NATO in changing global power equation

There is a fundamental difference between the approach of Donald Trump and his European allies in NATO

The last NATO summit in Brussels, thanks to US President Donald Trump’s constant bickering and squabbling with other leaders there, is being generally labelled as one of the most disappointing episode in the recent history of this alliance.

The mood was so much depressing at the gathering that a big chunk of the anti-Trump camp has started talking about the degeneration and disintegration of the almost-70-year-old treaty alliance - certainly a very pessimistic and non-pragmatic thinking at the moment. Yes, in his usual belligerent and arrogant style, Donald Trump was very blunt at the summit, but he was talking some sense that needs to be given a serious attention by other NATO members. Donald Trump raised two main issues. One, he believes that the United States spends much more than other European members to espouse NATO. And two, he is demanding NATO allies to suddenly double their financial contribution to the organization.

There is a fundamental difference between the approach of Donald Trump and his European allies in NATO: he thinks that Russia, under the leadership of Putin, is no more a major threat to the stability and peace in the region and that’s why NATO needs to realign its priorities as per the emerging scenario, while most of his European counterparts think that Russia under Putin is much more aggressive and unpredictable and they refer to recent Russian interventions in Crimea, Ukraine and other Baltic states, whereas Trump puts blame on the weakness of his predecessor Barak Obama for Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

This is perhaps the main divergent point that has led to the existing “difference of opinion” between Donald Trump and European leaders on how to run NATO in the future. “Many countries are not paying what they should. And, frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them,” is how President Donald Trump expressed his anger during the two day 2018 NATO summit in Brussels.  

He further asserted that problem was lingering on “for decades” and he was the first US president to broach this issue at the forum. On money matters, Trump’s arguments can be divided into three parts.  The first part is related to the NATO members’ inability to contribute money to the alliance as per the agreed percentage, and the second part is concerned with the huge amount of money that they are supposed to pay to the US as “past dues”, and the third part is linked with the sudden demand to double the financial commitment.

This is partially true; the first part is correct to a large extent, the second part is plane exaggeration, and third part is totally unrealistic. After Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, under an agreement facilitated by the Obama Administration, all NATO members pledged to increase their defense spending to two per cent of their GDP by 2024. So far only four countries - the US, Britain, Estonia and Greece - are honouring this commitment to the fullest. In 2017, the United States spent almost 3.5 per cent of its GDP.

Some countries, like France, Poland and Latvia are fairly close to the benchmark, while others like Belgium, Spain and Luxemburg are at the bottom of the list with less than one per cent contribution.  

Regardless of the fact that most of the countries do not contribute financially as per the agreed percentage, but claiming that the United States can bill other member states for their shortcomings in the past years is totally out of context of the guidelines of NATO.

There is no clause that permits the United States to ask other member states to reimburse their past “arrears”.  Here Donald Trump is right to the extent that the United States has always shouldered the biggest chunk of military expenses to compensate for the less-paying NATO countries, but he is technically wrong in his assertion to push others for filling the gap in previous years. This is absurd. One very interesting fact is that all the on-going NATO operations and missions across the globe right now – including Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Mediterranean Sea – were mostly initiated at the behest of the United States to directly and indirectly safeguard the “American interests”.

This is one of the key reason why most NATO members are reluctant to fulfil their financial commitment towards the security alliance that now seems to be more focused on protecting American interest rather than establishing peace and stability in the European continent in general – the prime strategic objective for which this platform was created in the first

place.

For quite some time, many European capitals have been pointing towards Washington’s habitual practices of using NATO as a tool to propagate American interests - another contributing factor in demotivating them to restrict their defense spending.

The writer is a regular contributor to

The independent

 

NATO in changing global power equation

There is a fundamental difference between the approach of Donald Trump and his European allies in NATO

The last NATO summit in Brussels, thanks to US President Donald Trumps constant bickering and squabbling with other leaders there, is being generally labelled as one of the most disappointing episode in the recent history of this alliance. The mood was so much depressing at the gathering that a big chunk of the anti-Trump camp has started talking about the degeneration and disintegration of the almost-70-year-old treaty alliance - certainly a very pessimistic and non-pragmatic thinking at the moment. Yes, in his usual belligerent and arrogant style, Donald Trump was very blunt at the summit, but he was talking some sense that needs to be given a serious attention by other NATO members. Donald Trump raised two main issues. One, he believes that the United States spends much more than other European members to espouse NATO. And two, he is demanding NATO allies to suddenly double their financial contribution to the organization. There is a fundamental difference between the approach of Donald Trump and his European allies in NATO: he thinks that Russia, under the leadership of Putin, is no more a major threat to the stability and peace in the region and thats why NATO needs to realign its priorities as per the emerging scenario, while most of his European counterparts think that Russia under Putin is much more aggressive and unpredictable and they refer to recent Russian interventions in Crimea, Ukraine and other Baltic states, whereas Trump puts blame on the weakness of his predecessor Barak Obama for Russias annexation of Crimea. This is perhaps the main divergent point that has led to the existing difference of opinion between Donald Trump and European leaders on how to run NATO in the future. Many countries are not paying what they should. And, frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where theyre delinquent, as far as Im concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them, is how President Donald Trump expressed his anger during the two day 2018 NATO summit in Brussels. He further asserted that problem was lingering on for decades and he was the first US president to broach this issue at the forum. On money matters, Trumps arguments can be divided into three parts. The first part is related to the NATO members inability to contribute money to the alliance as per the agreed percentage, and the second part is concerned with the huge amount of money that they are supposed to pay to the US as past dues, and the third part is linked with the sudden demand to double the financial commitment. This is partially true; the first part is correct to a large extent, the second part is plane exaggeration, and third part is totally unrealistic. After Russias annexation of Crimea in 2014, under an agreement facilitated by the Obama Administration, all NATO members pledged to increase their defense spending to two per cent of their GDP by 2024. So far only four countries - the US, Britain, Estonia and Greece - are honouring this commitment to the fullest. In 2017, the United States spent almost 3.5 per cent of its GDP. Some countries, like France, Poland and Latvia are fairly close to the benchmark, while others like Belgium, Spain and Luxemburg are at the bottom of the list with less than one per cent contribution. Regardless of the fact that most of the countries do not contribute financially as per the agreed percentage, but claiming that the United States can bill other member states for their shortcomings in the past years is totally out of context of the guidelines of NATO. There is no clause that permits the United States to ask other member states to reimburse their past arrears. Here Donald Trump is right to the extent that the United States has always shouldered the biggest chunk of military expenses to compensate for the less-paying NATO countries, but he is technically wrong in his assertion to push others for filling the gap in previous years. This is absurd. One very interesting fact is that all the on-going NATO operations and missions across the globe right now including Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Mediterranean Sea were mostly initiated at the behest of the United States to directly and indirectly safeguard the American interests. This is one of the key reason why most NATO members are reluctant to fulfil their financial commitment towards the security alliance that now seems to be more focused on protecting American interest rather than establishing peace and stability in the European continent in general the prime strategic objective for which this platform was created in the first place. For quite some time, many European capitals have been pointing towards Washingtons habitual practices of using NATO as a tool to propagate American interests - another contributing factor in demotivating them to restrict their defense spending. The writer is a regular contributor to The independent