Expanding Nato Means Boon For Arms Makers Dealers Trying To Sway Political Debate Over Allowing New Members Into Group

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 Corp., the world’s biggest weapons maker.

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.

Billions of dollars are at stake in the next global arms bazaar: weapons sales to Central European nations invited to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Admission to the Western fraternity will bring political prestige, but at a price: playing by NATO rules, which require Western weapons and equipment.

“The stakes are high” for arms makers, said Joel L. Johnson, vice president for international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group. “Whoever gets in first will have a lock for the next quarter-century.”

The potential market for fighter jets alone is $10 billion, he said. Those jets will require flight simulators, spare parts, electronics and engine improvements. “Then there’s transport aircraft, utility helicopters, attack helicopters,” Johnson said - not to mention military communications systems, computers, radar, radios and the other tools of a modern fighting force.

NATO leaders are to meet in Madrid July 8-9 to vote on expanding the alliance. The Clinton administration says Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic should be admitted now.

Some NATO members say Romania and Slovenia should join now, too. But the Clinton administration says Romania’s democracy and Slovenia’s military do not yet meet the alliance’s standards.

After Madrid, the issue moves to the United States Senate, which must approve new member states by a two-thirds vote.

Critics of NATO expansion say weapons spending could create political and economic problems in Central Europe.

“It’s extraordinarily unwise for these countries to shoulder these costs when they must pay the costs of meeting their social needs,” said Jack Matlock, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow. “These countries are free to buy American arms,” he said.

“The question is how they pay for it. If the American taxpayer finances them, this would be a direct subsidy to the arms industry. If they pay for them themselves, it could lead to real distortions in these countries’ own budgets.”