![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper shows that, during 1991–1992, the George H.W. Bush Administration settled to pursue NATO enlargement in order to ensure both stability in and influence over Europe. Both were necessary subsidiary objectives towards achieving long-term security aims and the medium-term goal of furthering American prosperity. Bush officials concluded that European instability, protectionism, and self-absorption could menace US-led economic globalization. Anchoring NATO at the centre of the post-Cold War European order was seen as the best available response. NATO enlargement would alleviate European security concerns; prevent the emergence of regional security structures that endangered the Alliance; and provide the leverage Washington needed to encourage European participation in America’s global economic order.
Acknowledgements
For their suggestions on earlier drafts, we thank Matthew Blackburn, Linde Desmaele, Tongfi Kim, Alexander Mattelaer, Hugo Meijer, Sergey Radchenko, Jonas Schneider, Luis Simon, Max Smeets, Thierry Tardy, Maaike Verbruggen and two anonymous reviewers. We are both grateful to the German Academic Exchange Service for supporting our common research stay at Johns Hopkins SAIS. In addition, Liviu owes a debt of gratitude to the Center for Security Studies at the ETH Zurich and the Swiss National Science Foundation for funding most of his research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, ‘Eastbound and down: The United States, NATO Enlargement, and Suppressing the Soviet and Western European Alternatives, 1990–1992’, Journal of Strategic Studies, forthcoming 2020. Shifrinson’s work builds upon findings in Timothy Andrews Sayle, Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 2019).
2 For an impressive contemporary analysis, C. Fred Bergsten, ‘The Primacy of Economics’, Foreign Policy, no. 87 (Summer 1992): 3–24.
3 For instance, Mary Elise Sarotte, ‘Perpetuating U.S. Preeminence: The 1990 Deals to “Bribe the Soviets Out” and Move NATO In’, International Security 35/1 (Summer 2010): 110–37; and ‘Not One Inch Eastward?’, Diplomatic History 34/1 (January 2010): 119–40; Joshua R. Shifrinson, ‘Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion’, International Security 40/4 (Spring 2016): 7–44; or Liviu Horovitz, ‘The George H.W. Bush Administration’s Policies Vis-à-Vis Central Europe: From Cautious Encouragement to Cracking Open NATO’s Door’, in Open Door: NATO and Euro-Atlantic Security after the Cold War, ed. Daniel S. Hamilton and Kristina Spohr (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2019): 71–92; see also Mark Kramer, ‘The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia’, The Washington Quarterly 32/2 (April 2009): 39–61; or Kristina Spohr, ‘Precluded or Precedent-Setting? The “NATO Enlargement Question” in the Triangular Bonn-Washington-Moscow Diplomacy of 1990–1991’, Journal of Cold War Studies 14/4 (Fall 2012): 4–54.
4 We suspect that there are two reasons why few studies have explored the politico-economic dimension of the Bush Administration’s push for NATO enlargement. First, given their interest in the security relations between Washington, Moscow, and the most important European capitals, scholars have tended to give little attention to economic affairs. Second, and related, the paucity of studies on the economic dimension may be a function of the declassification requests submitted by historians working on this era. While a slew of documents on security affairs have been released in recent years, numerous documents dealing with macroeconomic issues remain classified. For instance, NSC meetings on economics, documents on EC92, and a majority of the memos coming from the Council of Economic Advisers are still to be released.
5 Lawrence S. Eagleburger, ‘Memo for Christopher: Parting Thoughts: US Foreign Policy in the Years Ahead’, 5 January 1993. The memo was drafted by William J. Burns, the head of Policy Planning at the State Department. See also Dennis B. Ross, ‘Memo for Baker: Foreign Policy in the Second Bush Administration: An Overview’, 30 April 1992. Both memos are available in the William J. Burns, ‘The Back Channel’ Archive. For a useful background on these memos see The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal (New York: Random House 2019), especially pp. 78–81. For early articulations of similar rationales, ‘NATO and the New Architecture’ and ‘Developing US-EC Relations’, both 14 March 1989, George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, College Station, Texas (Bush Library), NSC Collection, Condoleezza Rice 1989–1990 Subject Files CF00720-007, Gates’ Group.
6 Nicholas F. Brady, ‘Memo for Bush: Trade Review’, 7 July 1989, and Michael Boskin, Richard L. Schmalensee, and John B. Taylor, ‘Report for the President: Overview of the United States Economy’, 14 August 1990, both in Bush Library, Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) Collection, Michael Boskin Files, [1989]: Trade 1989 and 08061 [Overview of the United States Economy]; also, Stephen Knott, ‘Interview with Carla Hills’, 6 January 2004, University of Virginia, Miller Center, George H.W. Bush Oral History Project.
7 Brent Scowcroft, ‘Memo for Bush: US Diplomacy for the New Europe’, 22 December 1989, Bush Library, Scowcroft Collection, 91116 German Unification (December 1989). Also, ‘Memo for Bush: Your Meetings in Brussels with NATO Leaders’, 29 November 1989, and ‘US Policy in Eastern Europe in 1990’, January 1990, Bush Library, Scowcroft Collection, 91116 German Unification (November 1989) and NSC Collection, Robert D. Blackwill Chronological Files 30547–010, January 1990. For Francis Fukuyama’s essay, ‘The End of History?’, The National Interest, no. 16 (Summer 1989): 3–18.
8 The best available overview is Jeffrey A. Engel, When the World Seemed New: George H. W. Bush and the End of the Cold War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2017); also Hal Brands, ‘Choosing Primacy: US Strategy and Global Order at the Dawn of the Post-Cold War Era’, Texas National Security Review 1/2 (February 2018): 8–33; Sayle, Enduring Alliance; and Kristina Spohr, Post Wall, Post Square: Rebuilding the World after 1989 (New York: Harper Collins 2019).
9 Eagleburger, ‘Memo for Christopher: Parting Thoughts: US Foreign Policy in the Years Ahead’, 5 January 1993; for the public articulation of these priorities, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, ‘Charting the Course: US Foreign Policy in a Time of Transition’, 7 January 1993, Princeton Mudd Library, James A. Baker Papers (Baker Papers), 171.4.Background, 1992–1993.
10 Robert L. Hutchings and Timothy E. Deal, ‘Memo for Gates: Deputies Committee Meeting to Review Economic Issues in NSR 5: US-Western Europe Relations’, 21 March 1989, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Robert D. Blackwill Chronological Files 30540–006, March 1989 [1]; CIA Directorate of Intelligence, ‘EC-1992: The Revitalization of Europe’, 25 January 1989, Bush Library, Scowcroft Collection, 91148 Other (January-March 1989); ‘Memorandum of Conversation between President George Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’, 10 February 1989, Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons; James A. Baker and Thomas DeFrank, The Politics of Diplomacy (New York: Putnam 1995), 44; and David C. Gompert, ‘Bush Meeting with Prime Minister Santer and EC President Delors’, 11 April 1991, Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons.
11 Robert L. Hutchings, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: National Security Council Meeting on Western Europe and Eastern Europe’, 4 April 1989, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Robert D. Blackwill Chronological Files 30542–001, April 1989 [1]. These dynamics are mirrored in Bush’s conversations with Kohl. See, for instance, David C. Gompert, ‘Bush Meeting with Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany’, 15 July 1991, and ‘Bush Meeting with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany’, 21 March 1992, both from Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons. These conclusions were also corroborated by interviews with NSC and DOS officials, November and December 2018, Washington D.C.
12 For concerns with respect to the US military-industrial base, see Don Pilling, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: Proposed National Security Review (NSR) of the Defense Industrial Base’, 21 February 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Donald L. Pilling Chronological Files CF01007-003, February 1992. Also, telephone interview with Joint Chief of Staff official, April 2018, Zurich. We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing us in this direction.
13 For an excellent assessment of US problems and solutions from a UK perspective, Brian Griffiths, ‘Letter to Thatcher: US Visit – Economy’, 18 February 1988, The National Archives of the United Kingdom (TNA), Prime Minister’s Office Records (PREM) 19/3205; also, John B. Taylor, ‘Brief Overview of Camp David Meeting with Outside Economists’, 22 April 1989, Bush Library, CEA Collection, John B. Taylor Subject Files 04329–030 Camp David Meetings (General); or George H. W. Bush, All the Best: My Life in Letters and Other Writings (New York: Scribner 1999), 551.
14 Policymakers understood that NAFTA would place the US in a better position relative to its global competitors. However, without the multilateral rules of the Uruguay Round that provided enhanced access for American producers, the domestic political and financial costs of both global trade and regional agreements like NAFTA would be very high – potentially too high for progress on both pillars, or even too high for just sustaining these pillars on the long-term. Consequently, US planners feared that domestic support for free trade would diminish, and both pillars would dwindle. See Carla A. Hills, ‘Discussion Paper for Economic Policy Council Meeting on Uruguay Round’, 9 April 1990, Bush Library, CEA Collection, Michael Boskin Files, CF01113 [1990]: 4/10/90, EPC [Economic Policy Council] Meeting (2:30 p.m.), Roosevelt Room, re: Uruguay Round: Agricultural Negotiations; and Adrian Basora, ‘Bush Telephone Call with Prime Minister Mulroney of Canada’, 5 February 1991, Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons.
15 Eagleburger, ‘Memo for Christopher: Parting Thoughts: US Foreign Policy in the Years Ahead’, 5 January 1993.
16 See David C. Gompert, ‘Bush Meeting with Francois Mitterrand, President of France’, 14 March 1991; ‘Bush Meeting with Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany’, 20 May 1991; ‘Bush Meeting with the EC Members on the Uruguay Round’, 13 November 1991; and ‘Bush Meeting with President Mitterrand of France’, 31 January 1992, all from Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons.
17 CIA Directorate of Intelligence, ‘The United States in the New Europe’, 22 January 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Barry Lowenkron Subject Files CF01527, ESSG [European Strategy Steering Group]: ESSG Meeting – 3 February 1992; for a similar assessment from the British perspective, Anthony A. Acland, ‘Telegram to FCO: NATO and European Security’, 17 February 1991, TNA, PREM 19/3326.
18 ‘Transcript Baker 1-on-1 Meeting with FRG FM Kinkel at the Department of State’, 30 June 1992; and ‘Memo for Baker: Meeting with German FM Klaus Kinkel’, 29 June 1992, both in Baker Papers, 111.5.1992 June. Revealing is also Robert B. Zoellick, ‘Meeting between POTUS and President Mitterrand’, 5 July 1992, Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons.
19 Eagleburger, ‘Memo for Christopher: Parting Thoughts: US Foreign Policy in the Years Ahead’, 5 January 1993; see also ‘The Rome Summit and NATO’s Mission’, February 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Barry Lowenkron Subject File CF01527-019, ESSG [European Strategy Steering Group]: ESSG Meeting – 21 February 1992.
20 Barry F. Lowenkron, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: Prime Minister Major and NATO Membership’, 5 June 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Nicholas Rostow Subject Files CF01329-005 NATO [1]. For reporting on Eagleburger’s statements, William Drozdiak, ‘NATO and former enemies sign pact slashing arms’, Boston Globe, 6 June 1992.
21 Telephone interview, December 2018, Washington D.C.
22 The earliest available source outlining this trade-off is ‘Summary of Conclusions: European Strategy Steering Group Meeting of November 29–30, 1990’, December 1990, Bush Library, NSC Collection Barry Lowenkron Subject File CF01527-032, ESSG [European Strategy Steering Group]: ESSG Meeting of European Pillar – [27 March 1991].
23 Brent Scowcroft, ‘Memo for Bush: NATO and European Integration’, 11 March 1991, Bush Library, Scowcroft Collection, 91150 Other (January-April 1991) [1].
24 See, for instance, David C. Gompert, ‘Bush Meeting with President Felipe Gonzalez of Spain’, 2 April 1992, Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons. Interesting is also Philip Zelikow and James H. McCall, ‘Interview #2 with Brent Scowcroft’, 10 August 2000, University of Virginia, Miller Center, George H.W. Bush Oral History Project, p. 95, released August 2020.
25 An early overview of these pressures is Reginald Bartholomew, ‘Memo for Baker: Some Observations on NATO and the European Identity’, 15 December 1990, Bush Library, NSC Collection, David C. Gompert Subject Files CF01301-016 NATO; also, David C. Gompert, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: European Views on NATO’s Future’, 12 November 1990, Bush Library, Scowcroft Collection, 91149 Other (November 1990) [1]; and ‘Framework for Discussion of US Strategy Toward Organization of a European Defense Identity’, 26 March 1991, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Barry Lowenkron Subject File CF01527-032, ESSG [European Strategy Steering Group]: ESSG Meeting of European Pillar – [27 March 1991]; for the British sharing these concerns, Ewen A.J. Fergusson, ‘Letter to Gillmore: Mitterrand and Foreign Policy: Are Things Falling Apart?’, 7 October 1991, TNA, PREM 19/3343.
26 Percy Cradock, ‘Letter to Powell: Meeting with Admiral Lanxade’, 9 January 1991, TNA, PREM 19/3344. Interesting is the analysis in Frédéric Bozo, ‘“Winners” and “Losers”: France, the United States, and the End of the Cold War’, Diplomatic History 33/5 (November 2009): 927–56.
27 Brent Scowcroft, ‘Bush Meeting with Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany’, 16 September 1991, Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons.
28 ‘The NACC in the New Europe’, 26 March 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, David C. Gompert Subject Files CF01301-009 European Strategy [Steering] Group (ESSG).
29 David C. Gompert, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: Peacekeeping in Europe’, 29 April 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Barry Lowenkron Subject File CF01527-035, ESSG: Peacekeeping in Europe – 29 April 1992; and Brent Scowcroft, ‘Memo for Bush: The US, NATO, and Peace-Keeping in the Post-Soviet Era’, 22 May 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Nicholas Rostow Subject Files CF01329-005 NATO [1].
30 William H. Taft, ‘Telegram to State Department: NATO in the Post-Soviet Era: Looking Ahead to the Rome Summit and Beyond’, 9 September 1991, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Barry Lowenkron Subject File CF01527-019, ESSG [European Strategy Steering Group]: ESSG Meeting – 21 February 1992; for the UK assessment, Percy Cradock, ‘Memo to Major: European Security and Defense’, 7 March 1991, TNA, PREM 19/3326; for the best open-source-based assessment, Kori Schake, ‘NATO after the Cold War, 1991–1995: Institutional Competition and the Collapse of the French Alternative’, Contemporary European History 7/3 (November 1998): 379–407.
31 David C. Gompert, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: Cracks in the European Pillar’, 25 February 1991, Bush Library, Scowcroft Collection, 91150 Other (January-April 1991) [1]; and ‘Memo for Agencies: Meetings of European Strategy Steering Group’, 6 March 1991, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Barry Lowenkron Subject File CF01527-034, ESSG Papers for March 10 & 11 Meetings – [6 March 1991].
32 Adrian Basora, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: Avoiding a Break with the French on NATO’, 4 June 1991, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Nicholas Rostow Subject Files CF01329-007 NATO [3]; see also Tony Wayne, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: Next Steps with France’, 19 June 1991, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Nicholas Rostow Subject Files CF01329-006 NATO [2]. These conclusions also emerge from the US President’s conversation with the NATO Secretary General. Barry F. Lowenkron, ‘The President’s Meeting with Secretary General of NATO Manfred Woerner’, 11 October 1991, Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons.
33 For instance, Stephen J. Wall, ‘Letter to Gozney: Anglo/French Summit’, 24 June 1991, TNA, PREM 19/3346. An excellent overview is Kristina Spohr, Germany and the Baltic Problem After the Cold War: The Development of a New Ostpolitik, 1989–2000 (London: Taylor & Francis 2004), 86–118.
34 Barry F. Lowenkron, ‘The President’s Meeting with Secretary General of NATO Manfred Wörner’, 11 October 1991, Bush Library, Memcons and Telcons.
35 Johns Hopkins SAIS, Foreign Policy Institute, ‘Open Door: NATO Enlargement and Euro-Atlantic Security in the 1990s’ Workshop, 12 March 2019.
36 Discussions with US NSC and DOS policymakers, but also with British FCO officials and decision makers from Central Europe, March and May 2019, Washington D.C.
37 Simon L. Gass, ‘Letter to Wall: Prime Minister’s Visit to Hungary’, 21 May 1992, TNA, PREM 19/3894/3.
38 ‘NATO and the East: Key Issues’, 6 January 1992; David C. Gompert, ‘US Security and Institutional Interests in Europe and Eurasia in the Post-Cold War Era’, 19 February 1992; and ‘Implications for NATO of Expanded WEU Membership’, 26 March 1992, all in Bush Library, NSC Collection, David C. Gompert Subject Files CF01301-009 European Strategy [Steering] Group (ESSG). For French efforts to engage Poland, Pauline L. Neville-Jones, ‘Letter to Goulden: Conversation with the Polish Deputy Minister of Defense’, 22 May 1992, TNA, PREM 19/3894/3. See also the discussion in Shifrinson, ‘Eastbound and down: The United States, NATO Enlargement, and Suppressing the Soviet and Western European Alternatives, 1990–1992’, 21.
39 Barry F. Lowenkron, ‘Memo for Howe: ESSG Meeting, Monday, 30 March 1992’, 30 March 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, David C. Gompert Subject Files CF01301-009 European Strategy [Steering] Group (ESSG); and ‘Implications for NATO of Expanded WEU Membership’, 26 March 1992.
40 Mary E. Sarotte, ‘How to Enlarge NATO: The Debate inside the Clinton Administration, 1993–95’, International Security 44/1 (Summer 2019): 18.
41 Interviews with NSC and DOS officials, November/December 2018 and February/March 2019, Washington D.C.
42 Telephone interview, December 2018, Washington D.C.
43 ‘NATO and the East: Key Issues’, 6 January 1992; Gompert, ‘US Security and Institutional Interests in Europe and Eurasia in the Post-Cold War Era’, 19 February 1992; and Lowenkron, ‘Memo for Howe: ESSG Meeting, Monday, 30 March 1992’, 30 March 1992. Also, Philip Zelikow and Condoleezza Rice, To Build a Better World: Choices to End the Cold War and Create a Global Commonwealth (New York: Twelve 2019): 347.
44 Peter W. Rodman, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: The Security of the East European Democracies’, 21 June 1990, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Nicholas Rostow Subject Files CF01329-009 NATO [5].
45 David C. Gompert, ‘Memo for Scowcroft: Our Goals in CSCE’, 22 October 1990, Bush Library, NSC Collection Condoleezza Rice 1989–1990 Subject Files CF00716-006, CSCE (Conventional Security & Cooperation in Europe).
46 James F. Dobbins, ‘NATO’s Future: Political Track of the Strategy Review: Questions to Ask Ourselves’, 22 October 1990, National Security Archive, NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard.
47 ‘Expanding Membership in NATO’, 17 September 1992, Bush Library, NSC Collection, Nicholas Rostow Subject Files CF01329-005 NATO [1].
48 For instance, Sarotte, ‘How to Enlarge NATO: The Debate inside the Clinton Administration, 1993–95’; Ronald D. Asmus, Opening NATO’s Door (New York: Columbia University Press 2002); or James M. Goldgeier, Not Whether But When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO (Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press 1999). Joshua R. Shifrinson, ‘NATO Enlargement and US Foreign Policy: The Origins, Durability, and Impact of an Idea’, International Politics 57/3 (2020): 342–70.
49 Alexandra Gheciu, ‘Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the “New Europe,”’ International Organization 59/4 (2005): 973–1012; Michael C. Williams and Iver B. Neumann, ‘From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity’, Millennium 29/2 (2000): 357–387; Frank Schimmelfennig, ‘NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation’, Security Studies 8/2–3 (1998): 198–234; or Christopher L. Ball, ‘Nattering NATO Negativism? Reasons Why Expansion May Be a Good Thing’, Review of International Studies 24/1 (1998): 43–67.
50 Sherry Zaks, ‘Relationships Among Rivals (RAR): A Framework for Analyzing Contending Hypotheses in Process Tracing’, Political Analysis 25/3 (July 2017): 344–62; or Christine Trampusch and Bruno Palier, ‘Between X and Y: How Process Tracing Contributes to Opening the Black Box of Causality’, New Political Economy 21/5 (2016): 437–54.
51 For the most recent review, James M. Goldgeier and Joshua R. Shifrinson, ‘Evaluating NATO Enlargement: Scholarly Debates, Policy Implications, and Roads Not Taken’, International Politics 57/3 (2020): 291–321.
52 For an outstanding short review, Rosella Cappella Zielinski, Kaija Schilde, and Norrin Ripsman, ‘A Political Economy of Global Security Approach’, Journal of Global Security Studies, forthcoming 2020. See also Jonathan Kirshner, ‘Globalization, American Power, and International Security’, Political Science Quarterly 123/3 (Spring 2008): 363–89; Dale C. Copeland, Economic Interdependence and War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 2014); or Robert D. Blackwill and Jennifer M. Harris, War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2016).
53 Notable exceptions are David A. Lake, ‘Economic Openness and Great Power Competition: Lessons for China and the United States’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics 11/3 (2018): 237–70; Michael Mastanduno, ‘System Maker and Privilege Taker’, World Politics 61/1 (January 2009): 121–54; or Francis J. Gavin, ‘Ideas, Power, and the Politics of U.S. Monetary Policy during the 1960s’, in Monetary Orders: Ambiguous Economics, Ubiquitous Politics, ed. Jonathan Kirshner (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press 2003), 195–217.
54 For a similar assessment three decades earlier, albeit with different – and more damning – implications, Melvyn Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford: Stanford University Press 1993).
55 Gideon Rose, ‘The Fourth Founding: The United States and the Liberal Order’, Foreign Affairs 98/1 (February 2019): 20.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Liviu Horovitz
Liviu Horovitz is a Swiss National Science Foundation postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for European Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He is interested in US foreign policy, IR theory, and qualitative research methods, and is currently finishing up a book on the United States’ desire for military preponderance within the current international system.
Elias Götz
Elias Götz is a researcher at the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University. His main areas of expertise are security studies, international relations theory, and Russian foreign policy.