Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: Coalition Support and International Donor Commitments
Released: 2007-05-09T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In March 2003, the United States—along with the United Kingdom, Australia, and other members of the coalition—began combat operations in Iraq. The original “coalition of the willing” consisted of 49 countries (including the United States) that publicly committed to the war effort and also provided a variety of support, such as direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, over-flight rights, or humanitarian and reconstruction aid. The term “coalition of the willing” refers to those countries that declared political support for the war effort; not all of these countries contributed troops to multinational operations. Between December 2003 and May 2007, 39 countries (including the United States)— some of which were not original coalition members—provided troops to support operations in Iraq.

Three sources of funding help support non-U.S. coalition troops in Iraq: coalition support funds, lift and sustain funds, and peacekeeping operations funds. First, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 authorized DOD to use up to a certain amount of its operations and maintenance funds to reimburse countries for the logistical and military support they provided to U.S. military operations in Iraq. DOD refers to these funds as coalition support funds. Congress has continued to make such funds available in each subsequent fiscal year. Second, DOD’s annual Appropriations Act in 2005 authorized DOD to use funds from its operations and maintenance accounts to provide supplies and services; transportation, including airlift and sealift; and other logistical support to coalition forces supporting military and stability operations in Iraq. DOD refers to these funds as lift and sustain funds. This authority has also been continued in subsequent appropriations acts.

According to a DOD official, both coalition support funds and lift and sustain funds are used for any requirements that could be appropriately paid for from operations and maintenance accounts, including airlift, sealift, and sustainment services such as feeding and billeting for coalition troops, among other things. In addition, a DOD official stated that both of these funds are used to support nations whose economic conditions prevent them from fully funding their troops’ presence in Iraq. The key distinction between the coalition support and the lift and sustain funds is that coalition support funds are used to reimburse countries for costs they incur, and lift and sustain funds are used to reimburse U.S. military departments for services they provide to support eligible countries.

Third, the State Department provided peacekeeping operations (PKO) funds in 2003 and 2004 to provide basic supplies and equipment such as armor and medical supplies to coalition troops in Iraq. These funds were used to make initial equipment purchases for countries participating in Polish and U.S.-led divisions in Iraq.

Many nations and various international organizations are supporting the efforts to rebuild Iraq through multilateral or bilateral assistance. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511 of October 16, 2003, urged member states and international and regional organizations to support the Iraq reconstruction effort. On October 23-24, 2003, an international donors conference was held in Madrid, with 76 countries, 20 international organizations, and 13 nongovernmental organizations participating.

Troop Contributions from Coalition Members Have Declined and Represent a Small Percentage of Total Forces

As of May 2007, 25 coalition nations were contributing about 12,600 troops to multinational force operations in Iraq. This compares to the 145,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, for the same time period. See figure 1 for a comparison of U.S. and coalition troops from December 2003 through May 2007.

Non-U.S. coalition troops represent about 8 percent of multinational forces in Iraq as of May 2007. Although the coalition has trained and equipped about 331,000 Iraqi army and police forces, we do not include Iraqi security forces (ISF) in our analyses. As we have reported, these data provide limited information on the forces’ capabilities, effectiveness, and loyalties. For example, DOD reported in March 2007 that the number of ISF forces present for duty is one-half to two-thirds of the number trained and equipped.

In addition, the number of coalition forces has declined by 47.5 percent— from 24,000 in December 2003 to 12,600 in May 2007, as shown in figure 2.

Although the number of troops is declining, three countries—the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Republic of Korea—have led operations in three of seven security sectors in Iraq (see figure 3).

Since July 2003, the United Kingdom has led operations in one of the seven sectors—Multinational Division-Southeast—in southern Iraq in the area around Basra. As of October 2006, coalition troops in this sector were from Italy, Japan, Australia, Romania, Denmark, Portugal, Czech Republic, and Lithuania. Since that time, Italy and Portugal have withdrawn troops from military operations in Iraq. The United Kingdom has provided the largest number of non-U.S. coalition troops, peaking at 46,000 from March through April 2003, then declining to 7,100 in November 2006. British forces have conducted combat operations to improve the security environment and have trained Iraqi security forces, among other things. They had sustained 147 fatalities as of May 1, 2007. The United Kingdom announced that it will begin withdrawing troops in 2007 but has pledged to maintain a presence in Iraq into 2008.

Poland has led operations in the MND-Central South, which is south of Baghdad, since September 2003. As of May 2007, non-U.S. coalition troops in this sector were from Poland, Armenia, Bosnia, Denmark, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Romania, El Salvador, Slovakia, and Ukraine. Poland’s highest troop level was 2500, declining to 900 by October 2006. Poland’s troops have conducted joint combat operations and performed humanitarian, medical, advisory, and training missions, and have sustained 20 fatalities.

The Republic of Korea has led operations in MND-Northeast from Irbil City in the area north of Kirkuk since September 2004. Their peak number of troops was 3,600 troops in that year but declined to 1,600 in March 2007. Their missions have included medical, humanitarian, and reconstruction efforts. The Republic of Korea’s government is to draw up a timetable in 2007 for withdrawing its troops from Iraq.

The number of contributing countries has decreased from 33 in December 2003 to 25 in May 2007. Figure 4 shows the countries that have contributed troops between 2003 and 2007. According to State Department officials and government press releases, the decline in the number of troops can be attributed to completion of missions, domestic political considerations, and the deteriorating security condition in Iraq.

As the figure shows, eight countries withdrew their troops from Iraq during 2004. For example, in mid-April 2004, the new government of Spain announced that it would withdraw its 1,300 troops from Iraq. The government withdrew the troops much earlier than the United States expected, after violence escalated in the Spanish area of operations in Iraq. Shortly thereafter, Honduras and the Dominican Republic announced they would also withdraw their national contingents from the multinational force, which they did the same year.

The United States Has Provided about $1.5 Billion to Support Coalition Troops in Iraq

Some countries that have provided troops to the multinational force in Iraq are not financially able to support those troops in the field for extended periods of time or may need assistance in preparing their troops for this type of operation. Since 2003, the United States has provided about $1.5 billion to 20 countries. Of the $1.5 billion spent to support these troops, about $725.9 million was reimbursed to countries, and about $702 million was reimbursed to U.S. military departments that provided support to non-U.S. coalition troops. See table 1 below for the total amount of support provided for non-U.S. coalition troops in Iraq.

Since 2003, the departments used about $1 billion of the approximately $1.5 billion (71.5 percent) for sustainment services such as food, supplies, and base operations services such as communications and equipment. The departments used the remaining funds to support other operational requirements: About $212 million to support Jordan’s border operations; About $43 million to support hospital operations; and About $125 million to support lift requirements.

Nineteen coalition nations and Jordan received support from these funds. As displayed in table 2, Poland received the largest amount of support— about $988 million, or 66 percent of total funding—for requirements sustained in its capacity as Commander of the MND-Central South sector. However, the support provided Poland was not solely for its own troops but for the coalition troops under its command—Armenia, Slovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

According to a DOD official, as a matter of policy, it confined its support to those coalition countries that they deemed were less capable of absorbing the costs associated with participating in operations in Iraq. However, one exception to this policy was the decision in 2005 to reimburse the United Kingdom about $5.6 million for improvements it made to Royal Air Force (RAF) Base Akritori on Cyprus to accommodate U.S. requirements for lift and refueling needs. Jordan was the next largest recipient of support, receiving reimbursement or services worth about $300 million for border operations and other activities.

It is important to note that the United States also has provided security assistance funds to develop and modernize the militaries of several countries contributing to operations in Iraq. Security assistance has included military equipment, services, and training. From fiscal year 2003 through 2006, the United States provided about $525 million in security assistance to 10 countries contributing troops to Iraq. In addition, since 2003, the United States has provided Jordan about $1.34 billion in security assistance.

International Donors Have Pledged Billions of Dollars for Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq

International donors have pledged about $14.9 billion in support of Iraq reconstruction. In addition, some countries exceeded their pledges by providing an additional $744 million for a total of $15.6 billion, according to the State Department. Of this amount, about $11 billion, or 70 percent, is in the form of loans. As of April 2007, Iraq had accessed about $436 million in loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The remaining $4.6 billion is in the form of grants, to be provided multilaterally or bilaterally; $3.0 billion has been disbursed to Iraq. See table 3 for pledges made at Madrid and thereafter for Iraq reconstruction. In addition, 16 of the 41 countries that pledged funding for Iraq reconstruction also pledged troops to the multinational force in Iraq.

Most Pledges Were in the Form of Loans

About $11 billion, or 70 percent, of the $14.9 billion pledged in support of Iraq reconstruction is in the form of loans. Pledging the majority of these loans were the World Bank ($3 billion), the IMF (up to $2.55 billion), Iran ($1 billion), and Japan ($3.4 billion), according to the State Department. In September 2004, the IMF provided a $436 million emergency post-conflict assistance loan to facilitate Iraqi debt relief. The World Bank has approved loans for $399 million from its concessional international development assistance program, which the Iraqis have not accessed. According to the State Department, the Iraqis lack a system for approving projects supported by donor loans, which has impeded efforts by the World Bank and Japan to initiate loan-based projects. In addition, Iraq has not yet accessed loans from Iran, according to the State Department. Further, according to IMF reporting as of February 2007, Iraq has received about $39 billion in debt reduction from commercial and bilateral creditors.

Most Grants Have Been Provided

As of April 2007, international donors for Iraq reconstruction had pledged $3.9 billion in grants to be provided multilaterally and bilaterally. In addition, some countries exceeded their pledges by providing an additional $744 million, according to the State department.

Of the total grants, donors provided about $1.6 billion multilaterally to two trust funds, one run by the U.N. Development Group (UNDG) and the other by the World Bank. Donors have provided about $1.1 billion to the UN trust fund and $455 million to the World Bank trust fund. As of March 2007, the UN has disbursed about $612 million to support, among other things, Iraq’s elections, infrastructure projects, health and nutrition, agriculture and natural resources, and assistance to refugees. As of March 2007, the World Bank fund had disbursed about $96 million to support, among other things, capacity building, school rehabilitation and construction, and health rehabilitation.

Donors provided about $2.3 billion in bilateral grants for Iraq reconstruction efforts. As of April 2007, these grants have funded more than 400 projects as reported by Iraq’s Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation. According to State, these projects include about $1 billion in grant assistance from Japan, $775 million from the United Kingdom, $153 million from Republic of Korea, $110 million from Canada, and $100 million from Spain. These funds have been provided as bilateral grants to Iraqi institutions, implementing contractors, and nongovernmental organizations for reconstruction projects outside the projects funded by the UN and World Bank trust funds.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you or the members of the subcommittee may have.

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

For questions regarding this testimony, please call Joseph A. Christoff at (202) 512-8979. Other key contributors to this statement were Muriel Forster, David Bruno, Monica Brym, Dorian Herring, Lynn Cothern, Judith McCloskey, and Mary Moutsos.

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. However, 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.