[Salon] In preparation for power, America’s New Right builds new institutions | The Economist



Intro: On the subject of the New Right: The US now has a “New Right,” by their own terms (see below). And it needs to be denounced in the strongest way as an enemy of our rapidly diminishing form of Constitutional governance we are supposed to have, and their constant incitement for war against China, and its adherence to its “Conservative” counterparts in Israel, whom our conservatives act as agents. In all this, the New Right far surpasses the Democrats, and even the non-New Right, Republicans, all of which is bad enough.

And these “New Rightists” must be called out as “deceivers,” in the service of a foreign country, as Trump was, with the Israeli right-wing, such as settler (and Kahanist?) Yoram Hazony. Together with soon to be, perhaps, Italian PM Georgia Meloni (cue: “cheers"), leader of the Fascist successor party, and Italian Nazionale Conservatives, they represent the culmination of the "gathering of right-wing forces under one-banner” which took place under Trump. “Fusing" together the Straussians, of the Claremont Institute and Hillsdale College, Yoram Hazony’s and The American Conservatives’ "National Conservatives,” and the so-called "Traditional Conservatives,” who were all too happy to join with the Radical Right under the allure of Trump, and the money spread out by right-wing billionaires like Peter Thiel (more on that later), all doing duplicitous business as one ideological entity now. 

With that duplicitous business having begun with selling Israeli right-wing aligned militarists like Trump to a war-weary American electorate in 2016, with fallacious promises that he would “end the endless wars, but who then immediately shoveled out billions in tax cuts and other things of value to their Oligarchical backers (to the cheers of libertarians), to include Trump’s son-in-law’s "Private Equity” cronies, in what the New Right calls “Main Street Economics. To include as well the acceleration of the gigantic military build-up under Trump and obstructing any attempt to even slow the growth of  the U.S. Military Machine, on the lie that Obama had “weakened” us. And thereby validated Russian and Chinese concerns that the US had a militarily aggressive intent toward them. Which we did, especially with the Republicans back in power, with our military growth/expansionism serving as an additional provocation to both, putting us on the abyss of nuclear war where we’re at now. But hey, blame it all on the Democrats in the Republican tradition. Like Woodrow Wilson gets all the blame for getting us in WW I in 1917, and Republican and now per Andrew Bacevich, celebrated “Conservative,” Teddy Roosevelt  and the Republican Party, get no blame for their efforts to get us in the war as soon as it began in 2014.  

Which lead to this article as a prelude to the New Right article below: 

BLUF: "But the problem isn’t primarily polarization. The problem is that one of our two major political parties has ceased good-faith participation in the democratic process. Of course, there are instances of violence, disinformation, racism and corruption among Democrats and the political left, but the scale isn’t at all comparable.


I know with the tribal loyalty to the Republicans and Conservatives in general here that the quote above will be denied, except for the part of the Democrats who will be deemed to bear all that “guilt,” and attributable only to them. Unless one does an objective “genealogical” tracing of political ideas, in the form of “political theory,” as Hannah Arendt did as her method. And I follow in that method. Then the picture is different for anyone with “eyes and ears open.” Today, with the Democrats rampaging in a war-frenzied state of mind, it's easy for some to overlook what Republicans are doing to incite the Democrat’s wars, which they’ve taken over from Trump and the Republicans. Who don’t denounce the wars, but denounce Democrats and Biden for their “weakness.” A theme routinely, and deliberately, overlooked, especially by the latest manifestation of a “New Right,” as explained in the article below. 

Anyone denying that is willfully deaf and/or blind, or has not made an effort to observe, or study as original sources, political statements/documents of the last 70 years representing the changes/developments in US social/ideological consciousness to where “Perpetual War” is completely “normalized” for us, so there is not even a need for declarations of war any more. That was done in and for perpetuity in 2001.

Remember who was POTUS then? Yes, I immediately hear: Neocons and Straussians, and not us “Traditional Conservatives,” who’ve always stood for “foreign policy restraint and realism.” And with a mind that can conceive of reality only as a “snapshot,” that could appear so, if one chooses not to think what the Republicans always stood for as between the two parties: the party of “military strength.” As I know from all the political  campaigning I’ve seen since 1960 and a daily reading of the newspapers since about 1962. If one felt hawkish, they voted Republican, if not, they voted Democrat. That was a general rule throughout the Cold War. And even after the Cold War ended, notwithstanding Clinton’s wars and Madeline Albright, et al., it was the Republicans who demanded more military spending and more military missions. Who led that charge? Newt Gingrich, with his “Contract for America.” 

With posting this link again, but see the pertinent "Contract” at bottom on increasing military spending and expanding NATO.

This analysis of Republican “Destructionists” by Dana Milbank has a couple shortcomings in that it fails to mention US wars as having played any role in the increasing brutality and cruelty that the Republicans and so much of the Democrats now demands of our  government in how we treat the world, and of our own citizens. Surprisingly that he doesn’t mention that because Milbank wrote so critically of the Mideast Wars while they were going on. Nor does it note that those same wars created the migrant movement from south to north which is then denounced by the same politicians who supported/promoted the wars! With Gingrich Exhibit A for that! And the Washington Post always supportive of our wars. 

But perhaps the book itself goes more into Gingrich’s and his Republican colleagues continuous incitement for wars, and ever-greater military spending than the article could.  

So a deficiency of the article is that it fails to make clear that there was within the Republican Party’s "Contract for America,” the intention to pass into law requirements of a more aggressive, stronger, U.S. military, to capitalize on the end of the Soviet Union, with the expansion of NATO from the beginning of the end of the Cold War. Going along with Republican's enthusiasm for the Cheney Doctrine of 1992, shared with some “moderate” Democrats,’ like the Clintons, was the proposed "National Security Act of 1995’ in the so-called “Contract,” which was probably the only part the Republicans were sincere in “reforming,” unlike all the rest of it. “Reforming” in the way that so many “military reformers” pursue today; to make the US even more lethal in its relations with other countries. Which can be seen at the bottom of this email, if anyone cares to look. 

It was, and is, Republican’s clearly stated plan to expand NATO to Russia’s borders, by law (see at bottom) then, or de facto now, as Trump was achieving in Ukraine with the expansion of military “assistance” to Ukraine. Notwithstanding a disagreement, like amongst thieves, which they all are too, with Democrats, over exactly how US corruption and nepotism should be carried out as part of the package. Regardless of such squabbles between the two parties, for Republicans, this policy of aggressive expansion against Russia could only be interrupted for some in prioritizing aggression against China and Iran first, as Trump would do, but while still waging the “three-front war,” which Republicans have always been so “aroused”by. This can be seen in the “true” aspirations of the Republican Party as presented during Trump’s administration here: https://rsc-banks.house.gov/national-security-strategy

Which Trump would accelerate notwithstanding ignoramuses, some acting as “journalists,” failing to see that his encirclement of Russia, with Gingrich and his “military advisor” by his side no doubt, had roots in Gingrich’s and the Republican’s post-Cold War Plans of US global military domination, as articulated by Cheney. And seconded by right-wing Democrats; notably Brzezinski, the Clintons, Biden, and Madeline Albright, tied to the Republicans as a war-loving deranged “network,” with the Conservative Movement, as founded by CIA officers at National Review, having established core principles of militarism binding them all together.

Already within the Republican Party before Gingrich were the “ideological seeds” from which Gingrich grew from, and those ideological seeds were from the Conservative Movement garden, planted in the 1950s, which grew to full-flower with the “fusionist” Conservative/Neoconservative Reagan administration which based their ideology of Full Spectrum Military Domination on those “teachings.” Meaning Gingrich had ample, ideologically primed, recruits just waiting for the right moment; 9/11 as it turned out, to implement a militaristic  transformation of US culture and government, even more embedded into the US today, as originally prepared in the Republican’s “Contract on America's” National Security Act of 1995 (go to bottom).

But here is the main point. I have been harping here going back to 2015 against what is now self-identified as the "New Right,” and naming the duplicitous perpetrators of this “crime” against the US, and calling out their gullible “useful idiots,” as well as I could, over the objections of New Right proponents. Given the objectives of the New Right, I can only assume they are either fools, or knaves, take your pick. Though my denunciations of them began in their earlier incarnation as Trumpites, continued with as they took shape: “National Conservatives,” and "Claremont/Hillsdale/TAC Straussians/Schmittians.” But all “knaves” in my opinion, with their full-blown duplicity in selling Trump and his co-conspirators as the President who “would end the endless wars,” when in fact he had planned an acceleration of all of the worst militaristic activities of his three predecessors. Which was readily apparent to anyone with enough sense to pour something out of their boots like LBJ had described. But that acceleration of military expansionism hadn’t yet been completed when Trump left office, but with encirclement and military aggression against China and Iran tops on his list, and well on its way per objectives of the Bannon Doctrine, with the same against Russia having proceeded only a little more quietly, as military officers and Trump officials are now out in the open in boasting of their aggression against Russia from Ukraine now, going back to 2014 and continued or accelerated under Trump. But here are the war plans of Trump “strategist” Steve Bannon as were put into effect under Trump: 

As can be seen in these two documents: nothing has changed, with Republicans always clamoring for more military spending and more military adventurism, whether in 1964, or in the present:

Below is The Economist’s article on the “new right,” though they don’t capitalize it like the Quincy Institute did here:


I’m not going to do a line by line rhetorical analysis of this TAC, QI, American Moment event but to an ordinarily intelligent mind accustomed to seeing through false-advertising, it should be apparent in the use of various propaganda techniques that through suggestiveness, innuendo, and the use of propaganda analysis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques, that QI, TAC, and the American Moment are selling something that isn’t true. 

That is, that the Republicans are always less militarily aggressive than the Democrats, with the “implicit” message to “Vote Republican” if you want to end endless war, and more specifically, Trumpites like the ones they name, Hawley, Gaetz, Trump, all of whom have been the most vociferous proponents of “Bannonism.” And that though some Republicans voted against a bill to provide more money to Ukraine, even my simple mind knows enough to look for motives of why they voted that way with it turning out that virtually all, if not all, had motives like “it wasn’t enough,” or they wanted something else in the package, etc., but with the unanimous assurance that they “support Ukraine.” 

Failing to note that was one of the most flagrant displays of “propaganda by omission” that I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot of that from The American Conservative over the last seven years, unlike earlier years. 

And the youth of these supposed professional political commentators is no excuse for their ignorance of actual Republican foreign policy advocacy over the last 70 + years where Republicans have always been in the lead (though not always by much) in hawkish foreign policy advocacy and practice. And if you say different, you either haven’t lived through those years, or have severe memory loss, or just haven’t studied foreign policy history as it was advocated domestically.  

But these New Right, “foreign policy experts” are of the highest academically qualified level one can hope to achieve, all having the recognition which only comes as  . . . Fellows of the Claremont Institute, as are other prominent TAC Editors of the recent past, and currently.  

Here are the distinctive qualifications of three panel members of the TAC, Quincy Institute, and the American Moment event: 
Mollie Hemingway was a 2004 recipient of a Phillips Foundation Journalism Fellowship and a 2014 Lincoln Fellow of the Claremont Institute. 

Saurabh Sharma "He has also been awarded fellowships from the . . . The Claremont Institute, . . . 

Emile Doak: He is a 2021 Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute, per https://dc.hillsdale.edu/Profiles/Emile-Doak/

Wow, all of the Claremont Institute! What a distinguished panel Quincy Institute and TAC put together. And a word about Molley Hemingway here, in her own words: 


Whoops, wrong link. Try this penetrating, insightful, objective interview of Donald Trump by foreign policy expert Mollie Hemingway!


In all of this New Right “revolution,” the New Right was aided and abetted in their propaganda lies by the shrill cries of Clinton/Biden Democrats and Never Trump Republicans that Trump “didn’t want to go to war against Russia” (which he did, as evidenced by his efforts to get NATO to do what they now have done after Russia responded to his provocations, which Biden continued) and that he would “end the endless wars.” All of which was pure, unadulterated B.S. as can be seen in his Phase Zero war against China and Russia, and all-out war with Israel against Iran, albeit “clandestinely,” per the NYT.


Facile critics of Trump who can’t get past the trope of  "White Nationalism” fail to see that the New Right “Movement” includes zealous fanatics like Saurabh Sharma who is not “White,” as neither are some of Trump’s fans from the Proud Boys, etc., or his closest international allies: Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, the late Shinzo Abe. And I guess that might include Benjamin Netanyahu, depending on how “White” is defined at any given moment. Which is why charges of “White Nationalism” are so readily refuted by the "New Right,” such as Saurabh Sharma, even though in this ‘Universal Fascism” coalition, there is room for all types of fascists, so long as they adhere to the essentials of fascist, per Michael Ledeen, and Mussolini: a love of war, authoritarianism, and above all, a love of cruelty and brutality. Those qualities Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton, and Cheney/Bush all have in abundance. So did Carl Schmitt and Mussolini. And what were they called in political terms?   

But here’s another gushing panegyric to DJT by The American Conservative, this one by an “Integralist” Catholic, like the Schmittian Adrian Vermeule: 
"Donald Trump returns to D.C. for the first time since leaving office, with a barn-burner of a speech."

"We are a nation that is allowing Iran to build a massive nuclear weapon, which they are incredibly being allowed to do right now, as we speak. Would’ve never happened under President Trump. They were dying to make a deal. They would’ve made a deal with us right after the election, and it would’ve been a good deal. And China is being allowed to use the trillions and trillions of dollars that was taken from us to build a military the likes of which possibly the world has never seen. And this also would never have happened with us."
Donald J. Trump: (01:29:11)
"The level of speed with which they’re going is a very dangerous thing. And just two years ago, we had Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea in check. They weren’t going to do a thing against us, and everyone knows it, especially those leaders."

Amidst the many fine books listed on the "Salon Speaker Reading List," is the propaganda tract by a self-identified  Straussian as a Claremont Institute promoter, pp.29-30, "The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed"
I hope the Committee for the Republic isnt going “New Right” now too?


But for those eager now to read more of Straussianism, by him, or his disciples, or to read Carl Schmitt’s political theory , Strauss’s ideological fellow, here is a list to start from, as listed in this book:



And the attached file The Straussian Moment
Peter Thiel
President, Clarium Capital Management

If someone of about my age ever tries and tells these young "foreign policy experts” whom TAC and Quincy put together, not for the first time here, that Leo Strauss isn’t “part of "Traditional Conservatism,” they better be prepared for a response of: 

'Ok, Boomer!'

With the preceding adding some context, here is a “human terrain map” of the New Right. By the way, is there anyone here stupid enough to tell me that Stephen Miller of "America First Legal, founded by Stephen Miller, a former Trump aide,” isn’t that dreaded “Neoconservative” Trump was supposed to have dispensed/disposed of as I was told back in 2016? Just curious.



In preparation for power, America’s new right builds new institutions

The movement inspired by Donald Trump entrenches itself in Washington, DC

 | WASHINGTON, DC
Agilded conference room stocked with coffee and lanyard-wearing men in dark suits is a common enough sight in Washington. Only a sign at the door reading “The Lies of the Ruling Class”, hosted by the Claremont Institute’s year-old Centre for the American Way of Life, marks this event at the Mayflower Hotel as something more unusual. “America’s elites are not bright, not competent and not qualified,” says Michael Anton, a former national-security aide to Donald Trump, in the day’s first session. United in favour of economic nationalism, a restrained foreign policy and restricted immigration, many of the room’s self-described national conservatives see the “threat” to America from the left in existential terms. Yet they are brimming with confidence.
Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Come November, when Republicans expect to retake one if not both chambers of Congress, the national conservatives hope to translate their budding movement’s energy into a share of that power. Thrilled by Mr Trump’s election but disappointed by his inability to convert unorthodox instincts into action, they are intent on shaping a new conservative elite and agenda. Like-minded wonks and former Trump-administration officials are busy building think-tanks and advocacy organisations, to provide the policies and, crucially, the personnel for a new Republican right.
Conservatives have long relied on such places to “formulate concepts, strategies and policies that elected officials can implement when in positions of authority”, says Matthew Continetti, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (aei), a conservative think-tank, and author of a history of the American right. Years before Ronald Reagan became president, think-tanks including the Heritage Foundation and magazines such as National Review promoted a generation of Republicans that embraced free markets, social conservatism and an assertive foreign policy. They provided a career for young conservatives—and cadres for White House personnel directors and congressional chiefs of staff seeking to hire ideological allies.
But Mr Trump’s unexpected election was not preceded by institution-building to match his America First instincts. To staff the government, Mr Trump instead depended on outfits like the Heritage Foundation, stocked with many experts who had opposed him. The Republican majority in Congress busied itself with older priorities, such as tax cuts. It was the handful of dissident Republicans with experience and networks in Washington, like Robert Lighthizer, a lawyer appointed as us trade representative, who proved to be the most effective policymakers in the administration, reckons Mr Continetti.
Among the first to act was the Claremont Institute, based in southern California. It shot to prominence for its affiliates’ defence of Mr Trump. One of these was Mr Anton. Another, John Eastman, was the legal theorist behind Mr Trump’s bid to cling to power after the 2020 election. The institute has a highbrow journal, the Claremont Review of Books, and a centre on Capitol Hill near other new-right institutions. A few blocks away is the Washington outpost of the conservative Hillsdale College, where Mr Anton is a lecturer. Nearby is the townhouse of a former Trump adviser, Steve Bannon, convener of new-right personalities and backer of national conservatives abroad like Italy’s Matteo Salvini.
A clutch of journals now promotes the new right’s ideas. First published in 2017, the quarterly American Affairs defends industrial policy and rejects the laissez-faire of conservatives past; it exemplifies the new right’s interest in using state power to reshape the economy and society. First Things and the American Conservative are older but represent the salience of religious and nationalist thinking. First Things has published essays in favour of a pro-family welfare state to complement abortion bans. The American Conservative has argued for limits on American support for the war in Ukraine. Their tiny circulation belies their significance in stirring debate and giving new-right thinkers a chance to burnish their reputations.

Part wonkish, part anti-woke

To translate such ideas into policy, new think-tanks have sprung up. Among the more sophisticated is American Compass, founded in 2020. “There was this white space in the institutional landscape to put out new ideas in a rigorous way,” says Oren Cass, its founder. He has no love for Mr Trump, whose actions following the 2020 election he called “impeachable offences”. Mr Cass prefers to focus on wonkish proposals in support of the Republican Party’s turn towards statism, which have been influential among lawmakers. 
Last year Senator Mitt Romney proposed a universal child allowance to cut poverty and encourage family formation. It shared many characteristics with a scheme from American Compass, but Mr Cass and his colleagues criticised the absence of an incentive for work. A new version of the bill released on June 15th incorporated an earnings requirement. Another proposal from the think-tank to create firm-based workers’ councils, rather than labour unions, has been taken up by Senator Marco Rubio.
Former officials from the Trump administration have also created think-tanks, perhaps for combat in the culture wars as much as for policy work. The America First Policy Institute and the Centre for Renewing America (cra) churn out reports on right-wing bugbears: the latter, for example, has drafted tools for school boards to clamp down on the teaching of critical race theory. America First Legal, founded by Stephen Miller, a former Trump aide, is challenging the Biden administration in court, mostly over any loosening of immigration rules.
These outfits are perhaps the most loyal on the new right to Mr Trump personally. The cra employs Jeffrey Clark, whom the former president attempted to install as attorney-general to help him remain in office. After the fbi searched Mr Clark’s home on June 22nd in connection with the plot, Russ Vought, president of the cra and Mr Trump’s former budget director, decried the raid as “criminalising politics”.
Whether policies become reality depends on attracting and developing cadres, particularly young ones. The most prominent of these efforts is the National Conservatism Conference, begun during the Trump administration and held annually. It has drawn not only the new right’s leading thinkers, but also many ambitious politicians like Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz. The opportunity to rub shoulders with new-right icons has made the conference hugely popular with young conservatives. That enthusiasm is evident in some older conservative institutions that cater to the young and to activists, including Turning Point usa and the Conservative Political Action Conference, which have embraced Mr Trump to retain their clout.
The Claremont Institute’s long-standing fellowship has alumni spread across the conservative movement. But American Moment, launched in February 2021, has made it its mission to identify and train young national conservatives for careers in Washington. “We’re looking for people who share our beliefs and motivations, to get them involved in the fight,” says Saurabh Sharma, the organisation’s president.
All of these initiatives require money. Some comes from donors that have long funded conservative causes, such as the Bradley, DeVos and Scaife foundations. Older institutions will compete for these funds: under a new president, the Heritage Foundation is shifting towards new-right positions and rhetoric, in part to retain access to donors; Trump-sceptical redoubts such as aei may fade into irrelevance in the party even as many remain formidable fundraisers.
But the new right has also proved adept at mobilising new funders. Peter Thiel, a venture capitalist and early backer of Mr Trump, has become a major benefactor to the National Conservatism Conference. Two Silicon Valley-based philanthropies, the Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network, have earmarked millions of dollars for organisations to develop alternatives to market-friendly policies. American Affairs, American Compass and American Moment have each managed to secure some of these grants.
The effectiveness of all this activity will become clearer after November’s mid-term elections. If Republicans retake both chambers, the party may need over 1,000 additional staff; the new right aims to contribute many of them. They will spread ideas and craft legislation. And they will eventually populate the executive branch under the next Republican president.
Where the new right may stumble is in its affiliation with Mr Trump. Many policy wonks are ambivalent about his continued involvement in Republican Party politics; they are more concerned about the long-term prospects of their own movement. Republican voters’ fealty to the erratic former president may thwart any hopes by new-right elites for a more disciplined successor, such as Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis. But any future new-right president will have a Washington army in waiting. 
For coverage of Joe Biden’s presidency, visit our dedicated hub and follow along as we track shifts in his approval rating. For exclusive insight and reading recommendations from our correspondents in America, sign up to Checks and Balance, our weekly newsletter.
This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Trumpism’s new Washington army"

United StatesJuly 8th 2022


Gingrich’s and the Republican’s National Security Act of 1995


A BILL

To improve the national security of the United States.

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``National Security Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.

  (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to ensure adequate resources

to protect the national security of the United States. To accomplish

this purpose, Congress should--

  (1) realistically assess United States military needs and reverse the

downward spiral of defense spending;

  (2) rapidly provide the American people, United States forces, and

United States allies with a capable defense against missile attacks;

  (3) restrict deployment of United States troops to missions that are

in the national interest of the United States;

  (4) maintain command and control by United States personnel of United

States forces participating in multinational operations and reform the

financial and operational relationship between the United States and the

United Nations; and

  (5) reemphasize the commitment of the United States to a strong and

viable NATO;

  (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

  (1) Since January 1993, presidential budgets and budget plans have set

forth a reduction in defense spending of $156,000,000,000 through fiscal

year 1999.

  (2) The fiscal year 1995 budget is the 10th consecutive year of

reductions in defense spending and, with the exception of 1948, is

projected to represent the lowest percentage of gross domestic product

for any defense budget since before World War II.

 

 SEC. 9. UNITED STATES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY 

ORGANIZATION.
  (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``NATO 
Revitalization and Expansion Act of 1995''.
  (b) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
  (1) For over 40 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has 
helped guarantee the security, freedom, and prosperity of the United 
States and our partners in the alliance.
  (2) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has expanded its membership 
on 3 different occasions since its founding in 1949.
  (3) The steadfast and sustained commitment of the member countries of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to mutual defense against the 
threat of Communist domination played a significant role in 
precipitating the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the demise of the 
Soviet Union.
  (4) In the place of that threat, new security threats are emerging to 
the shared interests of the member countries of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization.
  (5) Although these new threats are more geographically and 
functionally diverse and less predictable, they still imperil shared 
interests of the United States and our North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization allies.
  (6) Western interests must be protected on a cooperative basis without 
an undue burden falling upon the United States.
  (7) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the only multilateral 
organization that is capable of conducting effective military operations 
to protect Western interests.
  (8) The valuable experience gained from ongoing military cooperation 
within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was critical to the 
success of joint military operations in the 1991 liberation of Kuwait.
  (9) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an important diplomatic 
forum for discussion of issues of concern to its member states and for 
the peaceful resolution of disputes.
  (10) Admission of Central and East European countries that have 
recently been freed from Communist domination to the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization could contribute to international peace and enhance 
the security of those countries.
  (11) A number of countries, including the Visegrad countries (the 
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) and the Baltic states 
(Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), and Ukraine, have expressed interest 
in North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership.
  (12) In recognition of this interest, the ``Partnership for Peace'' 
proposal offers limited military cooperation to many European countries 
not currently members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but 
fails to establish benchmarks or guidelines for eventual North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization membership.
  (13) In particular, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia 
have made significant progress toward establishing democratic 
institutions, free market economies, civilian control of their armed 
forces, and the rule of law since the fall of their previous Communist 
governments.
  (c) United States Policy.--It should be the policy of the United 
States--
  (1) to continue our commitment to and active leadership role in the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
  (2) to join with our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies to 
redefine the role of the alliance in the post-Cold War world, taking 
into account--
  (A) the fundamentally changed security environment of Central and 
Eastern Europe,
  (B) the need to assure all countries of the defensive nature of the 
alliance and the desire of its members to work cooperatively with all 
former adversaries,
  (C) the emerging security threats posed by the proliferation of 
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction and the 
means to deliver them,
  (D) the continuing challenges to the interests of all North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization member countries posed by unstable and undemocratic 
regimes harboring hostile intentions, and
  (E) the dependence of the global economy on a stable energy supply and 
the free flow of commerce;
  (3) to affirm that North Atlantic Treaty Organization military 
planning should include joint military operations beyond the geographic 
bounds of the alliance under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty when 
the shared interests of the United States and other member countries 
require such action to defend vital interests;
  (4) that Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia should be 
in a position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and 
to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area not later than 
January 10, 1999, 5 years from the date of the establishment of the 
Partnership for Peace, and, in accordance with Article 10 of such 
Treaty, should be invited to become full NATO members not later than 
that date, provided these countries--
  (A) meet appropriate standards, including--
  (i) shared values and interests,
  (ii) democratic governments,
  (iii) free market economies,
  (iv) civilian control of the military,
  (v) adherence to the values, principles, and political commitments 
embodied in the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, and
  (vi) commitment to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic 
area; and
  (B) remain committed to protecting the rights of all their citizens 
and respecting the territorial integrity of their neighbors;
  (5) that the United States, other NATO member nations, and NATO itself 
should furnish appropriate assistance to facilitate the transition of 
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia to full NATO 
membership not later than January 10, 1999; and
  (6) that other European countries, in particular the Baltic states 
(Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), and Ukraine, emerging from communist 
domination may be in a position at a future date to further the 
principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to contribute to the 
security of the North Atlantic area, and at the appropriate time they 
should receive assistance to facilitate their transition to full NATO 
membership and should be invited to become full NATO members.
  (d) Authority for Program To Facilitate Transition to NATO 
Membership.--
  (1) In general.--The President may establish a program to assist the 
transition to full NATO membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, Slovakia, and other European countries emerging from communist 
domination designated by the President pursuant to paragraph (5).
  (2) Conduct of program.--The program established under paragraph (1) 
shall facilitate the transition to full NATO membership of the countries 
described in such subsection by supporting and encouraging, inter alia--
  (A) joint planning, training, and military exercises with NATO forces;
  (B) greater interoperability of military equipment, air defense 
systems, and command, control, and communications systems; and
  (C) conformity of military doctrine.
 
  (3) Type of assistance.--In carrying out the program established under 
paragraph (1), the President may provide to the countries described in 
such subsection the following types of security assistance:
  (A) The transfer of excess defense articles under section 516 of 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, without regard to the restrictions in 
paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a) of such section (relating 
to the eligibility of countries for such articles under such section).
  (B) The transfer of nonlethal excess defense articles under section 
519 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, without regard to the 
restriction in subsection (a) of such section (relating to the 
justification of the foreign military financing program for the fiscal 
year in which a transfer is authorized).
  (C) Assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961 (relating to the Economic Support Fund).
  (D) Assistance under chapter 5 of part II of that Act (relating to 
international military education and training).
  (E) Assistance under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act 
(relating to the ``Foreign Military Financing Program'').
  (4) Additional assistance.--In addition to the security assistance 
provided under paragraph (3), the President may, in carrying out the 
program established under paragraph (1), provide assistance from funds 
appropriated after the date of the enactment of this Act under the 
following accounts:
  (A) The ``Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund'' account.   (B) The 
``Countries in Transition'' account.
  (5) Designation of other european countries emerging from communist 
domination.--The President may designate other European countries 
emerging from communist domination to receive assistance under the 
program established under paragraph (1) if the President determines and 
reports to the appropriate congressional committees that such countries-
  (A) have made significant progress toward establishing--
  (i) shared values and interests,
  (ii) democratic governments,
  (iii) free market economies,
  (iv) civilian control of the military,
  (v) adherence to the values, principles, and political commitments 
embodied in the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, and
  (vi) commitment to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic 
area; and
  (B) are likely, within 5 years of such determination, to be in a 
position to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty and to 
contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.
  (e) Reporting Requirement.--
  (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, and at least once every year thereafter, the President 
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
implementation of this section.
  (2) Contents.--Each such report shall include--
  (A) an assessment of the progress made by Poland, Hungary, the Czech 
Republic, Slovakia, and other European countries emerging from communist 
domination designated by the President pursuant to section subsection 
(d)(5) toward meeting the standards for NATO membership set forth in 
Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, including--
  (i) an assessment of the progress of such countries toward 
establishing--
  (I) shared values and interests,
  (II) democratic governments,
  (III) free market economies,
  (IV) civilian control of the military,
  (V) adherence to the values, principles, and political commitments 
embodied in the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, and
  (VI) commitment to further the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic 
area; and
  (ii) the commitment of such countries to protecting the rights of all 
their citizens and respecting the territorial integrity of their 
neighbors;
  (B) a description of all assistance provided under the program 
established under section 4, or otherwise provided by the United States 
Government to facilitate the transition to full NATO membership of 
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other European 
countries emerging from communist domination designated by the President 
pursuant to subsection (d)(5); and
  (C) a description of all assistance provided by other NATO member 
nations or NATO itself to facilitate the transition to full NATO 
membership of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other 
European countries emerging from communist domination designated by the 
President pursuant to subsection (d)(5).
  (f) Definitions.--
  For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
  (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term ``appropriate 
congressional committees'' means the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the 
Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations, the 
Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
Senate.
  (2) NATO.--The term ``NATO'' means the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization.
  (3) Other european countries emerging from communist domination.--The 
term ``other European countries emerging from communist domination'' 
means--
  (A) any member of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 
located--
  (i) in the territory of the former Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics; or
  (ii) in the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia; or
  (B) Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, or Albania.

 

 

 






Attachment: The Straussian Moment, Peter Thiel, President, Clarium Capital Management.pdf
Description: The Straussian Moment, Peter Thiel, President, Clarium Capital Management.pdf



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.