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

Right Web

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

Max Kampelman


    • Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Advisor
    • Freedom House: Trustee
    • Foundation for Defense of Democracies: Leadership council

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

Max Kampelman is a retired diplomat and Cold War-era arms control negotiator who has supported the work of several neoconservative-led advocacy groups that have been instrumental in pushing militarist U.S. policies as part of the “war on terror.” Such groups include the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Highly regarded for his past work in trying to forge arms control agreements (despite his support for several hardline anticommunist groups in the 1970s and 1980s), he participated in a study that promoted the idea of new U.S. nuclear weapons, yet he has more recently pushed for global nuclear disarmament.

Kampelman’s career spanned the Cold War, during which time he shifted between his private law practice at the firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (now Fried Frank), and various government jobs, including serving as a legislative aide for several years to Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and in various diplomatic posts under presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. 1 Kampelman is best known for his work as Reagan’s chief arms control negotiator, serving from 1985 to 1989 as head of U.S. negotiating teams that worked with the Soviet Union on nuclear and space weapons issues. He also served as ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe from 1980 to 1983 and as counselor to the State Department from 1987 to 1989.

Kampelman also supported the work of some advocacy groups that emerged in the 1970s to push for hardline, anti-Soviet policies and that served as building blocks for the then-burgeoning neoconservative political faction. Among these were Social Democrats USA, a group that splintered from the Socialist Party USA in 1972 2; the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM), which was created in the early 1970s by disgruntled Democrats who were angered by the emergence of antiwar elements in the party, and the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a group that helped push for an end to détente with the Soviet Union and many of whose members joined the Reagan administration. (For more on CDM, see Right Web Profile: Penn Kemble; for an account of the work of CPD, see Anne Hessing Cahn, Killing Détente: The Right Attacks the CIA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998.)

When the Cold War ended, Kampelman’s advocacy work continued. He collaborated with PNAC, the influential neoconservative letterhead group, and signed its 2002 letter to President George W. Bush criticizing Chinese rule in Hong Kong. 3 In 2001, he collaborated with the hardline National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) in producing an influential policy document aimed at promoting aggressive new nuclear weapons policies, including the creation of less powerful, “usable” bombs. According to a 2002 World Policy Institute report, “In general, the NIPP report calls future security threats to the U.S. unknown and unpredictable. Therefore, the report concludes that the U.S. 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 U.S. can actually use.” 4

Kampelman also supports the work of a number of other organizations known for their militarist “war on terror” agendas and support of policies in line with Israel’s Likud Party, which is largely supportive of the settler movement and has opposed peace efforts aimed at creating a Palestinian state. He is a “Distinguished Advisor” to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, 5 a member of the Board of Advisors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, 6 and a member of a new version of the Committee on the Present Danger created after the 9/11 attacks to promote a hardline agenda for the “war on terror.” 7 Kampelman is also chairman emeritus of the Board of Trustees of Freedom House, 8 a U.S.-government-funded group that has been criticized for being an instrument of propaganda.

Despite his support of hardline policies, Kampelman has become a proponent of not just nuclear disarmament, but of total global nuclear elimination. In an April 2006 New York Times op-ed, Kampelman wrote that despite having witnessed “two successful titanic struggles by civilized society against totalitarian movements, those against Nazi fascism and Soviet communism,” he has “never been more worried about the future for my children and grandchildren. … The number of countries possessing nuclear arms is increasing, and terrorists are poised to master nuclear technology with the objective of using those deadly arms against us.” To confront this challenge, he argued that President George W. Bush must take the lead promoting disarmament. He wrote, “To this end, President Bush should consult with our allies, appear before the United Nations General Assembly and call for a resolution embracing the objective of eliminating all weapons of mass destruction. He should make clear that we are prepared to eliminate our nuclear weapons if the Security Council develops an effective regime to guarantee total conformity with a universal commitment to eliminate all nuclear arms and reaffirm the existing conventions covering chemical and biological weapons.” 9
Shortly after penning this op-ed, Kampelman helped lead a Hoover Institution forum on nuclear disarmament. Other participants included an elite group of former policy makers: Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Sam Nunn, and George Shultz. At the October 2007 conference, Kampelman repeated many of the same points he mentioned his New York Times op-ed. According to a Hoover Institution press release, “The theme of former U.S. ambassador Max Kampelman’s remarks was the importance of moving from ought to is. He compared the goals of the Reykjavik II conference to those of the U. S. Constitution. Kampelman said that the principles of the Constitution may have seemed idealistic when they were introduced, but the founders had a vision that what ought to be would eventually become reality. Kampelman believes that pursuing zero tolerance of nuclear weapons is a goal the U.S. government should energetically pursue to prepare for the future. ‘What ought calls for is to get rid of nuclear weapons,’ he declared.” 10

President Bill Clinton awarded Kampelman the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999, and President Ronald Reagan awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989. 11

Kampelman's books include Entering New Worlds: The Memoirs of a Private Man in Public Life (1991), and The Communist Party vs. The C.I.O: A Study in Power Politics (1957).
 

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

    • Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: Member, Board of Advisors
    • Freedom House: Chairman Emeritus, Board of Trustees
    • Committee on the Present Danger (2000s version): Member
    • National Institute for Public Policy: Study Participant
    • Jerusalem Foundation: Honorary Chairman
    • Project for the New American Century: Letter Signatory
    • American Academy of Diplomacy: Chairman Emeritus
    • American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security: Counselor
    • Council for a Community of Democracies: Senior Advisor
    • Committee on the Present Danger (1970s version): Member, Executive Committee
    • American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus: Advisor Emeritus
    • Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Former Chair, Board of Trustees
    • Social Democrats-USA: Former Member
    • Coalition for a Democratic Majority: Former Vice Chairman s
    • Committee on the Present Danger (2000s version): Member
    • National Institute for Public Policy: Study Participant
    • Jerusalem Foundation: Honorary Chairman
    • Project for the New American Century: Letter Signatory
    • American Academy of Diplomacy: Chairman Emeritus
    • American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security: Counselor
    • Council for a Community of Democracies: Senior Advisor
    • Committee on the Present Danger (1970s version): Member, Executive Committee
    • American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus: Advisor Emeritus
    • Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Former Chair, Board of Trustees


    Government Service

    • U.S. Institute for Peace: Former Vice Chairman and Member of the Board of Directors
    • State Department: Ambassador and Head of the United States Delegation to the Negotiations with the Soviet Union on Nuclear and Space Arms (1985-1989); Counselor (1987-1989)
    • U.S. Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Ambassador and Head of Delegation, Various Administrations
    • U.S. Delegation to the United Nations: Former Senior Advisor
    • Staff of Sen. Hubert Humphrey: Legislative Counsel (1949-1955)


    Private Sector

    • Fried Frank: Counsel


    Education

    • New York University: B.A,. 1940
    • New York University School of Law: J.D., 1945
    • University of Minnesota: MA, 1946
    • University of Minnesota: Ph.D. in Political Science, 1951
Max Kampelman News Feed

Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The Right Web Mission

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

Sources

1 See Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “Biographies: Distinguished Advisors, Max M. Kampelman”  (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?doc_id=623382); Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, “Advisory Board Biography—Amb. Max M. Kampelman” (http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=732); and Fried Frank, “Max M. Kampelman” (http://www.ffhsj.com/index.cfm?pageID=42&itemID=359&more=1).
2 GroupWatch Profile: Social Democrats USA, http://rightweb.irc-online.org/gw/2810.html.
3 Project for the New American Century, “The Project for the New American Century & The U.S. Committee for Hong Kong: Letter to President Bush on Hong Kong,” November 25, 2002 (http://www.newamericancentury.org/hongkong-20021126.htm).
4 Michelle Ciarrocca and William Hartung, “Axis of Influence: Behind the Bush Administration’s Missile Defense Revival,” World Policy Institute, July 2002, http://web.archive.org/web/20070209230847/http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/axisofinfluence.html.
5 Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “Biographies: Distinguished Advisors,” http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm.
6 Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, “Advisory Board Biography—Amb. Max M. Kampelman,” http://www.jinsa.org/about/adboard/adboard.html?documentid=732.
7 Committee on the Present Danger, Members, http://www.committeeonthepresentdanger.org/OurMembers/tabid/364/Default.aspx.
8 Freedom House, Board of Trustees, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?boardmember=22&page=10.
9 Max Kampelman, “Bombs Away,” New York Times, April 24, 2006.
10 “Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, and Others Call for Freeing the World of Nuclear Weapons at Hoover Institution Reykjavik II Conference,” Hoover Institution, October 26, 2007, http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/whatsnew/10828751.html.
11 Fried Frank, “Max M. Kampelman” (http://www.ffhsj.com/index.cfm?pageID=42&itemID=359&more=1).



 

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