Right Web

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

The NATO Expansion Lobby

(Return to the original article, Baghdad and Beyond, available online at rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/764.). Bruce Jackson, of the...

Print Friendly

(Return to the original article, Baghdad and Beyond, available online at rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/764.)

Bruce Jackson, of the Project for the New American Century, personifies the new military-industrial complex–“a minister without portfolio” who speaks for the U.S. government, the weapons industry, the Republican Party, and the right’s network of foreign policy think tanks.

“Strengthen America, Secure Europe. Defend Values. Expand NATO” was the motto of the U.S. Committee on NATO, the lobbying group established in 1996 by Bruce Jackson to bring the transitional nations of “New Europe” into the NATO fold. The committee’s slogan concisely summarizes the main arguments of the NATO expansion lobby in the United States. Although NATO was established in 1949 to contain the purported Soviet threat to Western Europe , the NATO expansion lobby argues not only that NATO has a place in the post-cold war world but that it should be consolidated and expanded as an instrument of U.S. hegemonic power despite the expiration of its founding rationale.

Unlike most right-wing foreign policy experts, Bruce Jackson, the committee’s founder and president, is as comfortable with the liberal rhetoric of expansion and enlargement of democracy as he is with the neo-imperial jargon of preemptive defense, U.S. supremacy, and unilateralism. Jackson established the U.S. Committee on NATO at a time when he was finance chairman of Bob Dole’s presidential campaign. Among the first board members were such figures as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Peter Rodman, and Stephen Hadley, who later joined the Bush administration. 1 Aside from Jackson, other PNAC officials included on the committee’s board of directors were PNAC’s executive director Gary Schmitt, PNAC cofounder Robert Kagan, and PNAC board member Randy Scheunemann. Another increasingly prominent neocon on the committee’s board was Julie Finley, who, along with Jackson and Scheunemann, was cofounder of both the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the Project on Transitional Democracies. Finley is also the treasurer of the National Endowment on Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization founded and led by neoconservatives. 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”

Jackson’s day job at the time was planning and strategy vice president at Lockheed Martin, where he served as the advance man for global corporate development projects. Jackson began his career as a military intelligence officer, and during the Reagan and Bush senior administrations worked in the Defense Department in positions related to nuclear weapons and military strategy. In 1993 Jackson joined Martin Marietta, which merged with Lockheed in 1995.

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 included the largest defense contractor in the United States.

Working closely with the Clinton administration, which also supported NATO expansion, Jackson’s committee wined and dined U.S. senators, successfully persuading them to approve the admission of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. While other neocons easily mix talk of values and U.S. power, Jackson is expert at mingling talk of values and money. During exclusive dinners at Washington’s Metropolitan Club, part of his lobbying pitch to U.S. senators was to argue that NATO expansion would create a “community of values” in Eurasia. Incidentally, as predicted by NATO expansion opponents, it also created a new market for arms merchants such as Lockheed. 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. “Add them together,” smiled Joel Johnson, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association, “and we’re talking about real money.” According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of a few nations joining NATO could reach $125 billion over 15 years–with U.S. military assistance covering up to $19 billion of the costs of military integration. 3

Jackson’s U.S. Committee on NATO won the first round for NATO expansion in 1997, when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic acceded to NATO. During the buildup to the Iraq invasion, seven other countries were invited to join NATO: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These countries formed part of the ” Vilnius 10″ bloc of Eastern European and Baltic nations that became the post-1997 focus of the U.S. Committee on NATO. In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Jackson helped draft the declaration by the Vilnius 10 governments supporting the planned U.S. incursion with or without UN approval. Eager for U.S. support for their entry into NATO, these countries–dubbed the “New Europe” by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld–joined the war coalition, at least in name.

When Jackson travels in the nations of “New Europe” such as Romania or Slovenia, government ministers routinely assume that he represents the Bush administration, even though he holds no office. This confusion over Jackson’s role does not occur because he misrepresents himself but instead issues from his own authority as the consummate power player. Before he was ousted by a popular coalition, Georgia’s President Eduard Shevardnadze described Jackson as “an official with clout, someone whose opinion is heeded in Europe and the United States.”

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.” 4 Another venue, in addition to the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Project on Transitional Nations, for this interface work is the American Enterprise Institute, where Jackson served on the founding advisory board of AEI’s New Atlantic Initiative. Funded by the Olin and Bradley foundations, the New Atlantic Initiative 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.” 5

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.” 6

Having won unanimous Senate approval for their accession to NATO, seven of the Vilnius 10 nations are set to join NATO in May 2004. 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 in neocon circles. As the White House began laying the groundwork for the “coalition of the willing” against Iraq, President Bush repeatedly used the term “New Europe” in a July 5, 2002 statement hailing the leaders of the Vilnius 10 group. “Our nations,” said the president, “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.” Furthermore, the president said, “Our nations face another historic challenge: to defeat the forces of global terror.”

Endnotes

  1. Judis, “Minister Without Portfolio.”
  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. Jeff Gerth and Tim Weiner, “Arms Makers See Bonanza in Selling NATO Expansion,” New York Times, June 28, 1997.
  4. Judis, “Minister Without Portfolio, American Prospect.
  5. See American Enterprise Institute, New Atlantic Initiative: www.aei.org/research/nai
  6. 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.

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

 

For More Information Tom Barry, "Neocon Philosophy of Intelligence Led to Iraq War,” Chronicles of the New American Century, No. 1, Right Web, online at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0402pi.php

 

 

Citations

Tom Barry, "Baghdad and Beyond: The NATO Expansion Lobby," IRC Right Web (Somerville, MA: Interhemispheric Resource Center, March 19, 2004).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share