Responsibility Sharing Report June 2002

A.  Data Notes

The assessments presented in this Report are only as good as the data upon which they are based. The Department has every confidence that the data used for the assessments in this Report are as complete, current, and comprehensive as they can be, given the deadlines established in the legislation.

Data Sources

War on Terrorism data have been obtained from a wide variety of Unclassified sources including U.S. embassies, the U.S. Defense and State Departments, allied armed forces and defense ministry web pages, and the open press.

Defense spending data have been obtained from a variety of sources. NATO’s 18 December 2001 Press Release: Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence (available on NATO’s website at is the primary source for past and current defense spending data for the NATO nations, including the United States. Sources of defense spending data for Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the GCC nations include U.S. embassies in these nations, recent national defense white papers (where available), and the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ (IISS) The Military Balance 2001-2002.

For purposes of standardization and comparability, this Report presents defense spending figures using the NATO definition wherever possible. According to this approach, defense expenditures are defined as outlays made by national governments specifically to meet the needs of the armed forces. In this context, the term "national government" limits "defense expenditures" to those of central or federal governments, to the exclusion of state, provincial, local, or municipal authorities. Regardless of when payments are charged against the budget, defense expenditures for any given period include all payments made during that period. In cases where actual 2001 defense outlays are not available, final defense budget figures are substituted. War damage compensation, veterans’ pensions, payments out of retirement accounts, and civil defense and stockpiling costs for industrial raw materials or semi-furnished products are not included in this definition of defense spending. Defense spending figures depicted in this Report for the United States are based on the NATO definition and therefore may differ somewhat from other U.S. defense spending figures provided to Congress or used within the Department of Defense. NATO’s definition of defense spending includes spending on programs funded outside of the Department of Defense, namely, the Department of State’s International Security Assistance Programs, and the defense-related portions of the Coast Guard and the Department of Energy.

GDP data for NATO members, the Republic of Korea, and Japan are taken from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). GDP data for the GCC countries (which are not reported by OECD) are drawn from The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

Multinational peace operations data includes a) 2000 funding contributions to UN peacekeeping operations and b) contributions of personnel (troops, military observers, and international police) to both UN and major non-UN peace operations as of November 2001. UN personnel contributions data have been obtained from the December 2001 Monthly Troop Contributors List prepared by the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations, while those for the NATO-led peace operations in Bosnia and Kosovo (i.e., SFOR and KFOR) are based upon classified sources provided by the Department of Defense’s Balkans Task Force. Due to the Congressional deadline for this Report, the Department provides funding estimates for 2000 instead of 2001. Funding data for UN peace operations have been obtained from the Status of Contributions as at 31 December 2000 produced by the United Nations’ Secretariat.

NATO Reaction Forces data portrays national contributions to NATO’s Reaction Forces. Ground forces contributions are quantified in combat maneuver brigade equivalents (excluding organic divisional combat support units), and naval contributions in numbers of ships and submarines. Air forces contributions are measured in terms of quantity of aircraft. Data for all NATO members that participate in the Alliance’s integrated defense planning process were obtained from NATO’s annual Defense Planning Questionnaire.

Active-duty military personnel data are taken from NATO’s 18 December 2001 Press Release: Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defence and IISS’ The Military Balance 2001-2002.

Military forces data (ground, naval, and air) are based on information provided by nations under the Conventional Forces Europe (CFE) data exchange (for those forces limited by CFE), supplemented with data from responses to NATO’s Defense Planning Questionnaire (for those nations that participate in NATO’s integrated defense planning process), open sources (such as Jane’s Defense publicationsandmagazinesand IISS’ The Military Balance 2001-2002), and DoD sources.

Ground combat capability data includes major combat systems, including tanks, artillery, and attack helicopters for army and marine units. Armored vehicles, anti-tank weapons, mortars, small arms, and transport and combat service support assets are not included in this assessment. The quantity and quality of nations’ equipment holdings are assessed using widely accepted static measures. Estimates are normalized using the score of a United States armored brigade in order to express each nation’s static ground force potential in terms of a standardized unit of measure.

Naval tonnage data includes aircraft carriers, attack submarines (non-strategic), principal surface combatants (cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and larger corvettes), mine warfare ships and craft (including mine layers), patrol combatant ships, and amphibious warfare ships. Strategic submarines, patrol craft, amphibious craft, or service support craft are not included.

Combat Aircraft capability data includes fixed-wing combat aircraft (air force, naval, and marine assets) in the following categories: fighter/interceptor, fighter/bomber, conventional bomber, and tactical fighter reconnaissance aircraft (including combat-capable trainer and electronic warfare aircraft). Not included are maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft, transports, air-to-air refueling aircraft, or any support or special mission aircraft. The quantity and quality of nations’ equipment holdings are assessed using widely accepted static measures.

Military Transport Aircraft Capacity data includes military fixed wing transport aircraft (air force, army, marine, and naval assets) to include multi-role tanker/transports. Not included are transport aircraft with maximum payload capacity less than 12,000 lbs, aircraft identified as VIP transport, government-owned aircraft operated in civilian markings, and commercial aircraft available under contract or national legislation in a time of war or national emergency. Transport capacity is derived from number of aircraft multiplied by cargo capacity measured in short tons (maximum payload in pounds (lbs) (as stated in Jane’s All the Worlds Aircraft) divided by 2,000).

Tanker Aircraft data includes fixed wing air-to-air refueling aircraft (air force, naval, and marine assets) to include multi-role tanker/transports.

Defense modernization spending data portrays the percentage of NATO members’ 2001 defense budgets that were devoted to major equipment procurement and research-and-development. These are derived from information contained in NATO’s annual Defense Planning Questionnaire.

Cost sharing data have been obtained from U.S. embassies and DoD components, including the military departments and commands. DoD components also provide estimates of U.S. stationing costs by country. Cost sharing data and stationing cost estimates for a given year are collected by the Department during the spring of the following year, and are then evaluated and published as budget exhibits. Due to the Congressional deadline for this Report, the Department provides estimates for 2000 instead of 2001. A cost offset percentage cannot be calculated for the United Arab Emirates due to lack of information regarding U.S. stationing costs there. Canada, the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands, and Poland do not provide host nation support and are thus not included in this analysis.

Bilateral cost sharing is divided into two categories, according to whether the costs are borne by the host nation on-budget (direct cost sharing), or as imputed values of forgone revenues (indirect cost sharing). Direct cost sharing includes costs borne by host nations in support of stationed U.S. forces for rents on privately owned land and facilities, labor, utilities, and vicinity improvements. Indirect cost sharing includes forgone rents and revenues, including rents on government-owned land and facilities occupied or used by U.S. forces at no or reduced cost to the United States, and tax concessions or customs duties waived by the host nation.

Since this report uses multiple sources for cost sharing data, there is variability in some of the data collected, resulting in high and low range figures for several nations. Using the example of labor cost, the low figure is based on data collected by DoD components and only includes costs for personnel who support appropriated fund activities. The high figure is based on cost data collected by U.S. Embassies and includes all labor costs under U.S - host nation agreements.

Charts III-24 and III-25 generally display the more conservative low range figures for analysis. For Japan and the Republic of Korea, the high range figure is considered to be a better measure and thus is depicted.

Foreign assistance data have been obtained from the OECD. The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) encourages commitments of international aid, coordinated aid policies, and consistent aid reporting. The DAC’s definition of official development assistance (ODA) is recognized as the international standard for reporting aid provided to developing countries and multilateral institutions. This is immensely useful, since "aid" is an extremely broad term, and encompasses many different types of assistance, which can make contributions from various nations very difficult to compare directly.

The OECD has a 29-nation membership including all NATO countries, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. The OECD establishes economic and political conditions that nations must meet before receiving assistance (e.g., demonstrated commitment to political reform, and free and fair elections). Subsidies are provided in the form of trade and investment credits, grants, and loan guarantees, and are directed into areas such as food aid, medical supplies, and technical assistance in management training, privatization, bank and regulatory reform, environmental projects, market access/trade, nuclear reactor safety, and democratic institution building. The OECD is also coordinating nuclear safety assistance to the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (NIS).

Aid to 12 of the 22 emerging economies of Central Europe (including the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and the NIS does not qualify as official development assistance for OECD purposes, but instead is categorized as official aid (OA). Both categories, ODA and OA, cover identical types of assistance, with the only difference being the recipient nations. Other OA recipient nations include more advanced developing countries (e.g., Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates). Recipient nations move from one aid category to the other depending on their development status. Total foreign assistance evaluated in this Report is the sum of all ODA and OA.

Foreign assistance data in this Report cover the period 1990 through 2000. At this time, complete and reliable foreign assistance data are available only through 2000 due to complexities and delays in the OECD collection and reporting process, and data are still not complete for some countries for 1990, and 1995-1997. Assistance data are not available for the Czech Republic or Poland for years covered in this Report prior to 1998. This is to be expected since these nations, along with Hungary, are primarily recipients of foreign assistance. This is also the case with Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar, for which no foreign assistance contributions are reported.

Table of Contents | Intro | Chapter I | Chapter II | Chapter III | Annex | ... page top