Lobbyist believes terrorism can't halt NATO expansion

Bruce P. Jackson, who visited the Baltics last week, is president of the U.S. Committee on NATO, a non-profit organization and, he says, "political movement" consisting of both Republicans and Democrats lobbying hard for the expansion of NATO. He also happens to be vice president for strategy and planning at the U.S. aeronautics company Lockheed Martin. Interview by Jorgen Johansson.

The Baltic Times: NATO expansion is a hot topic at the moment, perhaps even more talked about than the previous round of expansion. But is it really that important to expand the alliance further east?

Bruce P. Jackson: After Sept. 11, the alliance started acting, and all candidate countries started acting, as true allies. People are now looking at the Prague summit with much more importance. It's not a summit where we'll only talk about expansion. We will also talk about redefining our relationship with Russia.

What's more important right now: expanding NATO or fighting the global war against terrorism?

I think they're inseparable. Terrorism is one of the new missions NATO has to confront. It used to be: there's no need to expand NATO because there is no threat. Well, now there is a threat.

Putin seems to have softened his stance and outright opposition to NATO expansion to the Baltics since Sept. 11. Have the United States and Russia made some sort of compromise on this issue since that date?

Bush explicitly ruled out that in his speech in Warsaw (in June). Putin and Bush meeting and shaking hands is historical. There was no deal before the first round of expansion, and there is no deal now.

America has repeatedly declared its support for NATO expansion to the Baltics. But countries like Germany and the U.K. are not so keen. How will you win them over?

I think the German doubt was clearly based on the Russian reaction to expanding the alliance further east. I also think some of it is cultural. But Germany and the U.K. have historically voted en masse with other countries.

What argument is there for the three Baltic countries being admitted to NATO as a region, as opposed to the most prepared nation joining before the others?

The most obvious argument is that they all meet the standards on individual preparations. The Baltics and the Nordics are becoming one very successful region in Europe. They have basically showed us the way. Nothing is accomplished by giving false regards.

The U.S. Senate passed only days ago a bill granting the Baltic states $21 million, $6.5 million for Estonia, $7 million for Latvia and $7.5 million for Lithuania, in order to guarantee their security. Do these figures indicate that these countries are not ready to join NATO and that they could in fact become more of a burden to the military organization than a benefit?

The way to read this is congressional support. This is the first time Congress voted on what Bush said in Warsaw. It's a very small amount of money, talking about NATO expansion, and it's also a way for the Senate to show that Bush has its support.

How much of a say does the U.S. Committee on NATO really have when it comes to expansion?

Over the last six-and-a-half years, we've accumulated some credibility with the Senate. We're a political movement that support America and NATO. The committee has both Republicans and Democrats, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are against NATO expansion.

Did you use any of this influence when Estonia and Latvia decided to buy radar equipment from Lockheed Martin?

I don't do sales. I work on mergers and acquisitions. I am just the guy who files all the paperwork. I was asked the same question by a Polish journalist, and I asked him back if he was a Catholic. He said he was. So I asked him how many times he mentions the pope in his texts. He said never. You see, working for a corporation and working for a volunteer organization are two things we separate more clearly in the United States.