Right Web

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

U.S. Committee on NATO

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

The U.S. Committee on NATO, a rightist advocacy organization committed to increasing U.S. influence through expansion of the transatlantic military alliance, was originally founded in the mid-1990s as the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Its founders, Bruce Jackson and Greg Craig, later renamed the group the U.S. Committee on NATO (USCN). The committee’s motto was “Strengthen America. Secure Europe. Defend Values. Expand NATO.”[1] It ceased operations in 2003.

Following the group’s termination, Jackson and two other principals of the committee—Randy Scheunemann and Julie Finley—used the committee’s office space to found a successor group, the Project on Transitional Democracies.

Among USCN’s initial board members were two high-profile neoconservative figures, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Other board members included Stephen Hadley, who served in the George W. Bush administration as deputy national security adviser to Condoleezza Rice; Randy Scheunemann, later a key aide to Sen. John McCain and Sarah Palin; Julie Finley, a Republican Party operative and founding member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq; and Gary Schmitt, a former director of the Project for the New American Century and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.[2]

The committee was well placed to service the needs of a number of factions, including both hawkish ideologues and the defense industry. NATO expansion requires integrating national militaries, a process that opens up lucrative weapons markets, including jet fighters, electronics, attack helicopters, communication networks, among other trappings of modern military forces. “Add them together,” Joel Johnson, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association, told the New York Times, “and we’re talking about real money.”[3]

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.[4] One prominent neocon described Jackson as “the nexus between the defense industry and the neoconservatives. He translates us to them, and them to us.”[5]

In the estimation of John Laughland, a trustee of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group and a close observer of Jackson's work in Eastern Europe: “Far from promoting democracy in eastern Europe, Washington is promoting a system of political and military control not unlike the 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.”[6]

In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Jackson helped draft the declaration by the Vilnius Ten governments supporting the planned U.S. invasion with or without UN approval. Eager for U.S. support for their entry into NATO, the countries of what Donald Rumsfeld called the “New Europe” joined the war coalition, at least in name. Slovenia later backed away from the statement after revelations that its foreign minister “had buckled…under Bruce Jackson’s threat.”[7]

The U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, both of which were organized by Jackson, were disbanded in late 2003, apparently because its members believed that they had accomplished their mission.[8]

Funding

The U.S. Committee on NATO did not offer any information about funding sources on its now-defunct website. According to Bruce Jackson, “I finance myself, with money I made from investment banking [he was chief strategist on the proprietary trading desk at Lehman Brothers from 1990 to 1993]. It's not as if it's some individual project though. A lot of people volunteer their time for the NGO. Volunteer work is much more normal in Washington than in Europe."[9]

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Sources

[1] Jeff Gerth and Tim Weiner, “Arms Makers See Bonanza in Selling NATO Expansion,” New York Times, June 28, 1997; J.J. Richardson, “Going For Broke--or Just Broke?” MoJo Wire, Mother Jones Magazine.

[2] Jeff Gerth and Tim Weiner, “Arms Makers See Bonanza in Selling NATO Expansion,” New York Times, June 28, 1997; John B. Judis, “Minister Without Portfolio,” The American Prospect, May 2003, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=minister_without_portfolio; Stephen Gowans, “War, NATO expansion, and the other rackets of Bruce P. Jackson,” What’s Left, November 25, 2002, http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/jackson.html.

[3] Jeff Gerth and Tim Weiner, "Arms Makers See Bonanza in Selling NATO Expansion," New York Times, June 28, 1997.

[4] Jeff Gerth and Tim Weiner, “Arms Makers See Bonanza in Selling NATO Expansion,” New York Times, June 28, 1997

[5] John B. Judis, “Minister Without Portfolio,” The American Prospect, May 2003, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=minister_without_portfolio.

[6] John Laughland, “The Prague racket: Nato is now a device to exert control and extract cash. Those who resist, like Belarus, are punished,” The Guardian, November 22, 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,845129,00.html

[7] John B. Judis, “Minister Without Portfolio,” The American Prospect, May 2003, http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/5/judis-j.html; John Laughland, “The Prague racket: Nato is now a device to exert control and extract cash. Those who resist, like Belarus, are punished,” The Guardian, November 22, 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,845129,00.html.

[8] Jim Lobe, "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" Sets Up Shop,” Foreign Policy in Focus Policy Report, November 2002

[9] Julian Evans, “The Man Who Brought NATO East,” Euromoney, December 2003.

Share RightWeb

U.S. Committee on NATO Résumé

Motto

“Strengthen America. Secure Europe. Defend Values. Expand NATO.”


Founded

1996


Disbanded

2003


Former Principals

  • Bruce Jackson, Co-Founder
  • Greg Craig, Co-Founder
  • Julie Finley, Board of Directors
  • Stephen Hadley, Board of Directors
  • Richard Perle, Board of Directors
  • Randy Scheunemann, Board of Directors
  • Paul Wolfowitz, Board of Directors

Related:

U.S. Committee on NATO News Feed

US House votes overwhelmingly to bar US exit from NATO - DefenseNews.comNATO must mend its ways and internal discord, say current and former US officials - IHS Jane's 360'Like a Family': US Reaffirm Commitment to Europe, NATO Amid Dispute Over Iran - Sputnik InternationalUS pulling out of the INF treaty rewards Putin, hurts NATO - CNNHurd's bipartisan resolution urges US remain part of NATO – unless Congress gets involved - Ripon AdvanceFormer ambassadors to NATO weigh in on its future - Harvard GazetteDunford Tends to Business of Building Alliances, Understanding - Department of DefenseGerman Ex-Air Force General: 'US Betrayed European Security' - Sputnik InternationalNATO Fears That This Town Will Be the Epicenter of Conflict With Russia - The AtlanticEngel, McCaul call for US support of FYROM's NATO membership | Kathimerini - www.ekathimerini.com'I really give President Trump a lot of credit': US Senator Jim Risch - DW (English)Trump to Face London Protests at NATO Summit in December - The Daily BeastBritish forces to step up Arctic deployment to protect Nato's northern flank from Russia - The TelegraphWhat Is NATO Really Doing in Cyberspace? - War on the RocksWhat the Super Bowl can teach us about foreign policy - The Washington PostAt NATO, Shanahan seeks to retain the Mattis touch - Washington ExaminerGerry Connolly named chair of NATO Parliamentary Assembly Delegation - Augusta Free PressCan major non-NATO Ally status temporarily solve Georgia's security dilemma? - New Eastern EuropeGerman Poll Shows Germans Stunningly Anti-US-Government - Modern DiplomacyWashington’s INF Treaty pullout to make life more dangerous for Europeans — Russian MP - TASS

Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

François Nicoullaud, the former French ambassador to Iran, discusses the ups and downs of Iran-France relations and the new US sanctions.


Effective alliances require that powerful states shoulder a far larger share of the alliance maintenance costs than other states, a premise that Donald Trump rejects.


The new imbroglio over the INF treaty does not mean a revival of the old Cold War practice of nuclear deterrence. However, it does reveal the inability of the West and Russia to find a way to deal with the latter’s inevitable return to the ranks of major powers, a need that was obvious even at the time the USSR collapsed.


As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump appeared to recognize the obvious problem of the revolving door. But as the appointment of Patrick Shanahan, who spent 30 years at Boeing, as the Trump administration’s acting secretary of defense reveals, little has changed. America is indeed great again, if you happen to be one of those lucky enough to be moving back and forth between plum jobs in the Pentagon and the weapons industry.


Domestic troubles, declining popularity, and a decidedly hawkish anti-Iran foreign policy team may combine to make the perfect storm that pushes Donald Trump to pull the United States into a new war in the Middle East.


The same calculus that brought Iran and world powers to make a deal and has led remaining JCPOA signatories to preserve it without the U.S. still holds: the alternatives to this agreement – a race between sanctions and centrifuges that could culminate in Iran obtaining the bomb or being bombed – would be much worse.


With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll of course be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public. And he won’t care about the consequences.


RightWeb
share