Cooperation Organizations: 

* Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Regional Security 
and Arms Transfers: 

* Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs: 

Human rights: 

* U.S. Embassy: 

* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor: 

Proliferation: 

* Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation: 

* Implementing agencies: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State: 

United States Department of State
Chief Financial Officer: 
Washington, D.C. 20520: 

September 8, 2010: 

Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers: 
Managing Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: 

We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Persian 
Gulf: U.S. Agencies Need to Improve Licensing Data and Document 
Reviews of Arms Transfers for U.S. Foreign Policy and National 
Security Goals," GAO Job Code 320705. 

The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for 
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
John A. Schwenk, Team Leader for the Middle East and Africa, Office of 
Regional and Arms Transfers, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at 
(202) 647-2558. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James L. Millette: 

cc: GAO — Joseph Christoff: 
PM — Andrew J. Shapiro: 
State/OIG — Tracy Burnett: 

[End of letter] 

Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report: 

Persian Gulf: U.S. Agencies Need to Improve Licensing Data and 
Document Reviews of Arms Transfers for U.S. Foreign Policy and 
National Security Goals (GAO-10-918, GAO Code 320705): 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft report 
entitled, "Persian Gulf: U.S. Agencies Need to Improve Licensing Data 
and Document Reviews of Arms Transfers for U.S. Foreign Policy and 
National Security Goals." 

The Department of State (State) believes some of GAO's main 
conclusions throughout the report are based on inaccurate 
interpretations of existing requirements and reporting but agrees that 
documentation of key decisions pertaining to both Direct Commercial 
Sales (DCS) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) processes could be 
improved. 

State would like to clarify that all authorizations for the export of 
defense articles and defense services, whether DCS or FMS, are subject 
to a rigorous analytical process to ensure consistency with U.S. 
Government foreign policy and national security goals. 

Recommendation 1: Provide more details related to authorizations data 
in reports on arms transfer authorizations to Congress. For example, 
for greater clarity, State should specify where authorization data for 
a country include licenses, as well as their value, to U.S. government 
entities in that country. 

Recommendation 2: Modify the DCS case management system so that it has 
the capability to generate information such as authorizations to 
foreign country governments by identifying and separating licenses 
issued for arms transfers to U.S. government entities in foreign 
countries and overlapping values of related licenses. 

State recognizes the importance of maintaining and reporting to the 
Congress and public reliable data on United States defense exports 
through direct commercial sales or the Foreign Military Sales program. 
The draft report identifies gaps and inconsistencies in reports of 
this nature by the Executive Branch, some of which result from the 
differing reporting requirements of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
(FAA). State agrees that the information that GAO requests to have 
extracted from the DCS case management system would be useful to users 
and looks forward to working with Congress to determine the efficacy 
of changing the requirements to the FAA to provide such information. 

State faithfully reports to Congress all data requested by it 
pertaining to exported articles and services. The Department has 
undertaken efforts to improve its reporting on transfers to U.S. 
Government entities under FAA Section 655. 

The DCS case management system is designed to capture all 
authorizations, and extracting data for the 655 Report is just one of 
its purposes. While it is not currently possible to identify USG end-
users in the database without a manual search, the Department will 
continue to make such identifications with existing resources. 
Devising additional reporting formats would require the commitment or 
allocation of significant additional resources. 

Providing consolidated and useful defense export data to Congress and 
the public is consistent with the goals of Export Control Reform and 
the Executive Branch task force evaluating proposals and 
recommendations associated with it. As decisions are made on Export 
Control Reform, the Department of State will encourage the Congress to 
furnish criteria and resources to develop appropriate information 
technology platforms and reporting criteria of benefit to both the 
Congress and the public. 

Recommendation 3: To ensure that arms transfers are consistent with 
U.S. foreign policy and national security goals, we recommend that the 
Secretaries of State and Defense require documentation of key reviews 
and written assessments against policy criteria, especially sales of 
significant military equipment. 

The Department documents its foreign policy and national security
justifications for all arms transfer authorizations, whether they 
require congressional notification or not. For cases requiring 
Congressional notification, State develops a formal foreign policy and 
national security justification package, pursuant to the notification 
requirements in the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). For requests 
falling below Congressional notification thresholds, State conducts a 
foreign policy and national security analysis that is captured either 
in formal documentation or through correspondence with the relevant 
reviewing agencies or offices. As the Department's lead for arms 
transfers, the Bureau of Political Military Affairs (PM) is working to 
ensure FMS and DCS cases are cleared with the Department's key bureaus 
and other relevant agencies for their potential impact on regional 
security, human rights and other concerns. For example, PM and the 
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) are already 
developing a better means of documenting FMS and DCS case reviews for 
human rights concerns. 

The Department agrees that documentation of these reviews could be 
improved, though we do not concur with GAO's comment that "[t]he 
partial absence of documentation of agencies' reviews, however, raises 
concerns that U.S. priorities are not consistently considered before 
such sales are authorized." The documentation GAO states is "missing" 
in certain Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA) amendments was 
present in the base TAAs associated with those amendments, though the 
Department could link the amendments to the existing authorization 
more explicitly. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Assistant Secretary Of Defense: 
International Security Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20301-2400: 

Mr. Joseph A. Christoff: 
Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Christoff: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, GA0-10-918, "Persian Gulf: 
U.S. Agencies Need to Improve Licensing Data and Document Reviews of 
Arms Transfers for U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Goals," 
dated August 10, 2010 (GAO Code 320705). 

Recommendation: To ensure that arms transfers are consistent with U.S 
foreign policy and national security goals, the GAO recommends that 
the Secretaries of State and Defense document key reviews and written 
assessments against policy criteria, especially for sales of 
significant military equipment. 

DoD Response: Concur. The Department continuously strives to identify 
better processes to ensure all key assessments are documented against 
national security goals. DoD appreciates GAO's feedback and assistance 
with our efforts at continuous process improvement. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

James M. Holmes: 
Brig Gen, USAF: 
Principal Director, Middle East Policy: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Joseph A. Christoff, (202) 512-8979 or christoffj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the person named above, Jeff Phillips (Assistant 
Director), Ashley Alley, Martin De Alteriis, Jenna Beveridge, Mitchell 
Karpman, Mary Moutsos, Aku Pappoe, Mona Sehgal, Bradley Terry, and 
Jason Trentacoste made key contributions to this report. Karen Deans, 
Etana Finkler, John Neumann, Madhav Panwar, and Michael Simon also 
provided technical assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For the purposes of this report, arms transfers include defense 
articles and services authorized for sale through direct commercial 
sales, as well as defense articles and services that the U.S. 
government sells to foreign governments and international 
organizations through the Foreign Military Sales program. 

[2] Although DOD implements FMS, the Secretary of State is responsible 
for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales and 
exports under the Arms Export Control Act. 

[3] FMS is negotiated between the U.S. government and a foreign 
government, while DCS is negotiated between a U.S. supplier and a 
foreign buyer. 

[4] For the purposes of this report, we refer to State's DCS case 
management system as the DCS database system. 

[5] We assessed the value of arms transfers authorized for the 
governments of each of these countries. We did not assess defense 
equipment and services subsequently contracted for or delivered to the 
countries. GAO will report on FMS and DCS deliveries in a subsequent 
report. 

[6] Prior to April 2010, DOD policy required U.S. embassies to conduct 
assessments for defense articles considered to be significant military 
equipment, which are arms on the U.S. Munitions List that warrant 
special export controls because of their capacity for substantial 
military utility or capability. 22 U.S.C. 2794(9) and Security 
Assistance Management Manual C5.T1. Current DOD policy requires these 
assessments only for major defense equipment, which is significant 
military equipment with a non-recurring research and development cost 
of more than $50 million or total production cost of more than $200 
million. 22 U.S.C. 2794(6). 

[7] Bahrain is the only Arab Gulf country where the majority of the 
population is identified with Shia Islam. Oman is predominantly Ibadi. 

[8] AECA, as amended, 22 U.S.C. §§ 2751 et seq. 

[9] 22 U.S.C. § 2321j. 

[10] National Defense Authorization Act of 2006, as amended, Pub. L. 
No. 109-163, § 1206. 119 Stat. 3136, 3456-58 (2006). 

[11] 22 U.S.C. § 2776(h). 

[12] 22 U.S.C. § 2415. 

[13] To determine the minimum value of licenses to U.S. government 
entities, we summed the top 100 highest value licenses to U.S. 
government entities in Gulf countries where we could clearly verify 
that the U.S. government was listed as the end-user. Since the 
description field did not always contain information clearly 
indicating the end-user, we cannot determine the exact value of 
authorizations for U.S. government entities. 

[14] State's 2009 report on arms transfers authorization was due on 
February 1, 2010. 

[15] Black Hawk helicopters are tactical transport helicopters, 
capable of transporting an 11-person infantry squad. Apache 
helicopters are designed to navigate and conduct precision attacks in 
day, night, and adverse weather conditions. 

[16] Information for high value DCS licenses is based on cases where 
the State's database included a description of the defense article or 
service authorized via a license. If the value of the license was 
among the highest values, but did not include a description, we were 
unable to use it to describe the nature of equipment authorized. 

[17] The Chinook is a twin-engine helicopter designed for transporting 
cargo, troops, and weapons. 

[18] The S-92 is a four-blade twin-engine medium-lift helicopter for 
civil and military use. The F-15 aircraft is a supersonic fighter 
aircraft used for air-to-air combat. 

[19] According to Presidential Decision Directive 34, all arms 
transfer decisions should take into account 12 criteria in the CAT 
policy. 

[20] DOD 5105.38-M, "Security Assistance Management Manual" (October 
3, 2003). This manual provides guidance for the administration and 
implementation of security assistance and related activities in 
compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act, the AECA, and related 
statutes and directives. 

[21] The AECA, as amended in 2008, defines qualitative military edge 
as the ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional 
military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of 
states or from nonstate actors, while sustaining minimal damages and 
casualties, through the use of superior military means, possessed in 
sufficient quantity, including weapons, command, control, 
communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
capabilities that in their technical characteristics are superior in 
capability to those of such other individual or possible coalition of 
states or nonstate actors. 22 U.S.C. § 2776(h)(2). 

[22] See April 5, 2010, Security Assistance Management Manual e-change 
161 to DSCA Policy 10-23 for this change in requirements. 

[23] National Disclosure Policy governs the disclosure of classified 
military information, including classified weapons. This policy was 
established by National Security Decision Memorandum 119, Disclosure 
of Classified Military Information to Foreign Governments and 
International Organizations, July 20, 1971, as approved by the 
President. It was amended by a White House memorandum dated June 6, 
1978. 

[24] We originally selected 33 cases, but 5 DCS authorizations were 
for U.S. government entities in Gulf countries and, therefore, did not 
require foreign policy and national security reviews. 

[25] Since we could not determine the total value of DCS 
authorizations to Gulf countries, we cannot determine what percent of 
the total value our selected cases represent. 

[26] According to DTSA officials, State is not required to notify DTSA 
of DCS arms transfer authorizations related to broader DCS agreements 
that DTSA has previously reviewed and approved. One of the 15 DCS 
authorizations was for an arms transfer that DTSA had previously 
approved. 

[27] State's Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers manages 
U.S. political-military relations with other countries and acts as a 
link between various State offices and DOD. 

[28] Terminal High Altitude Area Defense weapon system consists of 
missiles, mobile launchers, ground based radars, a tactical operations 
center, and support equipment. It intercepts ballistic missiles 
warheads at high altitudes, therefore, reducing the probability that 
debris and chemical or biological agents will reach the ground in 
damaging amounts. According to DOD officials, the sale of this weapon 
for the UAE has not been finalized. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: