Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Long Live NATO

The cold war is long over, but with the support of U.S. supremacists in both parties NATO lives on as America’s global cop.. ...

Print Friendly

The cold war is long over, but with the support of U.S. supremacists in both parties NATO lives on as America’s global cop.

Seven more nations are joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and three more Central European nations have their applications pending. Although the Bush administration has set an overall course in foreign and military policy of treaty-breaking and unilateralism, it remains a strong proponent of NATO expansion.

Founded in 1949 as a security buffer against the Soviet Union, NATO has not only survived the end of the cold war. It is flourishing. Despite criticism that a post-cold war NATO would unnecessarily propagate the West-East security divide that shaped international relations for the four decades of the cold war, the U.S. government has led the drive to energize and expand NATO. In 1999, after contentious debate in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. approved the accession of Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary to NATO. Leading the NATO enlargement lobby was the neoconservative Committee to Expand NATO, which brought together several prominent neocons now serving in the Bush administration, along with conservative Democrats such as Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and the Democratic Leadership Council.

After succeeding in advancing the first post-cold war round of enlargement, the Committee to Expand NATO (renamed U.S. Committee on NATO) launched its “Big Bang” strategy to bring ten more nations into the NATO fold. After an initial meeting of the ten new prospects in Vilnius, Lithuania, with the aid of the U.S. Committee on NATO the so-called Vilnius Group began pressuring Washington and NATO headquarters for membership.

Among the first board members of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Peter Rodman, and Stephen Hadley, all of whom later joined the Bush administration.1 All of these neocons were associates of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Bruce Jackson sits on the five-member board of PNAC. Randy Scheunemann, who was an officer of the NATO expansion committee, is also a PNAC board member. Both Jackson and Scheunemann were cofounders of the Project on Transitional Democracies, which continues to work with the countries of New Europe to foster economic and military ties with the United States.

The U.S. Committee on NATO was not, however, purely a neocon venture. It reached out to and included Democrats such as Will Marshall, founder and president of the Progressive Policy Institute. Marshall was also a founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, another organization of “New Democrats.” In 2002 Marshall also joined the advisory committee to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a bipartisan pro-war group founded by Jackson at the urging of the Bush administration.

The U.S. Senate in May 2003 unanimously approved the accession to NATO of three Baltic nations (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) and four other countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia). In a White House ceremony on March 29, 2004, President Bush hailed the accession of seven additional nations to NATO, which will formally admit the new members at a ceremony at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 2. Bush noted that all the new NATO members are “helping to bring lasting freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Three other nations of the New Europe bloc–Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania–are next in line to receive an accession invitation from NATO. Although it was Donald Rumsfeld who is credited with first using the term “New Europe,” the term has long been circulating among neoconservatives who view with deep disgust Western Europe’s tendency to support diplomacy over war and its deep commitment to multilateralism and the international rule of law. As the White House began laying the groundwork for the “coalition of the willing” against Iraq, President Bush himself repeatedly used the term “New Europe” in statements about NATO enlargement. In a July 5, 2002 speech hailing the leaders of the Vilnius group, the president declared, “Our nations share a common vision of a new Europe, where free European states are united with each other, and with the United States through cooperation, partnership, and alliance.”

President Bush told the newest NATO members that “all member nations must be willing, and able, to contribute to the common defense of our alliance.” Many of the new members have joined NATO in the belief that it will lead to economic prosperity and shield them against any future extraterritorial ambitions of the Russian Federation. But President Bush regards the new members as enlistees in Washington’s own global ambitions in the Middle East, Central Asia, and South Asia. During the White House welcoming ceremony, President Bush noted that NATO’s mission extended far beyond the perimeter of the alliance. “NATO members are reaching out to the nations of the Middle East, to strengthen our ability to fight terror, and to provide for our common security,” he said. But NATO’s mission extends beyond global security. “We’re discussing,” said Bush, “how we can support and increase the momentum of freedom in the greater Middle East.”

At a time when it appears that the U.S. is becoming increasingly isolated, the Bush administration is exercising strong leadership over what the president describes as the “most successful military alliance in history.” The Bush administration has lashed out at European critics of its neo-imperial policies and dismissed the dissident Western European nations as representatives of the “old Europe,” but it rests secure in the knowledge that U.S. military leadership and America’s military dominance are central to NATO and that NATO is the centerpiece of transatlantic relations. Given that most European nations lack strong militaries of their own and that EU still lacks a unified security infrastructure, the ever-expanding NATO operating under U.S. direction will likely remain an effective instrument of U.S. hegemony, not only in North Atlantic but also from the Gulf of Finland to the Black Sea, and from the Balkans to the Persian Gulf.

President Clinton supported the first phase of NATO enlargement, as did the internationalists of both political parties. The driving ideological force behind NATO expansion, however, has been the neocon polemicists and operatives who see an expanded NATO as one in which the power of mainland Western European nations is diminished and U.S. hegemonic power is consolidated. But it’s unlikely that NATO expansion would have proceeded so quickly without the concerted backing of the U.S. military-industrial complex. For its part, the U.S. military was eager to establish U.S. military bases and forward-deployment sites in the “transitional states” of the former Soviet bloc. And U.S. military contractors had an eye on the new markets for their latest weaponry when the new NATO partners militarized to meet the compatibility requirements of the alliance. Integration into NATO requires integrating weapons systems–creating a multibillion-dollar market for jet fighters, electronics, attack helicopters, military communication networks, and all the gadgets needed by a modern fighting force.

Until 2002 Bruce Jackson was planning and strategy vice president at Lockheed Martin, where he served as the advance man for global corporate development projects. One prominent neocon described Bruce Jackson as “the nexus between the defense industry and the neoconservatives. He translates us to them, and them to us.” Two other members of the U.S. Committee on NATO who had ties to Lockheed Martin were Stephen Hadley and Randy Scheunemann. Stephen Hadley, who serves in the Bush administration as deputy national security adviser to Condoleezza Rice, was a partner in the Shea & Gardner law firm, whose clients included Boeing and Lockheed Martin.2 Another link to Lockheed Martin at the U.S. Committee on NATO was Randy Scheunemann, the president of Orion Strategies, whose clients include the largest defense contractor in the United States.

NATO expansion cannot be written off as a neocon conspiracy. But neither should one assume that the neoconservatives are so dismissive of the “appeasers” in Europe and so preoccupied with the Middle East (and especially the security of Israel) that they don’t have a grand strategy for a restructured Europe. “Strengthen America, Secure Europe. Defend Values. Expand NATO” was the motto of the U.S. Committee on NATO. The committee’s slogan concisely summarizes the main arguments of the NATO expansion lobby in the United States.

In the estimation of John Laughland, a trustee of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group and a close observer of Jackson’s proconsul operations in Eastern Europe: “Far from promoting democracy in eastern Europe, Washington is promoting a system of political and military control not unlike that once practiced by the Soviet Union. Unlike that empire, which collapsed because the center was weaker than the periphery, the new NATO is both a mechanism for extracting Danegeld [tribute levied to support Danish invaders in medieval England] from new member states for the benefit of the U.S. arms industry and an instrument for getting others to protect U.S. interests around the world, including the supply of primary resources such as oil.”3

The U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, both of which were organized by PNAC’s Bruce Jackson, were disbanded in late 2003, apparently because its members believed that they had accomplished their mission. But the neocon camp continues working to shape the transatlantic political and military agenda. Jackson and Scheunemann continue their work in Eurasia through their Project on Transitional Democracies. Another ideological partner in the neoconservative effort to restructure the transatlantic alliance is the New Atlantic Initiative of the American Enterprise Institute, whose goal is “the admission of Europe’s fledgling democracies into institutions of Atlantic defense.” Like the AEI itself, the New Atlantic Initiative is dominated by neocons such as William Kristol, Samuel Huntington, Norman Podhoretz, Joshua Muravchick, Richard Perle, and Daniel Pipes. AEI’s New Atlantic Initiative also includes on its advisory board military hard-liners such as Donald Rumsfeld, right-wing political figures like Newt Gingrich, and realpolitikers such as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, as well a few Democrats such as Thomas Foley–all of whom share the neocon vision of a “New Europe.”4

The cold war is long over, but with the support of U.S. supremacists in both parties NATO lives on as America’s global cop.

Endnotes

  1. Judis, “Minister Without Portfolio, American Prospect.
  2. “Stephen Hadley,” Right Web Profile (Interhemispheric Resource Center, November 2003). Hadley was one of the original members of the self-identified “Vulcans” who advised then-candidate George W. Bush.
  3. John Laughland, “The Prague Racket,” The Guardian ( London), November 22, 2002. Other journalistic accounts of Jackson’s activities include: Stephen Gowans, “War, NATO expansion, and the other rackets of Bruce P. Jackson,” What’s Left, November 25, 2002, at www.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/Jackson.html; Brian McGrory, “Battle Lines Forming over NATO Expansion,” Boston Globe, July 5, 1997.
  4. See American Enterprise Institute, New Atlantic Initiative: www.aei.org/research/nai.

Tom Barry is Policy Director of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), online at www.irc-online.org.

 

 

Citations

Tom Barry, "One Treaty the Bush Administration Supports: Long Live NATO," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: Interhemispheric Resource Center, April 1, 2004).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share