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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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:

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share