Department Seal Foreign Military Training and DoD
Engagement Activities of Interest, Volume I

Joint Report to Congress, March 1, 2000
Flag Bar


This report is presented pursuant to the requirements of Section 575 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2000, as enacted in P.L. 106-113. That section provides:

"(a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly provide to the Congress by March 1, 2000, a report on all military training provided to foreign military personnel (excluding sales, and excluding training provided to the military personnel of countries belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) under programs administered by the Department of Defense and the Department of State during fiscal years 1999 and 2000, including those proposed for fiscal year 2000. This report shall include, for each such military training activity, the foreign policy justification and purpose for the training activity, the cost of the training activity, the number of foreign students trained and their units of operations, and the location of the training. In addition, this report shall also include, with respect to United States personnel, the operational benefits to United States forces derived from each such training activity and the United States military units involved in such training activity. This report may include a classified annex if deemed necessary and appropriate.

(b) For purposes of this section, a report to Congress shall be deemed to mean a report to the Appropriations and Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate and the Appropriations and International Relations Committees of the House of Representatives."

United States military training programs for foreign personnel are important tools to advance U.S. interests. As with all aspects of U.S. foreign policy, the Departments of Defense and State share congressional interest in ensuring these programs are consistent with our overall foreign policy objectives.

Volume I of this report provides the operational benefits to U.S. forces for these training and education programs and engagement activities; a description of each type of activity; a summary of the training provided along with the foreign policy justification for each country; detailed country activity training lists; and explanations of the purpose for each training activity. Volume I is unclassified and available on the Department of Defense and Department of State websites. Volumes II and III are classified, thereby precluding either from being made available on the Internet.

Within the report, approximately 17,705 individual events are arranged in alphabetical order within regions by country and fiscal year, and then listed in two main categories -- Department of State (DoS) funded activities and Department of Defense (DoD) funded activities. DoS funded activities reported include: International Military Education and Training (IMET); Foreign Military Financing (FMF); International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL); Enhanced International Peacekeeping Capabilities (EIPC); and Section 506 -- Foreign Assistance Act Drawdown relating to Narcotics Education and Training. DoD funded activities reported in Volumes II and III include: Section 1004 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities; Non-Security Assistance, Unified Command Engagement Activities (e.g., Counter-Narcotics, Humanitarian Demining); Non-Security Assistance, Miscellaneous DoD and DoS funded activities: Service Academy; Aviation Leadership Program; Exchanges; and Regional Programs (African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), Asia-Pacific Center, Marshall Center, Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, and African Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS); Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) events; and certain classified Unified Command activities. Finally, the report includes certain non-training activities -- such as certain JCETs -- and omits others such as combined exercises and U.S. ship port visits. Some categories of training, such as E-IMET and the Regional Centers, also include training of non-military personnel, and some non-training counterdrug activities are also included.

The report is more than a simple summary of more than 17,000 different events -- it is a record of the many ways in which foreign military education and training programs and engagement activities support U.S. foreign policy by improving the capabilities of U.S. friends and allies, and providing training opportunities for both U.S. and foreign forces.

By helping to shape the international environment in ways favorable to U.S. interests, these programs are critical components of the U.S. defense strategy. These training programs provide a range of important benefits for our friends and allies. Not only do these programs provide intellectual and technical benefits to the participants, they also expose thousands of current and future foreign military leaders to the values essential to maintaining security forces in democratic societies. For example, a training program designed to provide instruction in areas such as defense resources management or command-and-control architecture also simultaneously highlights the benefits of effective civilian oversight and respect for the rule of law -- concepts that are essential to developing a professional military force. Finally, as valuable as these programs are for our friends and allies, they also provide direct benefits to U.S. service members. When U.S. service members meet with their foreign counterparts, they improve their understanding of foreign military organizations, languages, cultures, and political systems, as well as the different types of environments into which they might deploy in the future.



This report is a record of the many ways in which Congressionally approved foreign military education and training programs and engagement activities support U.S. foreign policy, benefiting both foreign and U.S. forces. Benefits to the foreign forces include access to U.S. military experience and expertise, and receipt of the knowledge and skills that are transferred during education and training and as a byproduct of the engagement activities. Benefits to U.S. forces include: supporting U.S. national security goals of promoting peace and stability, increasing the level of standardization and interoperability between U.S. and foreign forces, and training for mission-essential tasks.

International engagement is a key component of our national security strategy. All international education and training, as well as engagement activities, play a role in shaping the strategic environment to prevent conflict and promote regional stability.

"Underpinning [our security] vision is the essential requirement that America remain engaged in world affairs, to influence the actions of others -- friends and foes -- who can affect our national well-being. Today, there are some who would have us pull back from the world, forgetting the central lesson of this century: that when America neglects the problems of the world, the world often brings its problems to America's doorstep."
Secretary of Defense William Cohen,
Speech to the Commonwealth Club of California,
July 21, 1997

The Departments of Defense and State recognize the critical role that our international training and engagement activities - as well as our traditional alliances - play in securing peace and stability throughout the world. We also value highly the substantial progress we have made in our bilateral and multilateral relationships throughout the world. We continue to explore a range of vehicles for promoting constructive ties among nations and strongly believe that the international training and engagement activities described in this report are vital for cementing these ties.

The programs described in this report form the foundation of U.S. efforts to assist friendly nations in their efforts to develop professional, civilian-controlled militaries. Future foreign military leaders, just like their U.S. counterparts, must be both educated and experienced in proper military operations as well as basic military competencies. Leadership development begins with individual selection and extends beyond formal training and education to participating in bilateral and multilateral international engagement activities. American professional military education (PME) courses, offered through IMET, expose current and future foreign military leaders to the professional development required to lead and maintain stable military forces under democratic civilian control. The supplemental skills they learn, both at the tactical and the strategic level, offer interoperability benefits not only to their own forces but also to U.S. forces. The Aviation Leader Program (ALP), for example, fosters military-to-military relations with potential air force leaders from participating countries.

By exposing military leaders to democratic values and working to foster respect for civilian authority and military professionalism, IMET provides a window through which we can positively influence the development of foreign military institutions and their role in a democratic society. While such engagement cannot be expected to guarantee a perfect human rights record on the part of any military force, it nonetheless represents an important opportunity to encourage adherence to the rule of law, respect for basic human rights and appropriate professional conduct in the face of internal or external challenges. Indeed, constructive civil-military relations are an essential element of a democratic society.

Expanded-IMET (E-IMET), mandated by the U.S. Congress as part of the overall IMET program, deepens exposure to IMET principles by broadening program participation to include civilians performing defense-related functions. By engaging representatives from nongovernmental organizations and national parliamentarians to address topics such as defense resource management, military justice, civil-military relations and human rights, E-IMET courses reinforce constructive civil-military values and promote democratization within participant nations.

Promoting democracy does more than foster our ideals. It advances our interests because we know that the larger the pool of democracies, the better off we -- and the entire community of nations -- will be. Democratic values of transparency and accountability have proved critical in both the political and the economic realm to ensure sustainable development and stable societies. These values will also affect the way nations interact externally, enhancing openness and ultimately promoting mutual confidence and regional stability.

More directly, our interaction with the armed forces of allies and friends promotes regional democratic norms and values. Military-to-military contacts allow us to better understand our military counterparts throughout the region and provide a mechanism through which we can work to constructively engage new generations of military leaders. Such contact is a key component of our military strategy.

As beneficial as training and engagement activities are to our friends and allies, there are also direct benefits to U.S. service members. In fact, a number of these programs are conducted for the benefit of U.S. personnel. Whenever U.S. service members meet with their foreign counterparts, they improve their understanding of the counterparts' military organizations, language, culture, and political system. They also improve their understanding of the global environments into which they might deploy in the future -- whether in combat, or as part of the forward presence operations we conduct with the consent of many governments on a regular basis. Obviously, familiarity with foreign environments is vastly improved when the engagement activities occur in the region, but the benefits accrue to U.S. service members whether the training occurs in a classroom in the U.S. or in the field abroad.

The operational justification for the JCET program centers on the critical contribution that United States Special Operations Forces (SOF) make to our national security. SOF units may be sent into unstable areas in a variety of contexts short of major theater war and are often the lead elements deployed in actual combat. SOF are among the most flexible U.S. units for use in responding to the variety of new missions in the post-Cold War world. It is essential that the United States maintain their readiness at the highest possible level. The JCET training program promotes both the generic SOF skills and the region-specific expertise that is required to maintain a highly ready SOF unit. JCET events are conducted with friendly foreign countries in full coordination with the DoS and are reported to the Congress annually under 10 USC Section 2011(e).

Peacekeeping and peace support operations are an important mission area for U.S. forces. Two DoS funded programs specifically address increasing the peacekeeping capabilities of our friends and allies. The African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) is a training initiative that works to create African national peacekeeping units. It is focused on field training as a unit, while the other program -- the Enhanced International Peacekeeping Capabilities Initiative (EIPC) focuses on institution development. EIPC works with the national peacekeeping centers, assisting the instructors and staff in developing their own national peacekeeping training. The goal of both programs is to increase the global pool of peacekeepers, thereby reducing the demand for a U.S. troop deployment. The operational benefits of these types of programs are as a force multiplier, reducing the need for future investment in U.S. military personnel and equipment.

Several of the programs outlined in this report also address the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, along with other transnational security concerns such as environmental degradation, drug trafficking and terrorism. These challenges require extensive regional interaction and creative, multilateral approaches that often transcend traditional bilateral or military remedies. The task for the U.S. Armed Forces will be to encourage all nations to recognize and address domestic problems that have transnational security implications and to mobilize and coordinate a full range of national and international tools to meet these non-traditional security challenges. Many of the military-to-military programs described in the report promote a regional cooperative security approach to meeting transnational and other threats to regional security.

Many of the programs described in the report also help to provide a diverse and flexible framework for promoting common regional and global security into the next century. The continued development of the IMET program, especially Expanded-IMET, and the four regional study centers (Asia-Pacific Center, Marshall Center, Hemispheric Defense Studies Center, and the new African Strategic Studies Center) is critical as we move into a new millennium. These training and engagement activities are important vehicles for exchanging views on regional issues, enhancing mutual understanding and confidence, and addressing preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution.

The scope of these regional activities has widened dramatically and is critical in a region like the Asia-Pacific, for example, whose nations do not have many institutional links. The Departments of State and Defense support and participate actively in this growing pattern of security pluralism of multilateral dialogues, confidence-building efforts, and other fora for interaction and discussion of regional security matters. Meanwhile, bilateral discussions in the region have expanded rapidly in recent years to address lingering tensions and historical disputes, or simply to enhance mutual confidence and encourage transparency.

. . . . Our key alliances and relationships were at the center of that framework. For these are the bonds that hold together the entire international system. When we are able to act cooperatively with other leading nations, we create a convergence of power and purpose that can solve problems and spur progress around the globe.
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
8 February 2000

The Departments of State and Defense participate regularly in regional conferences on practical security cooperation, as well as other multilateral fora designed to address specific regional problems, from political turmoil in Cambodia to the Four Party Talks on the Korean Peninsula. The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies has served as a further vehicle of security pluralism by facilitating the open exchange of ideas and perspectives among government officials throughout the region to foster understanding, cooperation and study of security-related issues. This builds on the strategy of maintaining strong bilateral relationships with the armed forces of the nations of the Asia-Pacific region and applies a broader multilateral approach to addressing regional security issues and concerns. All of these multilateral mechanisms build upon the foundation of solid bilateral relationships and continued U.S. military presence in the region, and play an increasingly important role in regional affairs in the future. Each of the other regional study centers also plays a role similar to the Asia-Pacific Center in its respective region.

The U.S. Armed Forces Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) directs each of the U.S. regional Unified Commands (U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Central Command) to develop a Theater Engagement Plan (TEP). The TEP has two parts, the Theater Engagement Strategic Concept and the Engagement Activity Annexes. The Theater Engagement Strategic Concept describes U.S. military actions in the relevant area of responsibility (AOR) during peacetime. It provides an overview of the theater environment, theater engagement objectives, concept of operations, and activities planned to favorably shape the strategic environment. Each one of the international training programs and engagement activities contained in this report supports those TEP objectives, and the regional U.S. Command uses these programs and activities to contribute to the operational benefit of U.S. forces.

Finally, the programs described in this report also are essential to U.S. efforts to increase interoperability between the United States and its friends and allies. Through the benefit of U.S. military education and training programs such as IMET, a large percentage of foreign force leaders and officers now speak English at a basic level, which is becoming the dominant global military language. A key to the success of any military operation is communications. Future U.S. combined operations will be more successful because its likely coalition partners will be better able to communicate with their U.S. counterparts. Similarly, as allied and other potential coalition partners become more familiar with U.S. military planning and operational procedures, it will become easier to plan and execute successful coalition operations in the future. Finally, as our potential coalition partners become more able to maintain regional peace and stability, U.S. forces may called upon less frequently to deploy to those regions.

[end of file]

Back to Top
Table of Contents

FAS Home | ASMP Home | Search | About ASMP
Publications | Sales Data | Issues | Resources