Institute for Policy Studies  –  www.ips-dc.orgPolitical Research Associates

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Kathleen Bailey


    • National Institute for Public Policy: Senior Associate
    • Center for Security Policy: Former adviser

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Kathleen Bailey is a senior associate at the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank founded in the early 1980s by hawkish nuclear strategist Keith Payne that promotes aggressive U.S. strategic policies. Bailey has served in several Republican administrations, including most recently as a member of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board (2006-2008). During the George H.W Bush administration, Bailey was assistant director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; under President Ronald Reagan, Bailey served as the research director of the U.S. Information Agency and then as deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. During 1992-1998, Bailey was a senior fellow at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. [1]

A staunch opponent of many arms control initiatives, Bailey is perhaps best known for her opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which is widely viewed as a key treaty aimed at stemming the proliferation of nuclear weapons. During the 1999 Senate debate over whether to ratify the treaty, Bailey told the Senate Committee on Armed Services that the treaty would likely “promote the spread of nuclear weapons, as well as enable Russia and others to modernize their arsenals while the US arsenal remains static. … Thus, the limited political benefits of the CTBT are not worth the high cost to our national security." [2]

Bailey has also been critical of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), arguing that the treaty is not verifiable—a potentiality that the CTBT was created to remedy. In an article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Bailey wrote, "Linking the extension of the NPT with a requirement for a timetable for nuclear disarmament is not constructive. Disarmament will not eliminate the risk of nuclear war, it will do little or nothing to prevent nuclear proliferation, and it will not cement the end of the Cold War. … Because there is now no effective verification for nuclear disarmament, potential proliferants [sic] might be inspired to pursue nuclear weapons, and those nations that already have them might decide to secretly retain them." [3]

Bailey was a member of the NIPP team that produced the January 2001 study Rationale and Requirements for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control, which served as a blueprint for President George W. Bush's controversial Nuclear Posture Review. [4] According to a report by the World Policy Institute, "The Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released in January 2002, reflects the thinking of far-right conservative organizations and nuclear weapons contractors. The NPR drew many of its findings from a report released in January 2001 by the National Institute for Public Policy, entitled, Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control. In general, the NIPP report calls future security threats to the United States unknown and unpredictable. Therefore, the report concludes that the United States must maintain its nuclear arsenal, and the ability to design, build and test new nuclear weapons. The report asserts that conventional weapons are inadequate replacements for nuclear weapons because they do not have the same ‘destructive power.’ As a solution the report recommends the development of ‘low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons’—in other words, a nuclear weapon the United States can actually use. The NIPP panel frowns on arms control treaties because, ‘U.S. policymakers today cannot know the strategic environment of 2005, let alone 2010 or 2020. There is no basis for expecting that the conditions that may permit deep nuclear reductions today will continue in the future.’" [5]

Bailey is the author of four books: Death for Cause (1995), The UN Inspections in Iraq: Lessons for On-Site Verification (1995), Strengthening Nuclear Nonproliferation (1993), and Doomsday Weapons in the Hands of Many: The Arms Control Challenge of the 90s (1991). [6]

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Please click the following link to bookmark this page:


If the link doesn't appear don't worry, your browser doesn't support this function.

Try pressing 'ctrl + d' on a PC or 'cmd + d' if your using a Mac.

Close

    Affiliations

    • National Institute for Public Policy: Senior Associate
    • Center for Security Policy: Former adviser

     

    Government Service

    • State Department: Member, Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Board, 2006-2008; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research, 1985-1987.
    • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Senior Fellow of Center for Security and Technology Studies, 1992-1998
    • Arms Control and Disarmament Agency: Assistant Director for Nonproliferation, 1987-1990
    • U.S. Information Agency: Research Director, 1983-1985

     

    Education

    • University of Illinois: PhD
The Right Web Mission

Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

Sources

1. National Institute for Public Policy, Kathleen Bailey professional bio, (accessed 16 September 2009).
2. Kathleen Bailey, Statement before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, October 7, 1999.
3. Kathleen Bailey, “Why we have to keep the bomb,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1, 1995.
4. NIPP, Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control, National Institute for Public Policy, January 2001, (PDF)
5. World Policy Institute, Axis of Influence, World Policy Institute Special Report, July 2002.
6. National Institute for Public Policy, Kathleen Bailey professional bio, (accessed 16 September 2009).

Latest Feature Articles
Whither the Liberal Hawks?

Jim Lobe | January 31, 2012

Tehran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with mounting threats from hawks in Israel and the United States, has brought the possibility of war sharply into view. But a number of influential members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment—including several prominent liberal interventionists who supported the invasion of Iraq—are warning against further escalation.

Rise of the Vulcans Redux

Peter Certo | December 19, 2011

The purported “end of the neocon consensus” has hardly meant an end to hawkishness in the GOP fold. With the Republican candidates virtually all gunning for Iran, backing right-wing Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and stabling a passel of neoconservative advisers (Ron Paul excepted), voters have plenty of clues about what the foreign policy of a new GOP administration would look like. And while some of the candidates have expressed wariness with neoconservative notions of armed democracy promotion, all the signs indicate that if a Republican wins next year, we will likely be in for a bit if George W. redux.

Turning the Tide on the “Pro-Israel” Debate

Michael Flynn and Peter Certo | December 13, 2011

With key members of the "Israel Lobby" acknowledging the importance of providing a broader space to Israel’s critics, the indelibly beltway Politico recognizing the influence of such critics in a full-length feature, and core Democratic organizations showing an increasing sensitivity to inappropriate uses of the anti-Semite charge, is the United States finally willing to undertake a real debate on what are the best U.S. interests in the Middle East?

The China Divide and the Future of the GOP

Robert Farley | November 08, 2011

The issue of whither U.S. relations with China is an important test case for observing the divide between the free market and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party. Thus far, the GOP presidential candidates have largely failed to articulate a vision of China that comes anywhere close to reflecting the complexity of U.S.-Chinese relations. Among the leading candidates, Mitt Romney has arguably been the most aggressive in his discussion of China policy. Yet, his embrace of a hawkish line towards Beijing would appear to indicate that President Obama’s would-be challengers have not yet found an alternative vocabulary for talking and thinking about one of the critical foreign policy issues of the 2012 election. It seems clear that even though neoconservatives lack grassroots support, they offer what is effectively the only option for an “establishment” GOP candidate, a fact that could have lasting impact both on the viability of any Republican Party foreign policy platform as well as future U.S. decision-making vis-à-vis other hotspots like Iran, Israel, and North Korea.

Right Web | rightweb.irc-online.org


1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036
USA
|
|
202-234-9382

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Right Web is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies; www.ips-dc.org