[ad_1]
European leaders heading to a NATO summit in Brussels are not sure who Donald Trump will face – one who could provoke some tantrums but leave the transatlantic organization intact or the one that could cause the biggest crisis in the history of 69 years of NATO
They are preparing nervously for the worst. The leaders are ready for the US president to lecture them not to have increased defense spending, but the concern is that he could go further. He could express his dissatisfaction by canceling US participation in one or more NATO exercises or by delaying the deployment of more troops and equipment in Europe.
He could, without prior consultation with NATO allies, reach an agreement with Vladimir Putin when he will meet the Russian president in Helsinki next week.
But even the most fearful believe that NATO, the world's most powerful military coalition, will survive. They argue that the next few days could be stormy but the organization is too important to collapse. The US military values NATO and would resist any attempt by Trump to move away. And even in the unlikely event that Trump wanted to take the United States out, it would not be so easy.
Douglas Lute, who served under Barack Obama as US Ambbadador to NATO from 2013 to last year, downplayed the prospect of a withdrawal American.
"Most of the political decisions made by President Trump during the first 18 months of his administration were executive decisions, which means that he holds, as head of the executive in our system, the power to do it, literally from a pen shot, "said Lute.
" NATO is different. NATO is a conventional obligation that has been taken by the nation of the United States. It has been ratified by a two-thirds majority, which is required by our Constitution, by the United States Senate. And any structural change to this arrangement should go through the same process. So, this is not something where any president – President Trump or any president – can simply sign America from a conventional obligation. This would require an act of Congress. "
During the election campaign, Trump described NATO as "obsolete," and a constant chorus – repeated last week – is that the United States must contribute too much of the funding for the 29-member coalition. members. He argues that the United States essentially subsidizes European countries that prefer to spend more on social badistance than on defense.
The United States has been and continues to be the dominant force in NATO since the establishment of the organization in 1949 – the largest contributor by far in terms of money , staff and equipment. Based on NATO figures for 2017, the United States spends 3.58% of GDP on defense.
European members are far behind, with only five meeting a target of 2% of GDP set by NATO at a summit in Wales in 2014. Greece spends 2.32%, the UK 2.14% and Estonia, Romania 2.02% and Poland 2.01% France comes in at 1.79%, Germany at 1.22%, l & # 39; Italy at 1.13% and Spain at 0.92%.
If we consider the figures as a percentage of GDP, we do not necessarily have an accurate picture of the contributions to military capability, and it may be difficult to make a direct comparison. But the United States is unquestionably the biggest beast of NATO and the United Kingdom and France are the major military forces in Europe.
A European NATO diplomat said the best approach for Trump was to try to show his arguments. increase defense spending. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will highlight that two other countries – which you think are Lithuania and Latvia – have reached the 2% target this year. "The goal is to pamper him more than Putin." and others increase defense spending. Seven others have promised to reach the goal of 2% in the next six or seven years.
In April, Emmanuel Macron promised that France would increase defense spending by about a third to reach the goal of 2% by 2025. Germany a target for Trump's derision, foreseeing only a modest increase.
When Trump described NATO as obsolete, it was an outbidding. But NATO needs reforms and to determine what should be its role in the world. Founded against the Soviet Union, it has sunk since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It was slow to intervene in the Balkans, but it eventually did so to result in the bombing of Serbia in 1999
Four years later NATO invoked for the first time Article Five – which means that an attack on a member will receive a collective response from all – in the name of the United States after the 9/11 attack. NATO intervened for the first time outside of Europe, taking command of the international force in Afghanistan.
The Russian annexation of Crimea by Ukraine in 2014 was almost a relief for NATO commanders, who mistakenly believed that they were returning to a land that was not safe. they knew well – the Cold War and a country with nuclear and conventional forces. But Putin repeatedly took them to task by engaging in a hybrid war, an unexpected mix of vile operations, misinformation and cyberattacks.
NATO has been slow to react but on the summit agenda is a series of proposals to counter such a hybrid war, such as strengthening its cyber-offensive capabilities and its propaganda machine. It will continue to deploy battlegroups in the Baltic States. Although NATO has largely withdrawn Afghanistan's combat troops, it will expand funding and troop deployment to the country – there are 16,000 at the moment – to help train Afghan forces. The summit will also agree a new training mission in Iraq.
NATO continued to develop, with the accession of the Republic of Northern Macedonia. The Kremlin will not be relaxed about the prospect of Georgia, on the southern flank of Russia, becoming a member. NATO, anxious to avoid another flash point, is far from ready to accept Georgia's accession, but it will give the country recognition of the progress that it has made. She accomplishes.
Trump could justify a strategic move away from NATO. in the Pacific. The US administration and most European governments, with the exception of those in the Baltic states and other countries bordering Russia, consider Russia a declining power, unable to invade l & # 39; Is. The United States sees China as a rising power, a potentially formidable economic rival, with many potential hotspots in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
But NATO is still at the center of US military strategy, not only in Europe, but also for its potential for intervention elsewhere in the world, as in Afghanistan
The former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, one of the most ardent US defenders. during his term, shares this badessment. In response to a question from The Guardian at the Policy Exchange think tank in London, Howard said, "Anyone can try to anticipate what President Trump will do. I do not think he's going to get away from NATO. I think it's a ridiculous proposition. "
A former Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson, agrees that he has seen other US presidents – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – come into power, like Trump , skeptical about NATO, to finally recognize its value.
"You can have a lot of ad hoc coalitions, coalitions of the will, but nothing beats the permanent coalition that happens to be the Alliance, "said Lord Robertson.
Source link
