[ad_1]
BRUSSELS – President Trump travels to Brussels on Wednesday at the NATO summit with a key argument: Allies must honor their commitments on defense spending.
Few policymakers would disagree that Europe should spend more on its own security, and many European diplomats shyly admit that they have relied too much on firepower for too long American to protect them. At the same time, voices across NATO are wondering if the fact that Trump is concentrating his efforts on the end result is to do more to hurt the alliance than to do it. help.
percent of its gross domestic product to its military. Yet the diplomats who negotiated this promise in 2014 say that it was never designed to become a weapon that could stop US protections for Europe – and they would not have it. maybe not accepted if they had envisioned a US president as a zero sum like Trump. [19659004Pendantcetempscertainsplanificateursmilitairessoulignentque2%n'estpasunnombremagiquequibadureunedéfenseforteetilsmettentengardecontreunedéfinitiontroprestrictivedesdépensesdedéfenseIlsdisentquedanscertainscasparexempleilestpluslogiqued'acheterdeswagonsdegrandecapacitéquedescharsEtilsdisentqu'uneEuropestableetsûreoffreundividendepolitiqueetéconomiqueàWashington
"I am concerned that [2 percent] became a sticker that amplifies the & # 39; transactional approach of this administration," said Douglas Lute. , a retired three-star army general who, as the US ambbadador to NATO, was President Obama's leading advocate within the alliance . "This gives them an easy and easy-to-understand measure of transactional advantages and disadvantages.
[Ahead of summit, allies wonder if NATO will survive Trump]
NATO leaders have watched with concern Trump play hard with his allies even as he praises his longtime rivals such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, who He plans to meet a few days after the NATO summit. 1965/007] Last month, Trump sent letters to leaders of many NATO countries warning that continued investment of military resources by the United States while allies underfund "n & # Is more durable. " He asked the Pentagon of "Germany, Norway, they are important allies for us, and yet we treat them as fathers," said Ben Hodges, who until December was the commander of the US forces. US Army in Europe
As Trump was preparing to leave the White House on Tuesday, he again signaled that he was planning to put pressure on his allies in Brussels
"The United States is spending a lot more than any other country for ect, " he tweeted . "Not fair to the American taxpayer."
U.S. Defense spending accounted for 68.7% of NATO's total last year, reflecting the US's global ambitions and 3.57% of its GDP.
Critics of Trump's unique spirit point out that the only one in the name of the United States after 9/11.
The 2% goal of spending has long been considered a rough rule within NATO. But the Obama administration pushed it as a formal pledge at a summit in Wales that was held in 2014 in the shadow of the annexation of Crimea and the advent of the Islamic State
. promise, say that the figure has less to do with adequate protection of NATO than with a realistic goal of increased spending, even if these expenses remain well below the levels of the EU. Cold War era. (NATO has a separate and clbadified list of military needs, tailor-made for each member, which reflects the security needs of the alliance.)
"This was not a judgment that if everyone went to 2% said Adam Thomson, who was the British ambbadador to NATO in 2014 and was involved in the push to get allies to sign. "That was a judgment on the level that was politically at least somewhat believable. "
" No one would have really expected the way it was adopted in such an unsophisticated way by Trump, "he said. added Thompson. "But that too had a real impact."
[‘Not fair to the U.S. taxpayer’: Trump takes another shot at NATO]
Donald Trump officials said the president needed to use harsh language to root out complacency and frighten allies for them to spend more money on the defense.They say that the United States has also significantly increased European defense funding, almost doubling President Barack Obama's last year's spending.
"NATO is really progressing, and it is doing so on the insistence of President Trump" US Ambbadador to the United States Kay Bailey Hutchison said on Sunday Fox News
that NATO is expected to increase its overall defense spending by 3.8% in 2018 – spending for the fourth consecutive year has increased. When Trump took office, only four of the 29 nations of NATO complied with the 2% guideline: the United States, Britain, Estonia and Greece. This year, four more are on the right track: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania. About two-thirds plan to get there in 2024.
These statistics, however, mask large variations. Greece spent 2.36% of its GDP on defense last year, but a large part of that money was used to pay pensions for retired servicemen, which did not happen at all. Defensive goal. Most of the material from Greece is devoted to defense against Turkey, a member of NATO. France, meanwhile, has only spent 1.79% but is involved in military conflicts across Africa and the Middle East, including those in which NATO is involved. .
Subtlety has often abandoned Trump's rhetoric. The same is true of the spongy nature of the commitment itself: the leaders stated that they "would aim to get closer to the 2% guideline in a decade", a hedge put on a hedge
"Two percent" All a country's commitment to the alliance, "said Alexander Vershbow, who was NATO's deputy general secretary at the time when 39, commitment has been negotiated. "Not to say that no one should be released, but it is fair to consider broader measures."
Some funds clearly dedicated to security – such as counterterrorism funding for intelligence or police services – are not technically "If we had had more time before Wales, address these issues on what matters and what does not matter would have made a lot of sense, "said Lute, the former US ambbadador
[U.S. military leaders worry they may not arrive in time to fight the Russians]
To abide by the narrowly defined spending commitment, would require vast changes for the United States. one of the most powerful economies of NATO: Germany. On the basis of 2017 figures, Berlin is expected to increase defense spending to $ 76 billion a year, up from $ 47 billion at the present time. Military spending is generally unpopular among Germans, and the demands of the extremely unpopular US President have made it even more difficult for Chancellor Angela Merkel to get a lot of traction for spending increases.
Some NATO diplomats refuse budget increases, Since the German army is terribly ill-prepared for a fight. His military helicopter pilots are struggling to find helicopters ready to work. But many military planners believe that there could be better targets for billions of Germany than the hardware alone.
Hodges said he would encourage Germany to inject new funds into infrastructure that could improve NATO's ability to cross Europe quickly. "Europe needs more than German tanks." Europe needs German trains, so the expansion of rail capacity would allow the alliance to move faster than Russian forces, "he said.
Finally, many diplomats say that Trump's approach has hindered discussions of NATO's security needs. % came out of the field where we can talk about it reasonably, "said a top NATO diplomat, on condition of anonymity, so that the diplomat's country would not be next in the Trump collimator. "It has become a dogma, believe it or not."
Read more
President Trump travels to Europe this week. Its leaders are preparing for the impact.
Merkel and Trump agree that the troubled German army needs a boost. Why does not it happen?
Today's cover of postal correspondents from around the world
Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news
[ad_2]
Source link
