Global Policy Forum

By Lora Lumpe

U.S. government-run or -supported training programs for foreign military and police forces have grown dramatically since the end of the cold war, both in size and number. In recent years, U.S. forces have trained 100,000 or more foreign police and soldiers annually. This training takes place in some 200 institutions within the U.S., as well as in at least 150 countries around the world.

Funding for the best-known of these programs, IMET, has increased more than three-fold from $22 million in fiscal year 1994 to $70 million for 2002. Meanwhile, Congress and the executive branch have established several new sources of funding and new training programs. While these programs have previously been justified primarily on counter-narcotics grounds, the September terrorist attacks created new impetus for foreign military training as part of the fight against terrorism. Since September 11, the Bush administration has reportedly offered counter-terrorism assistance, including training, to a growing list of countries, including Indonesia, the Philippines, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Ethiopia, and Yemen. And in December 2001, Congress created a new regional counter-terrorism fellowship and provided $18 million to fund attendance by foreign officers at U.S. military institutions.

The enormous expansion of U.S. military training programs over the past decade has occurred with insufficient congressional oversight and scant public debate. Serious scrutiny of these programs is needed now more than ever, to ensure that the United State's fight against terrorism is pursued by means consistent with its democratic ideals.

During the Clinton administration, each of the training programs was justified, at least partially, as strengthening human rights and democratization. However, most of them have had no discernible focus on human rights and have been carried out in a highly, if not completely, unaccountable manner. Despite modest congressional efforts to establish safeguards—the most important being the "Leahy Law," requiring background vetting of trainees—these programs have expanded without sufficient oversight.

Special Operations Forces have gained public prominence from their role in the war against the Taliban government and the al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan. However, these forces have long been involved in training foreign military and paramilitary forces around the world, and their history in doing so has been bloody. Routine training deployments of these forces (prior to the war in Afghanistan) have been shrouded in secrecy.

The U.S. worldwide anti-terrorism campaign seems to have replaced the post-cold war rhetorical concern for human rights and democratization with an "ends justify the means" attitude. The U.S. has initiated military aid and training with countries neighboring Afghanistan, several of which are ruled by autocrats with terrible records of repression.

Given the pace at which military-to-military relations are being established and ratcheted up in the name of fighting terrorism, it is vitally important that policymakers, the media, analysts, and the public reflect on the potential shortcomings and dangers of these programs. This report presents a detailed description of the training programs and many of the institutions involved. It also describes the types of training being provided and highlights problem areas needing greater congressional and public oversight.

Among the key recommendations of this report are:

· Monitor trainees to determine whether the various training programs are meeting their overall objectives and to assess their impact on human rights and democratization.
· Given U.S. Special Operations Forces' recent training of abusive troops in Indonesia, Rwanda, and elsewhere, increase transparency around SOF foreign training missions in order to help ensure public accountability and to protect people living in countries where forces are being trained.
· Cut off all forms of operational military assistance and training to governments when a pattern of abuse by the military is identified.
· Given the record of terror such operations have inflicted on people living in areas where they have operated, ban unaccountable covert intelligence-run military and paramilitary training programs.
· Require increased disclosure about the activities of private military companies that the U.S. State Department has authorized or hired to train foreign militaries; restore original reporting requirements for the Foreign Military Training Report.
· Reform the curricula for foreign military trainees away from a focus primarily on counterinsurgency; include strong emphasis on human rights and/or international humanitarian law obligations that pertain in internal and international armed conflicts.
· Expand human rights background checks of foreign trainees to ensure to the greatest extent possible that U.S. forces are not training soldiers or officers with records of human rights abuse.