In 1994, NATO stated that it would invite other European countries to join the alliance. Twelve Central and Eastern European nations expressed interest in doing so and have taken part in so-called “intensified dialogues” with NATO to help them learn more about NATO’s requirements. Although NATO has no formal program to prepare such nations for NATO membership, it has taken steps to strengthen certain non-NATO members’ relationships with NATO. These steps include the PFP program, which NATO initiated in 1994. Twenty-seven non-NATO members now participate in PFP (see fig. 1). PFP objectives include fostering democratization in partners’ defense establishments; encouraging joint planning, training, and military exercises with NATO forces; promoting the ability of partner nations to operate with NATO forces in humanitarian relief, search and rescue, peacekeeping, and other agreed-upon missions; and developing forces that are better able to operate with NATO forces. To implement the program, NATO and each PFP partner develop a plan that depicts NATO-proposed exercises and other PFP-related activities of interest to the partner and lists the partner’s military and other assets that might be used for PFP activities. NATO expects partners to fund their participation. NATO views partners’ level of participation in PFP activities as an important indicator of their interest in joining NATO and, according to DOD officials, has structured PFP as one means of helping partners become better integrated with NATO members. In July 1994, the U.S. President announced the Warsaw Initiative, a U.S. bilateral program designed to (1) facilitate the participation of partner states in exercises and interoperability programs, (2) promote interoperability with NATO, (3) support efforts to increase defense and military cooperation with PFP partners, and (4) develop strong candidates for NATO membership. The Departments of State and Defense jointly fund and administer the initiative. The Department of State funds equipment transfers and training, while DOD supports partners’ participation in joint exercises and NATO-PFP interoperability projects. Also, the Department of State and DOD provide training and advice through the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program and the Joint Contact Team (JCT) program and donate excess defense articles. The Department of State and DOD agencies programmed about $308.6 million in fiscal year 1995-97 funds to support these efforts in 23 PFP partner states. The Department of State’s programs are funded through the 150 international affairs budget function and account for about 48 percent of these funds. The DOD programs are funded through the 050 national defense budget function and account for about 52 percent of the funds. To facilitate NATO expansion, the President and Congress enacted the NATO Participation Act of 1994 and the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, which authorized the President to establish security assistance programs for Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and any other countries the President believes have made progress in achieving PFP goals. The fiscal year 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act also earmarked $30 million for foreign military financing grants for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland and allocated $20 million to subsidize lending up to $242.5 million for purchases of U.S. defense articles, services, and training by these three countries. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are extensively involved in NATO’s PFP program. NATO, U.S., and partner officials agree that PFP is improving the ability of potential new members and other PFP partners to work with NATO in key areas but they cannot quantifiably measure the extent to which it will improve such abilities across the full range of NATO activities. PFP partners need to improve their ability to work closely with NATO in numerous areas, according to U.S., NATO, and partner officials. These areas include (1) cultivating a larger cadre of officers fluent in NATO’s languages, (2) training officers in NATO practices and acquiring a greater and more detailed understanding of NATO standards and procedures, (3) developing civilian expertise in and control over defense matters (e.g., defense programming and budgeting), (4) promoting the use of interoperable command and control systems, and (5) establishing modern airspace management systems. Some partner nation officials told us that they will modernize their armed forces regardless of whether they join NATO. Each of the six nations has taken or plans to take part in numerous NATO-sponsored PFP events. According to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE) and U.S. officials, these events were partially shaped by more than 40 PFP interoperability objectives developed by NATO military commands (see app. II). As shown in figure II, about 64 percent of the NATO activities in which the six nations are participating involve joint exercises, training, standardization and interoperability, communications, and civil emergency planning. Examples of such activities include exercises on naval peacekeeping in hostile environments, staff studies on the practicalities of conducting out-of-area multinational peacekeeping air operations, staff meetings on tactical communications interoperability, seminars on command and control systems, training in NATO operational terminology, search and rescue and explosive ordinance disposition working parties, and discussions of NATO reconnaissance and surveillance procedures related to peacekeeping. The remaining 36 percent of the activities involve 13 other PFP cooperation areas. Civil Emergency Planning 6.5%Civil Emergency Plan NATO has also offered partners the opportunity to take part in a planning and review process aimed at helping them meet NATO’s PFP interoperability standards. Seventeen partners—including the six countries we reviewed—have agreed to do so. NATO has recently set milestones for their compliance with its objectives and released most of its unclassified standardization agreements and publications. NATO, U.S., and partner officials in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland expressed positive views regarding the PFP program. NATO officials asserted that PFP has become a permanent part of the European security architecture, resulted in closer political consultations among partners, and improved the ability of partners to work with NATO on peacekeeping missions. Partner nation officials indicated that PFP has helped expose them to NATO methods and practices. However, according to NATO and U.S. officials, the extent to which PFP has helped prepare aspiring members for full participation in NATO (1) cannot be measured in quantifiable terms and (2) is limited by the scope of the program. PFP’s scope does not include preparing partners for the major war-fighting tasks that NATO’s collective defense responsibilities might require. Therefore, according to NATO officials, PFP interoperability goals do not cover the full range of interoperability objectives that NATO has established for its members and a partner’s achievement of PFP interoperability objectives would not necessarily be an indicator of how well that partner would perform in collective security activities. Current uncertainties regarding the forces and missions that will be required of the nations invited to join NATO—and the time frames for achieving future interoperability goals for new NATO members—further complicate the task of assessing PFP’s impact on future NATO members. Some partner nation officials told us that they would like to have more specific data from NATO to guide their future interoperability efforts. The United States has focused its Warsaw Initiative and other U.S. assistance programs heavily on the six countries that we reviewed. These efforts generally address areas of interest to NATO—including air traffic control, defense planning and budgeting, and English language training. The executive branch programmed about $308.6 million for fiscal years 1995-97 for Warsaw Initiative efforts and other related bilateral assistance programs. It has directed about 46 percent ($142.7 million) of these funds to the six countries that we reviewed. These six countries received about 71 percent of all foreign military financing (FMF) funds provided to PFP partners and about 44 percent of the IMET training funds provided to PFP partners. Figure III depicts the allocation of fiscal year 1995-97 U.S. Warsaw Initiative, IMET, and JCT funds by the six countries and the other PFP partner recipients. 17 other PFP partners 53.8% Table I presents the allocation of U.S. funds in the six countries, by program. Figure IV depicts the allocation of the $142.7 million programmed for the six countries that we addressed in our review by program type. As it illustrates, about 60 percent of U.S. assistance to these nations has been in the form of financing for defense articles and services. U.S. assistance to the six countries that we included in our review is addressing NATO PFP cooperation areas. For example, the largest single U.S. effort in the six countries—the $32.8 million Regional Airspace Initiative—could help address one PFP area of cooperation (air traffic control) by providing five of the six countries with air sovereignty operations centers. Funded primarily with Warsaw Initiative FMF funds, the Regional Airspace Initiative is intended to help Central and East European countries make the transition to western air traffic management practices, including those used by NATO members. A DOD study, partially funded by the Warsaw Initiative, concluded that all aspects of the region’s air sovereignty operations needed improvement and that the pace of modernizing outdated systems was being constrained by cost, operational, and transitional implications. We found that other FMF-funded purchases in the region also correspond to NATO-designated objectives, including communications. Similarly, DOD has used the Warsaw Initiative’s Defense Resources Management Studies project to support PFP’s defense planning and budgeting cooperation area by programming about $2.8 million in fiscal years 1995-97 to expose the six countries to U.S. defense budget planning and programming practices.