Lebanon is a small, religiously diverse country on the Mediterranean Sea that borders Israel and Syria (see fig. 1). Religious tensions among Lebanon’s Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Shiite Muslims, and others, along with an influx of Palestinian refugees, for decades have underpinned Lebanon’s internal conflicts as well as its conflicts with neighboring countries. Hezbollah emerged in Lebanon as a powerful Islamic militant group and since 2005, a member of Hezbollah has held a cabinet position in the Lebanese government. Hezbollah is funded by Iran and has been designated by the United States and Israel as a terrorist organization. In the summer of 2006, Hezbollah and Israel entered into a month-long conflict that ended with the adoption of United Nations Resolution 1701 by both the Israeli and Lebanese governments. The resolution called for, among other things, Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in parallel with the deployment of Lebanese and United Nations forces and the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon. Instability arising from the civil war in neighboring Syria that began in 2011 has exacerbated sectarian conflict within Lebanon. In May 2013, Hezbollah leaders confirmed their intervention in the Syrian conflict. Figure 2 presents a timeline of selected political events in Lebanon. Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war, the United States has kept strategic goals for Lebanon constant. These goals are to support Lebanon as a stable, secure, and independent democracy. The overarching priorities of U.S. assistance programs for Lebanon focus on supporting Lebanese sovereignty and stability and countering the influence of Syria and Iran. Security-related goals for Lebanon focus on counterterrorism and regional stability or internal security, and corresponding activities seek to support development of the LAF and the ISF as the only legitimate providers of Lebanon’s security. The United States has provided security equipment and training to the LAF, which is generally responsible for providing border security, counterterrorism, and national defense, and to the ISF, or national police force, which is generally responsible for maintaining law and order in Lebanon. In 1996, Congress amended the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which authorizes the President to control the sale or export of defense articles and services, to require the President to establish a program for monitoring the end-use of defense articles and defense services sold, leased, or exported under the act, including through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and direct commercial sales, or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The amendment specified that the program should provide reasonable assurances that recipients comply with restrictions imposed by the U.S. government on the use, transfer, and security of defense articles and defense services. The President delegated responsibilities for the program to the Secretary of Defense, insofar as they relate to defense articles and defense services sold, leased, or transferred under FMS, and to the Secretary of State, insofar as they relate to commercial exports licensed under the Arms Export Control Act. For FMS, DOD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) is responsible for end-use monitoring; for direct commercial sales, State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls is responsible for end-use monitoring. In addition to the end-use monitoring requirements under the Arms Export Control Act, the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, directs the President to take all reasonable steps to ensure that aircraft and other equipment made available to foreign countries for international narcotics control under the Foreign Assistance Act are used only in ways that are consistent with the purposes for which such equipment was made available. State’s Bureau of International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) has implemented this requirement by means of its End-Use Monitoring Program. To help ensure that U.S. assistance is not used to support human rights violators, Congress prohibits certain types of assistance from being provided to foreign security forces implicated in human rights abuses. Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act prohibits the United States from providing assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act or the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of a foreign country’s security forces if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. This provision is known colloquially as the State Leahy law. DOD’s annual appropriation contains a similar provision, known colloquially as the DOD Leahy law. The current version prohibits funds from being used to support training, equipment, or other assistance for security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. DOD, in consultation with State, must give full consideration to any credible information available to State relating to human rights violations by a unit of the foreign security forces before it conducts training for the unit. According to State, Leahy laws and the corresponding policies developed to enforce and supplement these laws are intended to leverage U.S. assistance to encourage foreign governments to prevent their security forces from committing human rights violations and to hold their forces accountable when violations occur. According to State, U.S. programs subject to the Leahy laws in Lebanon include Foreign Military Financing; International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE); Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related programs; and Sections 1206 and 1207 authorities. See appendix II for additional information on the U.S. human rights vetting process. The United States allocated $671 million for security-related assistance for Lebanon from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013. Of these total allocated funds, $477 million, or 71 percent, had been disbursed or committed by the end of fiscal year 2013. Nearly all of the allocations made in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 had been disbursed or committed. Since 2007, the United States has provided security-related assistance for Lebanon through the Foreign Military Financing program; the International Military Education and Training program; the INCLE program; the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related programs; and Section 1206 and 1207 authorities for training and equipping foreign militaries and security forces and for reconstruction, stabilization, and security activities in foreign countries, respectively. For the largest program, Foreign Military Financing, DOD had committed about $352 million of the $481 million allocated from fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Table 1 presents the amounts of funds allocated, committed, or disbursed to these programs for Lebanon in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Appendix III provides additional information on the status of these funds. Table 2 describes the U.S. security-related assistance programs for Lebanon and their goals, and identifies the agencies that implement them. We provide examples of the types of equipment some of these programs provide to the Lebanese security forces in the next section. DOD and State conduct end-use monitoring for equipment each has provided or authorized for sale to Lebanese security forces, but gaps in implementation of procedures may limit efforts to safeguard some equipment. DOD annually inventories sensitive equipment by serial number, as required by its policy; however, U.S. embassy officials in Beirut have not always used DOD’s required checklists to document compliance with security safeguards and accountability procedures. In addition, State officials in headquarters and at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut did not always document the results of end-use monitoring checks as specified in State guidance. Finally, State INL officials annually inventory all equipment INL has provided to the ISF, but INL may not be ensuring that the ISF is implementing recommended physical security safeguards for defense articles because INL lacks procedures to identify defense articles and the recommended safeguards for storing them. DOD officials conduct annual inventories as part of end-use monitoring through the Golden Sentry program, which is DOD’s program to comply with requirements of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, related to the end use of defense articles and services. DOD personnel at U.S. missions worldwide conduct the monitoring activities established and overseen by DSCA. Under this program, DOD conducts two levels of monitoring: routine end-use monitoring and enhanced end-use monitoring. Routine end-use monitoring: DOD conducts routine end-use monitoring for defense articles and services sold through FMS that do not have any unique conditions associated with their transfer. Routine end-use monitoring is conducted in conjunction with other required security-related duties. For example, U.S. officials might observe how a host country’s military is using U.S. equipment when visiting a military installation on other business. Enhanced end-use monitoring: DOD conducts enhanced end-use monitoring for defense services, technologies, or articles specifically identified as sensitive—such as night vision devices. DOD policy requires serial number inventories for defense articles requiring enhanced end-use monitoring following delivery of the articles and at regular intervals thereafter. In addition, Letters of Offer and Acceptance, the FMS purchase agreements authorizing the sale of an item, may contain specialized notes or provisos requiring the purchaser to adhere to certain physical security and accountability requirements. With respect to enhanced end-use monitoring, DSCA’s policy manual for end-use monitoring, the Security Assistance Management Manual, and the associated standard operating procedures for Beirut require DOD officials annually to conduct a physical inventory of 100 percent of designated defense articles, conduct physical security checks of facilities where the equipment is kept, and use and maintain records of equipment-specific checklists that outline the physical security requirements for Lebanese facilities that store the equipment. Officials of DOD’s Office of Defense Cooperation in Beirut told us that they annually conduct an inventory involving the inspection of serial numbers for 100 percent of defense articles requiring enhanced end-use monitoring. Such equipment includes certain types of missiles, night vision devices, sniper rifles, aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Figure 3 shows examples of defense articles provided to the LAF. During our visit to Beirut in July 2013, we determined that DOD and the LAF accounted for almost 100 percent of the defense items in our sample in two locations. To assess the extent to which DOD accounts for equipment provided to the LAF, we drew a random sample by serial number from DOD’s equipment inventory database for two locations we planned to visit during our fieldwork in Lebanon. The items in the sample included various types of night vision devices at one location and various types of night vision devices and a sniper rifle at the other location. Although the results cannot be generalized to these or other locations, they showed that DOD and the LAF accounted for almost 100 percent of the items in our sample in both locations. In addition, during our visit, DOD performed its 2013 inventory of 100 percent of the equipment provided to one of the LAF regiments, including some new equipment not previously inventoried. The DOD officials were able to confirm that all equipment was either physically present or accounted for through documentation. Figure 4 shows U.S. officials conducting the inventory of U.S.-provided equipment at an LAF facility. When U.S. travel restrictions due to security concerns prohibit U.S. embassy personnel from traveling to specific areas of Lebanon in which some LAF storage facilities are located, DOD officials in Beirut require the LAF to bring the equipment to a central location in Beirut to allow the DOD officials to conduct the annual inventory. DOD quarterly reports from 2011 through 2013 show 100 percent accountability for equipment provided to the LAF. As part of end-use monitoring, DSCA’s Security Assistance Management Manual and the standard operating procedures for Beirut require DOD officials to conduct physical security checks of LAF facilities, using a required checklist to document accountability and physical security of U.S.-provided equipment. While DOD’s quarterly reports from 2011 through 2013 show 100 percent accountability for equipment provided to the LAF, during our site visit in July 2013, we determined that DOD officials in Beirut were not using the required checklist to document compliance with physical security safeguards. The DOD manual specifically directs that enhanced end-use monitoring must be performed using checklists developed by the military departments. Furthermore, according to the manual, all such checks must be recorded, with the physical security and accountability checklists attached to the inventory records that must be maintained for 5 years. According to a DOD official in Beirut, at least 75 percent of the U.S.- provided equipment subject to end-use monitoring is held in locations where DOD can and has conducted inspections to verify compliance with physical security requirements. For the remaining facilities, DOD mitigates security challenges by other means. DOD officials stated that a U.S. embassy employee who is a Lebanese national had visited some locations that U.S. officials were not able to visit because of security concerns and had conducted physical security compliance checks at those locations. For each of the remaining facilities that neither a U.S. official nor this Lebanese employee could personally inspect, DOD also requires the LAF to submit a letter attesting that the appropriate physical security measures had been implemented. During our site visit in July 2013, we determined that when DOD officials in Beirut were able to conduct physical security checks, they were not using checklists for enhanced end-use monitoring required by DSCA’s Security Assistance Management Manual to ensure that security safeguards and accountability procedures are in place. The manual directs that enhanced end-use monitoring must be performed using checklists developed by the military departments. Furthermore, according to the manual, all such checks must be recorded, with the physical security and accountability checklists attached to the inventory records that must be maintained for 5 years. Our finding was consistent with the results of a 2011 DSCA compliance assessment visit, when DSCA officials also found that the DOD Office of Defense Cooperation in Beirut was not using the required checklists to verify Lebanese compliance with facility security requirements. In April 2012, U.S. officials in Beirut responded to the DSCA finding, stating that they planned to use the checklists during their 2012 annual inventory. In their response, they also stated that the requirement to use DSCA- provided checklists during inventories was captured in the post’s updated standard operating procedures for end-use monitoring. We followed up on this matter in September 2013 and found that, when presented examples of the checklists, DOD officials in Beirut said that they were not aware of the checklists. The officials, however, noted that the information requested in the checklists is the same type of information they enter into the Security Cooperation Information Portal, which is the system used to record end-use monitoring activities. However, the documentation of the end-use monitoring we observed did not include sufficient information on the physical security of the equipment. Use of the checklists would help ensure that DOD officials document compliance with physical security requirements for defense items transferred to the LAF. Without such documentation, it is not clear whether DOD officials verify physical security safeguards as required by DSCA’s manual. In December 2013, DOD officials acknowledged that there had been a gap in the Office of Defense Cooperation’s use of the checklists. State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls administers a program called Blue Lantern to conduct end-use monitoring for defense articles and defense services exported through direct commercial sales. Under the Blue Lantern program, U.S. embassy officials conduct end-use checks by means of a case-by-case review of export license applications against established criteria or “warning flags” for determining potential risks. Embassy officials primarily conduct two types of end-use monitoring checks: prelicense checks prior to issuance of a license and postshipment checks after an export has been approved and shipped. Prelicense checks: A prelicense check may be requested to (1) confirm the bona fides of an unfamiliar consignee or end-user; (2) ensure that details of a proposed transaction match those identified on a license application; (3) confirm that the end-user listed on the license application has ordered the items in question; (4) verify the security of facilities where items may be permanently or temporarily housed; and (5) help to ensure that the foreign party understands its responsibilities under U.S. regulations and law. Postshipment checks: The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may request a postshipment check in order to (1) confirm that the party or parties named on the license received the licensed items exported from the United States; (2) determine whether the items have been or are being used in accordance with the provisions of that license; (3) identify any parties involved in the transaction that are not listed on the license application; and (4) determine the specific use and handling of the exported articles, or other issues related to the transaction. State’s Blue Lantern guidebook provides instructions to U.S. diplomatic posts on how to conduct Blue Lantern end-use monitoring, including reporting and documentation requirements. For example, the guide specifies the type of information that should be included in cables from the overseas posts in response to an inquiry from State. In fiscal years 2007 through 2012, State conducted 15 Blue Lantern end- use monitoring checks for equipment—mostly firearms for the ISF— authorized for export to Lebanon through direct commercial sales. State reported favorable results for 14 of the Blue Lantern checks and unfavorable results for one. On the basis of our review of State documents and interviews with U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and Beirut, we determined that State officials in headquarters and at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut did not always document the results of the Blue Lantern checks consistent with guidance specified in State’s Blue Lantern guidebook. According to the guidebook, all Blue Lantern requests are sent by cable to the U.S. embassy or consulate in the country or countries involved in the transaction. The guidebook specifies that Blue Lantern cables prepared by the U.S. mission in response to the request should describe specific actions taken and results of the inquiry, including identification of persons interviewed; description of documents or equipment reviewed; difficulties incurred; degree of cooperation by the end-users, consignees, or both; and recommendations for State action, if appropriate. According to the guidebook, the U.S. mission should maintain detailed records regarding the Blue Lantern cases as a resource to facilitate future checks and to brief new staff on how to conduct the checks. To assess State’s compliance with its Blue Lantern guidance, we selected a judgmental sample of all 10 Blue Lantern checks for equipment exported or intended for export to Lebanon in fiscal years 2010 through 2012 and requested copies of the cables associated with those checks. State documented the details of 5 of the 10 checks in diplomatic cables and 1 in e-mail messages. For the 4 remaining Blue Lantern checks, State officials informed us that the requests from headquarters and the responses from the embassy were made by e-mail. We asked for copies of the e-mails, but State officials told us that the e-mails were no longer in State’s information system. A State official noted that the Blue Lantern database had case summaries based on the e-mails. However, the summary information in the database consisted of notes that did not always contain all the required information specified in State’s guidance. For example, the summary information for the cases in which the e-mails were no longer available showed that the embassy officials met with the ISF but did not identify the officials interviewed. Without the information specified in the guidebook, State may not have information it needs to fully inform future checks and train new staff. State said in February 2014 that the U. S. Embassy in Beirut has established a policy requiring all Blue Lantern responses to be sent via cable to Washington, D.C., in order to ensure that there is a permanent record of the Embassy's response to a Blue Lantern check. However, State did not provide support this statement. As required by INL’s End-Use Monitoring Program, INL officials conduct an annual inventory by serial number of equipment that INL has provided to the ISF. This equipment typically includes office furniture, vehicles, and computer equipment but may also include boats, training firearms, and police vehicles. (See fig. 5 for photographs of equipment INL provided to the ISF.) INL personnel said they had attached barcodes to the equipment and we observed them use a scanner to inventory the equipment. The 2012 INL inventory report for Lebanon shows that INL personnel inspected about 78 percent of 1,243 items provided to the Lebanese security forces. INL personnel may also inspect items by secondary means including comparing inventory records and consulting with host government officials. While INL officials annually inventory all equipment INL has provided to the ISF, INL may not be ensuring that the ISF is implementing recommended physical security safeguards for defense articles because INL lacks procedures to identify defense articles and the recommended safeguards for storing them. In May 2013, we asked INL officials if any of the equipment INL had provided to Lebanon were defense articles. Though INL officials first told us that they had provided no defense articles or any other controlled items to Lebanon, in August 2013 INL provided us with its formal response confirming that it had provided two defense articles to the ISF—night vision devices and ceramic plates for bullet proof vests. With regard to these two articles, we found the following: INL consulted with the directorate only one of the two times it sought to transfer defense articles to Lebanon during the period covered by our review. While INL did not have formal procedures for identifying defense articles, INL officials stated that their practice is to contact State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, which licenses direct commercial sales of defense articles, when providing equipment pursuant to a certain license exception. In 2012, INL consulted with the directorate to confirm that no export license would be required for the provision of night vision devices to the Government of Lebanon. In the directorate’s memo back to INL confirming that no license was required, INL was informed of physical security safeguards that the directorate recommended that the INL should direct the ISF to implement as conditions for a transfer of night vision devices to the ISF. However, INL did not consult the directorate about ceramic plates, which INL provided for bullet proof vests that it transferred to the ISF in February 2013 under the license exception. This was the only other case that INL identified in which it provided a defense article to the ISF. Although INL did not consult with the directorate about the ceramic plates, INL officials said that INL would contact the directorate in the future about any defense articles it planned to transfer to the ISF. INL lacked written procedures to determine what physical security safeguards are recommended for defense articles. INL officials said that the ISF secures INL-provided equipment and guards the facilities where it is stored. According to embassy officials in Beirut, there are no INL requirements for inspecting the ISF facilities where U.S.- provided equipment is stored. However, when INL consulted the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls about the transfer of night vision devices to the ISF, the directorate recommended that INL place 10 conditions on the transfer. These conditions included 5 technical parameters setting limitations on the performance of key components of the night vision devices, such as the brightness and resolution of their image intensifier tubes, and 5 physical security safeguards that the ISF should implement, such as storing the devices in a secured, locked facility. State officials in Washington, D.C., said that, although the conditions communicated by the directorate to the INL were not requirements, embassy officials would, in the future, inspect ISF facilities to see that the recommended physical security safeguards were being implemented. Nonetheless, in the absence of written procedures, it is unclear what procedures INL would follow for future transfers of defense articles. Moreover, INL communicated the conditions of the transfer of night vision devices to the ISF only in September 2013, after transferring the equipment in August 2013. Communicating conditions for physical security safeguards to the ISF after delivery of the equipment could lessen INL’s ability to determine whether the ISF implements those safeguards. In response to our inquiries on its plans to address potential gaps in physical security safeguards for defense articles, INL stated in January 2014 that it would update its Acquisition Handbook to document new policies. State anticipates that changes to the handbook would require INL to inform the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of INL’s decision to procure and provide equipment without an export license, as allowed under Section 38(b)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act. However, it is unclear whether these revisions would establish procedures to (1) identify when items are defense articles and (2) determine if physical security safeguards are recommended. State’s 2012 Guide to Vetting Policy and Process—a primary source of guidance for U.S. personnel responsible for implementing the Leahy laws—requires State officials in Washington, D.C., and overseas to vet for potential human rights violations all individuals or units nominated to receive training or equipment by checking their names against files, databases, and other sources of information. In detailing the steps for vetting, the guidance specifies that relevant data are to be entered into the International Vetting and Security Tracking (INVEST) database. INVEST is State’s official system of record for conducting Leahy vetting and recording compliance with the Leahy laws. State requires human rights vetting through INVEST unless the individual or unit has already been vetted within the prior year, according to a State official. State approves, suspends, or denies the requests for training as a result of its vetting efforts. Our review of State’s INVEST database showed that State vetted almost 10,000 individuals and units in Lebanon that applied for U.S. training from October 10, 2010, through April 30, 2013. The majority (77 percent), applied for INCLE training (see figure 6). By cross- checking a random sample of names from six rosters for U.S. training delivered to Lebanese security force individuals or units against State’s designated vetting database, we found that all the names in the sample had been vetted for human rights violations before the individuals received the training, as required. State approved training for approximately 93 percent of the candidates and disallowed training for the remaining 7 percent for whom the vetting process produced a suspension. While administrative reasons accounted for most of the suspensions, such as a name submitted with insufficient time for vetting clearance prior to the class start date, potential human rights violations accounted for a few suspensions. U.S. officials in Beirut communicated suspensions based on human rights violations to Lebanese government officials. Administrative reasons for some suspensions were not communicated to the Lebanese government because the U.S. officials did not think they were required to do so. In September 2013, we reported that State guidance to embassies on the human rights vetting process did not specify whether the requirement to inform foreign governments applies when a unit or individual is suspended from receiving assistance. Hence, we recommended that State provide clarifying guidance for implementing the duty-to-inform requirement of the State Leahy law, such as guidance on whether U.S. embassies should or should not notify a foreign government in cases of suspensions. On the basis of evidence presented in a June 2013 Human Rights Watch report on Lebanon, in August 2013, State issued its first denial for training to individuals from the Drugs Repression Bureau of the ISF and informed ISF about this denial. As a result of the denial, three Lebanese counternarcotics officials were not approved for a September 2013 training course. Officials of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut communicated the reasons for the denial to the ISF during the course of our review. On the basis of our cross-check analysis of a sample of names from six training rosters against INVEST data, we estimated that State vetted for potential human rights violations all Lebanese students who attended security forces training from October 10, 2010, through April 30, 2013. We selected a random sample of 118 names from training rosters from the Lebanese Armed Forces; INCLE; Antiterrorism Assistance and other Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related programs; and International Military Education and Training. We cross-checked those names with the names of all Lebanese candidates vetted for human rights violations through INVEST from October 10, 2010, through April 30, 2013. Results of our analysis show that all 118 names on the training rosters were also found in INVEST. Therefore, we estimate that 100 percent of the 7,104 Lebanese students that attended U.S. training during that period were vetted for human rights violations through INVEST before they received training (see table 3). The U.S. Embassy in Beirut also conducts human rights vetting for units that are to receive equipment. In November 2011, State agreed with our recommendation that it implement individual- and unit-level human rights vetting for all recipients of equipment. As of July 2013, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor officials said that vetting of units that receive equipment is increasing worldwide and that the bureau hopes to achieve State-wide concurrence implementing the recommendation. State guidance also requires embassies to develop standard operating procedures for human rights vetting. The U.S. Embassy in Beirut developed standard operating procedures to implement State guidance during the course of our review. In September 2013, we found that State does not monitor whether all U.S. embassies have developed standard operating procedures that address the Leahy laws’ requirements. Therefore, we recommended, and State agreed, to ensure that all U.S. embassies have standard operating procedures that address human rights vetting requirements in the Leahy laws. U.S. agencies have allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for equipment and training to the government of Lebanon as part of U.S. efforts to build partner capacity and address threats to U.S. interests. Such efforts remain a U.S. priority. Just as important to the interests of the United States and its partners are efforts to ensure that any provided security-related equipment or training assistance does not help those who wish to do harm to the United States or its partners. Hence, end-use monitoring and human rights vetting are two critical activities that the U.S. government employs in Lebanon and worldwide to prevent misuse of its security-related equipment and training assistance. However, existing implementation gaps may weaken efforts to safeguard some equipment from misuse. These gaps involve embassy officials not utilizing required checklists to verify Lebanese facilities’ safeguards for sensitive defense equipment and not documenting details of State’s end-use checks. Closing these gaps could help mitigate the impact of security-related travel restrictions on U.S. officials’ access to some locations and could also help raise the level of confidence that Lebanese security forces are complying with security requirements. Because end-use monitoring in Lebanon is intended to provide U.S. officials with visibility over the implementation of required safeguards, the above-mentioned gaps reduce the U.S. government’s confidence that safeguards are being properly implemented to prevent equipment from falling into the wrong hands. Furthermore, the absence of INL procedures for identifying defense articles erodes confidence that State officials are applying recommended end-use monitoring and security safeguards on defense equipment. On a more positive note, our analysis did confirm that 100 percent of the Lebanese recipients of U.S. training were vetted for human rights violations and that this system appears to be working as intended in Lebanon. To help ensure that U.S. agencies are in a better position to ensure adequate safeguards for and monitoring of sensitive equipment, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take additional steps to ensure that Office of Defense Cooperation officials in Beirut use the checklists required during the physical security checks. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of State take the following three actions: Direct the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and U.S. officials overseas to maintain cables or e-mails as required by State guidance to document each Blue Lantern end-use check. Direct State bureaus transferring equipment to foreign security forces under security-related assistance programs to establish formal written procedures to identify whether items are defense articles. Direct State bureaus transferring equipment to foreign security forces under security-related assistance programs to establish formal written procedures to consult with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to determine if there are additional safeguards recommended for the transfer of the defense articles. We provided a draft of this report to DOD and State for comment. DOD and State provided written comments which are reprinted in appendixes IV and V, respectively. State also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report, as appropriate. In their comments, DOD and State generally concurred with the report’s findings and recommendations. In its written comments, DOD noted that the Office of Defense Cooperation in Beirut has started taking steps to address the recommendation. In its written comments, State noted that while it agreed with our recommendation that it maintain records of cables and e-mails that document each Blue Lantern end-use check, it disagreed with our finding that it did not adequately do so with regard to Lebanon. State noted that it did document key findings of the four inquiries in the Blue Lantern database, as these cases were adjudicated together as a group involving the same foreign consignee and Lebanese Security Forces. However, as we pointed out in the draft report, the summary information in State’s database consisted of notes that did not always contain all the required information specified in State’s guidance. For example, the summary information on the four cases showed that the embassy officials met with the ISF but did not identify the officials interviewed. State also noted that the draft referred to defense articles that were "exported" to Lebanon rather than “authorized” for export. We have revised the report accordingly. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until five days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of State; and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@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 VI. The objectives of this review were to assess the extent to which the U.S. government (1) disbursed or committed funds allocated for Lebanese security forces in fiscal years 2009 through 2013, (2) implemented end- use monitoring for equipment transferred to Lebanese security forces, and (3) vetted Lebanese recipients of U.S. security-related training for human rights violations. To address these objectives, we obtained funding data from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State (State) on programs that provide security-related assistance to Lebanon. We also analyzed documents from DOD and State, such as cables, manuals, handbooks, compliance and inventory reports, and data on U.S.-provided equipment, training, and end-use checks, among others. We interviewed U.S. officials in Washington, D.C.; at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida; and at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, as well as officials of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Internal Security Forces (ISF) in Beirut, Lebanon. To assess the extent to which the U.S. government has disbursed or committed security-related assistance funding for Lebanon’s security forces since fiscal year 2009, we requested data from State and DOD. The funding data we report represent the balances as of September 30, 2013. State provided data on the status of allocations, obligations, unobligated balances, and disbursements for all of the funding accounts that support security-related assistance in Lebanon: Foreign Military Financing; International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; International Military Education and Training; and Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs; and Section 1206 and 1207 authorities. State collected the data directly from each bureau for State-implemented accounts and from DOD for Foreign Military Financing and International Military Education and Training. However, because Foreign Military Financing funds are budgeted and tracked in a different way than other foreign assistance accounts, DOD provided us with data on commitments. Recognizing that different agencies and bureaus may use slightly different accounting terms, we provided each agency with the definitions from GAO’s A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process and requested that each agency provide the relevant data according to those definitions. We also discussed the types of assistance provided with various officials of the LAF and the ISF. To assess the reliability of the data provided, we requested and reviewed information from officials from each agency regarding the agency’s underlying financial data system(s) and the checks, controls, and reviews used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data provided. We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. To assess the extent to which the U.S. government has implemented end-use monitoring for equipment provided to Lebanese security forces, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations, DOD and State policy guidance, and reports and other documents; analyzed equipment and end-use monitoring data and reports; and interviewed officials from DOD, State, the LAF, and the ISF. For DOD’s Golden Sentry program, we reviewed policy and guidance documents, including the Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s Security Assistance Management Manual, the Office of Defense Cooperation-Beirut’s Standard Operating Procedures, the Security Cooperation Information Portal End-Use Monitoring Customer Assistance Handbook, and U.S. Central Command regulations. We also obtained and analyzed the 2012 Compliance Assessment Visit to Lebanon report, U.S. Central Command Inspector General Report for the Office of Defense Cooperation-Beirut, annual end-use monitoring reports for Lebanon, reports of lost or destroyed U.S. equipment provided to Lebanon, Lebanese compliance plans for safeguarding U.S. equipment, and security checklists required for enhanced end-use equipment in Lebanon. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed data and management reports on the equipment provided to Lebanon and end-use checks. Specifically, we reviewed management reports from DOD’s Security Cooperation Information Portal database, including delinquent, reconciliation, ad-hoc, and trend reports. We used the portal database to identify defense articles provided to Lebanon that require routine and enhanced end-use monitoring and the compliance actions taken for the items. We compared the data on defense articles and end-use monitoring to the various management reports and found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Using the data provided by DOD, we drew a nongeneralizable random sample of 30 items for physical inspection out of 184 items that required enhanced end-use monitoring at two locations in Beirut, Lebanon. During our fieldwork at one of the locations, we observed DOD officials conducting enhanced end-use monitoring checks. In addition, we interviewed DOD officials with the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. In Lebanon, we also met with officials from the LAF and the ISF. For State’s Blue Lantern program, we reviewed the Blue Lantern guidebook. We reviewed and analyzed Direct Commercial Sales license data, and Blue Lantern checks for Lebanon from fiscal years 2007 through 2012. Although State conducted 15 checks between fiscal years 2007 and 2012, we analyzed only the 10 Blue Lantern checks conducted in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. We limited our analysis to checks during these years to increase the likelihood that the embassy officials who conducted these checks would still be in their current positions, thereby enabling further discussion about the specific details of the checks. We requested both outgoing and responding cables for each of the 10 checks; State was unable to provide cables or email communication for 4 of the 10 Blue Lantern checks. Based on summary information provided for each check and cables and e-mail correspondence on 7 of the 10 checks, we analyzed and recorded information about each case, including the subject of the check, the commodity checked, license conditions, evidence that site visits were or were not requested and conducted, inventories requested and conducted, and any follow-up that post indicated was necessary. We determined the Blue Lantern data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. In addition, we interviewed State officials in the Bureau of Political and Military Affairs, the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the Office of Foreign Assistance, and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls in Washington, D.C., as well as officials at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. For State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), we reviewed policy and procedure guidelines for end-use monitoring. We obtained and analyzed inventory lists of equipment that INL provided to Lebanon’s security forces during fiscal years 2007 through 2012, data extracted from the Integrated Logistics Management System database. We received a demonstration on the use of this database to record annual inspection and inventory of equipment. In addition, we reviewed annual inspection reports submitted by embassy officials, Letters of Offer and Acceptance, and a sample transfer letter that contained inspection requirements. In addition, we toured two ISF facilities in Beirut, Lebanon, and observed INL-provided equipment. Lastly, we interviewed State officials of the Bureaus Political and Military Affairs, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, and Near Eastern Affairs; the Office of Foreign Assistance; the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. To assess the extent to which the U.S. government vetted Lebanese recipients of U.S. security-related training for potential human rights violations, we interviewed DOD and State officials, reviewed both agencies’ vetting guidance, and analyzed State documents from Lebanon on individuals and units vetted. We interviewed officials from State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs who are responsible for overseeing the human rights vetting process and answering questions from vetting personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. In Lebanon, we also met with U.S. embassy officials from DOD and State, and also relevant officials from the Department of Justice and the U.S. Agency for International Development to understand these other agencies’ roles in the human rights vetting process. We also met with representatives of the LAF and ISF to understand their familiarity with the Leahy laws and the U.S. human rights vetting process, as well as how the U.S. Embassy in Beirut communicates vetting results to them. In addition, we reviewed State’s human rights vetting guidance, including the Leahy human rights vetting guide; the International Vetting and Security Tracking (INVEST) user guide; multiple cables from State communicating directives to embassies regarding the implementation of the State and DOD Leahy laws; and a Joint Staff message issued by DOD in June 2004 that provided guidance on human rights verification for DOD-funded training of foreign security forces. Furthermore, we reviewed the State and DOD Leahy laws, as well as the U.S. Embassy in Beirut’s standard operating procedures. Lastly, to assess whether or not Lebanese students who attended training were previously vetted for potential human rights violations, we analyzed data from State’s INVEST database on almost 10,000 Lebanese individuals or units vetted from October 10, 2010, through April 30, 2013. We requested, obtained, and reviewed six training rosters with about 7,100 names of Lebanese students that attended training from October 1, 2010, to April 30, 2013, provided by these security-related assistance programs: International Military Education and Training; International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; and Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related programs. We selected a random sample of 118 Lebanese names that included representation from all rosters, with a minimum of 10 sampled names per roster. We provided this list of names to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and observed as a bureau official entered the first and last name into the search feature of INVEST. If the name was found, we then confirmed other fields, such as the date and description of the training, or the rank of the trainee. Despite some spelling variations, all 118 names of students were found in INVEST. Therefore, we estimate that 100 percent of the Lebanese recipients of training were vetted. The 95 percent margin of error on this estimate is 3 percentage points. We conducted this performance audit from April 2013 to February 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 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. To address both the State and DOD Leahy laws and determine whether there is credible information of a gross violation of human rights, State has established a U.S. human rights vetting process. The State-led process, as illustrated in figure 7, consists of vetting by personnel representing selected agencies and State offices at (1) the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and State headquarters in Washington, D.C.; (2) State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; and (3) State’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. The personnel involved in the vetting process screen prospective recipients of assistance by searching relevant files, databases, and other sources of information for credible information about gross violations of human rights. State processes, documents, and tracks human rights vetting requests and results through its International Vetting and Security Tracking system (INVEST), a web-based database. The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor is responsible for overseeing the vetting process and for developing human rights vetting polices, among other duties. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of State (State) allocated $671 million in security-related assistance for Lebanon in fiscal years 2009 through 2013, with funds varying by year and program. The agencies utilized eight programs to provide this security-related assistance: Foreign Military Financing, International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, Section 1206, International Military Education and Training, Antiterrorism Assistance, Counterterrorism Financing, Export Control and Related Border Security, and Section 1207. See figures 8 through 15 for details on allocation, obligation, and disbursement, or commitment of funds for each program’s security-related assistance provided to Lebanon in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Data are as of September 30, 2013. In addition to the contact named above, Jeff Phillips (Assistant Director), Claude Adrien, Jenna Beveridge, David Dayton, Justin Fisher, Julia Ann Roberts, and La Verne Tharpes made key contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis, Jeff Isaacs, Grace Lui, and Etana Finkler provided additional technical assistance.

Summary: Since 2009, the United States has allocated $671 million in security-related assistance for Lebanon to train, modernize, and equip the Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal Security Forces. The U.S. government established end-use monitoring programs to ensure that defense equipment is safeguarded. The Foreign Assistance Act prohibits certain assistance to any unit of foreign security forces if the Secretary of State has credible information that such a unit has committed a gross violation of human rights. GAO was asked to examine U.S. security-related assistance for Lebanon. This report assesses the extent to which the U.S. government (1) disbursed or committed funds allocated for Lebanese security forces in fiscal years 2009 through 2013, (2) implemented end-use monitoring for equipment transferred to Lebanese security forces, and (3) vetted Lebanese recipients of U.S. security-related training for human rights violations. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed laws and regulations, analyzed agency data, and interviewed officials in Washington, D.C., and Beirut, Lebanon. The United States allocated $671 million for Lebanese security forces from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013. Of these total allocated funds, $477 million, or 71 percent, had been disbursed or committed by the end of fiscal year 2013. Nearly all of the allocations made in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 had been disbursed or committed. For the largest program, Foreign Military Financing, the Department of Defense (DOD) had committed about $352 million of the $481 million allocated in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Consistent with end-use monitoring requirements, DOD and the Department of State (State) conduct annual inventories for equipment transferred to Lebanese security forces. However, GAO found gaps in efforts to document and monitor physical security of some U.S. equipment transferred to Lebanese security forces that may weaken efforts to safeguard physical security of some equipment. First, while DOD annually inventories sensitive equipment by serial number, as required by its policy, U.S embassy officials in Beirut have not always used DOD's required checklists to document compliance with physical security safeguards. Second, State did not fully document 4 of the 10 end-use monitoring checks it conducted in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 for defense equipment the Lebanese government purchased commercially. State end-use monitoring guidance requires that specific information be documented and maintained for all such checks. Third, while State conducts an annual inventory of the equipment it transfers to the Lebanese security forces, State may not be ensuring that the recipients of defense articles implement recommended physical security safeguards because State lacks procedures to identify defense articles and any recommended safeguards for storing them. Examples of Items Subject to End-Use Monitoring in Lebanon GAO estimates that State vetted 100 percent of the Lebanese students that attended U.S.-funded security-related training from October 10, 2010, through April 30, 2013, for human rights violations. On the basis of a cross-check analysis of vetting data and a sample of names from six training rosters, GAO estimates that State vetted all of the 7,104 Lebanese students that attended training during that period. GAO recommends that DOD ensure U.S. officials use required checklists to confirm Lebanese facilities' compliance with required safeguards, and that State maintain proper documentation of end-use checks and establish formal procedures to ensure that bureaus identify defense articles and any recommended physical security safeguards for storing them. DOD and State concurred.