Conventional Arms Control: Former Warsaw Pact Nations' Treaty Compliance and U.S. Cost Control
NSIAD-94-33
Published: Dec 14, 1993. Publicly Released: Jan 13, 1994.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
GAO reviewed: (1) the former Warsaw Pact nations' ability to fulfill their obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE); and (2) U.S. management and costs of implementing the treaty.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | The Secretaries of Defense and State should designate a CFE implementation manager from the Department of Defense to act as a financial monitor and actively participate in the deliberations of the Arms Control Interagency Working Group. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD and State do not intend to act on the recommendation. DOD stated that the monitoring functions were already being carried out within the Department and that there was close coordination between relevant organizations. DOD further stated that it did not believe that one financial monitor for the entire U.S. arms control implementation effort would significantly improve the efficiency. GAO does not agree, but because the organizations have no intention of implementing the recommendation, no additional work should be done.
|
| Department of State | The Secretaries of Defense and State should designate a CFE implementation manager from the Department of Defense to act as a financial monitor and actively participate in the deliberations of the Arms Control Interagency Working Group. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD and State do not intend to act on the recommendation. DOD stated that the monitoring functions were already being carried out within the Department and that there was close coordination between relevant organizations. DOD further stated that it did not believe that one financial monitor for the entire U.S. arms control implementation effort would significantly improve the efficiency. GAO does not agree, but because the organizations have no intention of implementing the recommendation, no additional work should be done.
|
| Department of State | For each of the other arms control agreements, the Secretaries of Defense and State should consider designating a similar financial monitor from the appropriate lead agency's implementation office. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD and State do not intend to act on the recommendation. DOD stated that the monitoring functions are already being accomplished within the Department and that there is close coordination among relevant organizations. DOD further stated that it does not believe one financial monitor for the entire U.S. arms control implementation effort will significantly improve the efficiency. GAO does not agree but because the organizations have no intention of implementing the recommendation no additional work should be done.
|
| Department of Defense | For each of the other arms control agreements, the Secretaries of Defense and State should consider designating a similar financial monitor from the appropriate lead agency's implementation office. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD and State do not intend to act on the recommendation. DOD stated that the monitoring functions were already being carried out within the Department and that there was close coordination between relevant organizations. DOD further stated that it did not believe that one financial monitor for the entire U.S. arms control implementation effort would significantly improve the efficiency. GAO does not agree, but because the organizations have no intention of implementing the recommendation, no additional work should be done.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Arms control agreementsInteragency relationsReporting requirementsWeapons systemsArms controlInternational organizationsMilitary forcesAircraft acquisition programInternational affairsProgram management