Key Person: The 60th Anniversary by a British Historian Who Made NATO More Active than Ever

Jamie Patrick Shea

Director of Policy Planning in the Private Office of NATO Secretary General, United Kingdom

Education: B.A., Surrey University; D.Phil., Oxford University



NATO held the 60th anniversary summit at Strasburg and Kehl in early April this year. France has come back to NATO command structure prior to this historical landmark. Jamie Shea has been working for NATO since he received his doctorate degree from Oxford University. Currently, he is the closest policy advisor to Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Netherlands).

In order to promote public understanding on NATO, Shea gives lectures on NATO history through the video, entitled “Jamie’s History Class”. As he mentions in the video of the first lecture, we learn history to understand what happens in the future. NATO is in the era of transition. It faces new threats of global terrorism, non-state actors, nuclear proliferation, and the Russo-Chinese challenges. As threats evolves increasingly global, NATO operations spread outside the Euro-Atlantic area. Also, NATO has transformed into an acting and fighting organization instead of a deterrence organization against communism. Shea endorsed NATO intervention in Kosovo.

As if implying his future of being involved in policymaking at the turning point, Jamie Shea was born in London on 9-11 in 1953. Having received degrees in modern history from Surrey and Oxford Universities, Shea has been engaged in public relations and policymaking for NATO.

His lecture entitled “1949: NATO’s Anxious Birth” presents some lessons to Atlantic and global security present days. Jamie Shea is right to say that history is a mirror to foretell the future.

From the beginning, some NATO members explored to expand the organization’s coverage out of the Euro-Atlantic region. France wanted to include French colonies in Africa. Actually, Algeria was under NATO’s security umbrella, before winning independence in 1962. The Netherland wanted Indonesia, Belgium wanted Congo, and Portugal wanted Mozambique and Angola, included into NATO defense area. There is something common between these past arguments and global NATO debate today.

Also, Europeans tried to entangle the United States with their security in face of Red Army threat posed by Stalin. This is true to Missile Defense debate these days. Poles and Czechs want to keep the United States close in order to curb the threat by increasingly nationalistic Russia.

The role of NATO is a vital issue in present context as well: whether to deal with military issues only or including socio-humanitarian ones. While Britain and France preferred military role only, Canada insisted on including humanitarian role as currently stated in Article Ⅱ of the organization.

Regarding trans-Atlantic involvement, Shea tells conflicts between isolationists and internationalists in the United States.

Jamie Shea mentions in this lecture that the Congress and the military wanted Europeans to rearm by themselves during the early days of postwar era. Shea points out that they were so isolationists because they desired that the United States retain the right to declare the war independent of multilateral organizations. Come to think of it, Americans took the Iron Curtain Speech by Sir Winston Churchill so bluntly at first.

On the other hand, Department of State was a leading proponent to build a multilateral security organization to deter Soviet expansionism. Shea points out that the Vandenberg resolution by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg enabled the United States to overcome constitutional restraints to join a multilateral military command structure.

Once involved, the United States has expanded the notion of trans-Atlantic security more broadly than Europeans. Unlike the WEU, the United States included peripheries like Norway, Iceland, Italy, and Portugal into NATO. The foundation objective of NATO was to deter communists, not necessarily to promote democracy. Shea points out that even the membership for General Franco’s Spain was considered.

Another point of focus is Britain in the Atlantic community. Shortly after World War Ⅱ, Britain was a proponent of joint European defense. The United Kingdom led the launch of the WEU. Sir Winston Churchill endorsed regional integration to reconstruct war devastated Europe. However, once NATO was established, Britain leaned toward the special relationship with the United States rather than leading European integration. Shea says this was a lost opportunity for British diplomacy.

Finally, Shea mentions a critical point that real victors of NATO creation were Germany and Italy. I strongly agree with him, considering relatively isolated Japan in the postwar era, because of its hesitation to join collective security organizations.

NATO history presents us with lots of implications to trans-Atlantic security, and also foreign policy of the United States, Britain, and continental Europe. In addition, the German-Italian experience gives invaluable lessons to Japan.

“Jamie’s History Class” is a great help to understand the past and the future of trans-Atlantic affairs, or more broadly the Western alliance of liberal democratic nations. More importantly, he is a man who made NATO more active than ever. Therefore, I recommend this video lecture series for highly motivated students of international affairs.

Key Person: From Grand Old Party to Grand New Party?

Sam’s Club Republican

Title: Various
Education: Various
United States

(Photo: “Sam’s Club Politics”; In These Times; May 30, 2008)


In this post, the person of focus is not a single individual. However, they are suitable to what is mentioned in the first post of this category, “This corner talks about specific person who advocates important agendas in international affairs, regardless of fame, power, popularity, and social status.” In a previous post, I have quoted a comment by Mara Liasson, saying that Senator John McCain’s presidential candidacy is due to the shift of Republican political base from Country Club Republicans to Sam’s Club Republicans. In other words, Republicans have begun to drawing attention from young and working class voters, through emphasizing social conservative values and active governmental involvement in social welfare.

Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota, is the first Republican to expand political power base beyond traditional sphere. Matthew Continetti, Associate Editor at the Weekly Standard, explores changes toward increasingly grassroots-oriented Republican Party (“Tooting the Horn of Pawlenty: Meet the first Sam's Club Republican”, Weekly Standard; May 7, 2007).

Continetti points out that younger generation between 18 to 29 years old are disillusioned with Bush Republicanism. In addition, he says that successful Republican governors these days――such as Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts――adopt conservatism à la carte policies. While emphasizing some conservative ideals like lower taxes, they are flexible to mix some “liberal” measures. Their policies combine social conservatism with active governmental assistance to working class.

In 2006 election, Democrats won the majority because younger voters were annoyed　with Country Club Republicans and chose Democrat candidates. The Republican Party regards this serious blow for the future, because the youth can continue to support the Democrat. In such a political climate, did Pawlenty’s slogan of “The Party of Sam’s Club” emerge.

Continetti concludes his article as the following.

Few people would deny that Tim Pawlenty is a man of the right. The problem is that it's becoming harder and harder to determine who or what is a "man of the right." The top three Republican presidential candidates--Giuliani, McCain, and Romney--all disagree with aspects of the movement-conservative agenda. Outside the South, successful Republican politicians have felt the need to move left in order to remain competitive. For all but diehard activists, the borders of conservatism are in flux. It's reasonable to assume that someday soon, after a haphazard and acrimonious process, those borders will be worked out. The question is just how much of what we think of as "conservatism" will be left.

Prior to this article, Ross Douthat, Associate Editor of the Atlantic Monthly, and Reihan Salem, freelance writer, present dedicated analyses of Sam’s Club voters (“The party of Sam’s Club”; Weekly Standard; November 14, 2005). They point out that the Bush administration’s enterprise-oriented socio-economic policies such as Social Security privatization. However, both authors argue that the majority of Republican supporters, consisted of social conservatives and pro-government conservatives are critical to big business, and they advocate governmental intervention to help families from the global economy.

In view of socio-economic changes, the Republican is transforming from a male corporate party to a female family party. In conclusion, Douthat and Salem make the following recommendation.

So today's Republican party should be in favor of helping recent immigrants get ahead and slowing the flow of illegal labor--in favor of providing a helping hand to the hard working poor and cutting subsidies to the idle and shiftless--in favor of a tax policy that favors the working class and the productive rich. Above all, it should be in favor of limited government, and in favor of using government's considerable power to shore up the institution that makes a limited government possible--the beleaguered but resilient American family.

Since then, Ross Douthat has contributed a post-scrip of this article (“The party of Sam’s Club”; Atlantic Monthly; May 8, 2008). He says that Senator John McCain and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee drew more votes than Congressman Ron Paul at the primary, because the GOP is changing from a country club party to a working class party. Many of them are skilled workers, and more affluent than the middle class such as teachers, journalists, and academics. They do not believe in a high tax welfare state, but advocate governmental assistance to maintain a family value society. They criticize corporate libertarianism like free trade.

In order to defeat Democrats relying on mass upper class and the poor, Douthat suggests that Republicans need to win some mass upper class votes along with working class. Therefore, the GOP must retain pro-Bush voters while drawing Sam’s Club supporters. This will be a key to McCain’s nomination of his running mate.

Adam Doster, Senior Editor at In These Times, applauds Douthat and Salem because their working class conservatism hits Democrat’s lack of moral value. However, Doster points out that Douthat and Salem fail to present insightful analyses on socio-economic inequality under the Bush administration. Adam Doster says that John McCain needs to address real working class conservatism （“Sam’s Club Politics”; In These Times; May 30, 2008）.

Sam’s Club Republicans will play a critical role in the presidential election this year. The media focus on Iraq, the War on Terror, and the Subprime mortgage. But grassroots movements are no less important in this election. Will the Grand New Party stimulate political dynamism of America?

Key Person: U.S. Policy on Iran

Patrick Clawson
Deputy Director for Research, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, United States

Education: BA, Oberlin College; Ph D, New School for Social Research







I would like to talk about a leading expert on Iran, in order to foresee American policy against Iran. Iranian theocracy has been one of the most serious threats to the West and the global community since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Currently, Iran conflicts with the West on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and security in Iraq.

Patrick Clawson has written numerous books about the Middle East with special focus on Iran, including “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005, with Michael Rubin) and “Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran” (Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, 2005, edited with Henry Sokolski). Prior to joining the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Clawson was a senior research professor at the National Defense University, and then, worked for the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

In the post, entitled “Can We Talk with Iran?” on this blog, I mentioned his policy paper, “Forcing Hard Choices on Iran.” While Clawson insists that the United States demonstrate its military strength to deter Ahmadinejad’s adventurism, he refutes any kind of simple-minded approaches to attack Iran immediately. Fluent in Farsi, he is well aware of Iranian aspiration for a great power status by acquiring nuclear weapons.

Since then, Iran continues to be a problematic nation. On nuclear issue, Iran remains adamant to reject UN resolution to stop enriching uranium. On Iraq, Iran sponsors Shiite uprising, and it even detains 15 British sailors and marines. How can we talk with these issues with Iran? Should we expect Iran to be a responsible stakeholder on political stability in Iraq? Let me review his recent articles and comments to the media.

In a Policy Watch, “Hanging Tough on Iran”, released by the Washington Institute on February 9, Clawson points out fundamental weakness of Iran on nuclear negotiations. Despite this, Iran misunderstands its position. Certainly, Iran increased government revenue in 2006, thanks to high oil price. He argues Iran’s weakness from the following points. As to the economy, Iran is heavily dependent on oil. IAEA forecasts oil price will not rise steeply this year, because non-OPEC countries will increase the supply. Strategically, Iran is completely isolated from the world. As Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment, EU 3 (Britain, Germany, and France), Middle East neighbors, and even China and Russia, are increasingly concerned with growing Iranian threats. Politically, revolutionary ideology is losing ground. The government loosened bans on entertainment, such as mixed-sex dancing and alcohol.

Regarding Iraq issues, Clawson insists that it is not of much use to appease Iran. In another policy watch, “Engaging Iran on Iraq: At What Price and to What End?”, he points out that Iran has little interest to talk with the United States on Iraq. Even supposedly moderate Ali Rafsanjani argues that there is no reason for Iran to help the United States getting out of the Iraqi quagmire. Supreme Leader Ali Hossein Khamenei remarked “To justify their presence, the occupiers need insecurity in Iraq. Accordingly, they fan insecurity and instability” in Keyhan newspaper on November 27. Furthermore, Clawson points out that Iranian influence on Iraq is overestimated. He says that Iran can cause trouble, but cannot bring peace.

Patrick Clawson recommends further pressure on Iran in his article, “Iran Options”, in San Diego Union-Tribune on February 18. Due to isolation from the world, Iran has a limited access to foreign technology to develop nuclear weapons. However, adamant leaders in Iran are not likely to surrender in a short period, and the United States needs to reassure its allies in the Middle East protected from Iranian threat. Otherwise, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, may explore nuclear possession. Even a pre-emptive attack against Iran should not be ruled out.

Established in 1985, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has been committed to advance US interests in the Middle East, notably, security, peace, prosperity, democracy, and stability. The Board of Advisors includes influential policymakers from both parties. Patrick Clawson is a leading expert on Iran at the Washington Institute. Therefore, he is a man of focus for Iran watchers.

Key Person: Understanding Chinese Foreign Policy

Yan Xuetong (閻学通)
Professor/Director, Institute of International Affairs, Tsinghua University, China

Global American Discourse has launched a new corner, entitled “Key Person.” This corner talks about specific person who advocates important agendas in international affairs, regardless of fame, power, popularity, and social status. In the first post of “Key Person”, I am talking of Yan Xuetong.

It is quite difficult to understand Chinese way of thinking in global power games. Particularly, China’s hard-nosed attitude to the United States and Japan is unpleasant for me. But it is no use to see things simply through emotional perspectives. In order to understand China rationally, it is the best to read some commentaries written by Chinese opinion leaders.

Professor Yan received his BA from Heilongiang University in 1982, MA from the Institute of International Relations in 1986, and PhD from University of California, Berkeley in 1992. Since then, he has been writing numerous books and articles on Chinese foreign policy, US-Chinese relations, and Asia-Pacific security. He advises the Chinese government, and contributes essays to Chinese and foreign journals.

I would like to mention two articles to understand Yan Xuetong’s viewpoint on Chinese policy to the United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific region.

The first one is “The Rise of China in Chinese Eyes” in the Journal of Contemporary China in October 2001. In this article, Professor Yan points out that the rise of China is a long cherished desire among Chinese people to restore a great power status before the Opium War. Furthermore, he insists that the rise of China will benefit the world as a counter balance to American hegemony and a market with huge potential.

He points out that China had been the leading world power before the Opium War. For the Chinese, the rise of their nation is regaining lost international status. On the other hand, Chinese leaders never dream of catching up with the Unites States, and they are well aware of miserable failure in the Great Leap Forward. Yan insists that China is aiming at becoming the leader of the Third World, and its rise is peaceful. He criticizes US foreign policy belligerent, and advocates China’s role to constrain US-led unipolar world. Moreover, he argues that China will make the world more civilized through prevailing Confucian values as opposed to Western values. Finally, Yan mentions positive impacts of the Chinese market on the world economy.

In an article, entitled “Sino-US Relations in the Eyes of Chinese” (People’s Daily, March 4, 2005), Yan analyses survey results of public opinion poll on US-Chinese relations. Although Chinese people saw American people and society favorably, they were concerned with US foreign policy with regard to war in Iraq (37.6%), selling weapons to Taiwan (31.7%), and strengthening military ties with Japan (7.9%). Professor Yan commented as below.

All the Chinese public's dissatisfaction with the US is almost concentrated solely on the US's foreign policies, particularly the policy on China. Among other issues the Taiwan question is the core. Above 60 percent believe it to be the main question affecting the Sino-US relations in the future while about 32 percent Americans think the greatest issue in the Sino-US relations is that of human rights.

The media has an influence on people's opinion of the Sino-US relations, which cannot be underestimated. It is not so hard to see that as far as international affairs are concerned the Chinese public generally accepts what the media says.

It was also for this reason that Yan Xuetong pointed out the fact that among the reasons Chinese felt dissatisfied with the US the option of "selling weapons to Taiwan" and that of "waging the war in Iraq" were chosen by roughly the same number of people while people who chose the option of "strengthening military ties with Japan" were few - a phenomenon which greatly surprised Yan. "One of the things happened far away from us, another is a big thing which happened just outside our door and the other happened right inside our home. How could it be this result?" Yan Xuetong warned: "Think about the coverage our media devoted to Iraq, which was who knows how many times more than that of the US' arms sales to Taiwan!" Regarding "the US and Japan strengthening military ties" Ding Gang believes judging from the statistics many people were not aware of that at all or did not know much.

Professor Yan Xuetong articulates Chinese viewpoint and ambitions on the global stage. However, he is too unconscious of the threat posed by China to the global society. As to “The Rise of China in Chinese Eyes”, Ted Osius, Deputy Director of the Office of Korean Affairs at the U.S. State Department, questions Yan’s opinion that China as a peaceful power.

China lives in an uncertain neighborhood. While Russia and India hold potential for cooperation, they are not natural allies. Events in South Asia, the Korean peninsula, or the Taiwan Strait, could lead China to use force to safeguard its own interests. Recent history does not support Mr. Yan’s claim that China has a benign track record. In 1979, China attacked Vietnam; recent actions in the South China Sea are seen as provocative, especially by ASEAN; and only three years ago China tested its missiles in the Taiwan Strait. Today it is rattling the same saber. Indeed, China’s leaders have pointedly not ruled out the use of force to settle the Taiwan question.

Mr. Yan acknowledges that some in China would like to challenge America’s role in the world. Indeed, two of China’s senior colonels recently published “Unrestricted War,” examining methods a weak China might use when standing up to a strong U.S.

Discussing dangers the U.S. and Japan might pose to North Korea, Mr. Yan again
reminds us that China’s perspective is shaped by history. While it was only 68 years ago that Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria, today China has no reason to fear Japan militarily. Still, China has not dropped its quest for Japanese apologies and does not treat Japan as a normal country, one with a right to assume responsibility for its own defense. It is now time to ask if Japan, which also has a rich and remarkable history, should indefinitely limit its role in the world. Should China have a veto over Japan’s security policies? My answer is no.

In addition to Osius’s comment, I would like to mention the following. Throughout the history, Chinese emperors had been treating foreign kings as their junior partners. Only since the defeat in the Opium War, the Chinese accepted the Westphalian norms of international relations. Until blown up with Queen Victoria’s big gun, the Chinese looked down on foreigners as barbarians. Professor Yan misses this point when he advocates the Chinese world order. However, his articles are helpful to understand the underlying logic of Chinese foreign policy. Yan Xuetong is really a key person to the world.