www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Natopoly
t byfield on Fri, 4 Jun 1999 03:31:57 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Natopoly


<http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=349079561>

   1998CRS3739D EXECUTIVE SESSION
   Author:  noone <noone {AT} senate.gov>
   Date:    1998/04/30
   Forum:   gov.us.fed.congress.record.senate
   
Archive-Name: gov/us/fed/congress/record/1998/apr/29/1998CRS3739D
[Congressional Record: April 29, 1998 (Senate)]
[Page S3739-S3744]
>From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr29ap98-127]


                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______


PROTOCOLS TO THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY OF 1949 ON ACCESSION OF POLAND,
                    HUNGARY, AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
go into executive session and resume consideration of Executive
Calendar No. 16, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Treaty Document No. 105-36, Protocols to the North Atlantic
     Treaty of 1949 on Accession of Poland, Hungary and the Czech
     Republic.
  The Senate resumed consideration of the treaty.
  Pending:

     <...~550 lines deleted...>

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the administration often claims its aim
in expanding NATO is to foster democracy, stability, and economic
reform in Central Europe. But there already is democracy, stability and
economic reform in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Besides, if
this was our aim wouldn't the European Union, whose fundamental purpose
is to spur growth and stability through integration, be a better
vehicle for accomplishing these goals than NATO, which is after all a
military alliance? If our goal is to expand markets and democracy, why
don't we use our leverage to promote the expansion of the European
Union?

 <...>

  There is no question in my mind that colleagues who support NATO
expansion do so because they believe it would be in the interests of
the United States and think it would be the right thing to do. I
question no colleage on that. But I am troubled by the fact that U.S.
arms makers have played a major role in lobbying for NATO expansion.
And this lobbying has been confined just to the United States. As
difficult as it may be to believe, McDonnell Douglas helped the
Hungarian Government win public support in a referendum on joining NATO
by financing a CD-ROM game called ``Natopoly'' that was distributed
free to libraries throughout Hungary. The Washington Post described it
as a ``piece of slick, unabashedly pro-NATO software.''
  Mr. President, U.S. arms makers seem to equate expanding NATO with
expanding profits. To explain what I mean, let me quote from a June 29,
1997 New York Times article entitled, ``Arms Makers See Bonanza in
Selling NATO Expansion'':

       At night, Bruce L. Jackson is president of the U.S.
     Committee to Expand NATO, giving intimate dinners for
     Senators and foreign officials. By day, he is director of
     strategic planning for Lockheed Martin Corporation.
       Mr. Jackson says he keeps his two identities separate, but
     his company and his lobbying group are fighting the same
     battle. Defense contractors are acting like globe-hopping
     diplomats to encourage the expansion of NATO, which will
     create a huge market for their wares.
       . . . ``The stakes are high'' for arms makers, said Joel L.
     Johnson, vice president for international affairs at the
     Aerospace Industries Association. . . . ``Whoever gets in
     first will have a lock for the next quarter century.'' The
     potential market for jets alone is $10 billion, he said. . .
     . ``Then there's transport aircraft, utility helicopters,
     attack helicopters,'' Mr. Johnson said--not to mention
     military communications systems, computers, radar, radios,
     and other tools of a modern fighting force. ``Add these
     together, and we're talking real money,'' he said.

  And the real ``real money'' he's talking about is more likely to come
from the U.S. taxpayers than from new NATO members. In fact, it appears
as if funds are already coming from the U.S. taxpayer to subsidize arms
purchases by potential NATO members.

     <... ~172 lines deleted...>
---
#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner {AT} desk.nl