[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'estpasunnombremagiquequiassureunedéfenseforteetilsmettentengardecontreunedéfinitiontroprestrictivedesdépensesdedéfenseIlsdisentquedanscertainscasparexempleilestplussenséd'acheterdeswagonsdegrandecapacitéquedeschars
"I m & # 39; concerned that [2 percent] became a sticker that amplifies the & # 39; transactional approach to this," said Douglas Lute, a three-star general of the retired US Army who, as the US ambassador to NATO at the time of spending commitment was the chief advocate of President Obama in the alliance . "This gives them an easy and easy-to-understand measure of transactional advantages and disadvantages.
NATO policymakers watched with increasing concern Trump play hard with his allies even as he praised his long-time rivals such as Russian President Vladimir Putin , that he expects to meet a few days after the NATO summit.
Last month, Trump sent letters to leaders of many NATO nations warning that continued investment of military resources by the United States while the allies are not sustainable. He asked the Pentagon to examine the impact of German troops "Germany, Norway, they are important allies for us, and yet we treat them as fathers," said Ben Hodges , which until December was the commander of the US Army forces. in Europe.
[Ahead of summit, allies wonder if NATO will survive Trump]
On Monday, Trump again signaled that he was planning to squeeze allies in Brussels this week.
"The United States spends a lot more on NATO than any other country, it is not fair and it is not acceptable …" NATO benefits much more to Europe than to the United States. " Trump tweeted . He overestimated the share of US defense spending for all NATO members. Trump cited 90 percent ; last year, this figure was 68.7%, reflecting the global ambitions of the United States and 3.57% of its GDP.
The figure of 2% of spending had long been an approximation of NATO before the Obama administration made it formal commitment at a summit in Wales that was held. was unfolded in 2014 in the shadow of the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the emergence of the Islamic State
defense planners, some of whom contributed to the 2% target According to the summit, the figure has less to do with adequate protection of NATO than with a realistic goal that would increase defense spending, even if these expenses remain well below levels of the Cold War.
if everyone went to 2%, then NATO would be fine, "said Adam Thomson, who was the British ambassador to NATO in 2014 and was involved in the campaign to sign allies on this commitment. "It was a judgment on the level that could be politically at least somewhat believable."
"No one could really have expected the way Trump approached it so unsophisticated, but that too Thomson said:
Donald Trump officials have said that the president needed to use harsh language to pull NATO out of complacency and scare its allies so that they spend more money on defense.They say that the United States also significantly increased funding for European defense, almost doubling President Barack Obama's last year spending.
"NATO is really progressing, and it is doing so at the insistence of President Trump" L & # 39, US Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison, told Fox News on Sunday
that NATO's only collective defense measures have been launched on behalf of the United States in the United States. Following the Attacks of September 11, 2001. And they say that a stable and secure Europe offers a political and economic dividend to Washington.
NATO is expected to increase its overall defense spending by 3.8% in 2018 – the fourth consecutive year's expense 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 commit to get there in 2024.
But these statistics mask large variations. Greece spent 2.36% of its GDP on defense last year, but much of that money is spent on pensions of its retired members, who have no defensive purpose. Most of his material is devoted to defense against Turkey, a member of NATO. France, meanwhile, has spent only 1.79% but is involved in military conflicts across Africa and the Middle East, including those to which NATO is involved.
[U.S. military leaders worry they may not arrive in time to fight the Russians]
NATO countries must spend at least 20% of their equipment budget, not just on wages. This subtlety, however, has often given up on Trump's rhetoric. The same goes for the spongy nature of the commitment itself: the leaders said they "would aim to get closer to the 2% guideline in a decade", a hedge superimposed 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 let down, but it is fair to consider broader measures."
NATO itself has a separate and classified list of military requirements tailored to each country's security. They do not always match the 2% spending requirement, suggesting that NATO itself thinks that the spending situation is more complicated than Trump recognizes. Some countries should spend more than 2% to meet the requirements. Others think that they could spend less, say the planners
and that money spent on security – such as counter-terrorism funding for the intelligence or police services – is not enough. not technically a defense expense. requirements. Despite Trump's pressure for the alliance to do more to fight terrorism.
"Had we had more time before Wales, getting into some of these questions about what matters and what does not matter would make a lot of sense." said Lute, the former US ambassador, referring to the 2014 NATO summit.
Maintaining the precisely defined spending commitment would require vast changes to one of the most powerful economies of NATO and the biggest target of Trump's anger: 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 US president, extremely unpopular, make it even more difficult for Chancellor Angela Merkel to make spending increases
"Honestly, I would not even know where to put all the aircraft carrier that we would buy, "said Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel last year
some NATO diplomats refuse budget increases, As the German army is unfortunately ill-prepared for a fight, its military helicopter pilots find it difficult to find working helicopters, but many military planners believe that there may be better targets for the billions of Germany that the material.
Hodges, who spent a lot of time in recent years to move the america army across Europe, said it would inject money into infrastructure that could improve NATO's ability to act quickly. "Europe needs more than German tanks." Europe needs German trains, so according to a large number of diplomats, Trump's approach has made it more difficult to talk about this. which is necessary for the security of NATO more broadly.
"The whole question of 2% is out of the realm where we can talk about it reasonably," said a senior diplomat from the United States. NATO, under the guise of anonymity, so that the diplomat's country is not the next to Trump. "Reticle." It has become a dogma. You believe it or not.
Read more
President Trump travels to Europe this week as leaders prepare for impact
Merkel and Trump agree that the troubled German army needs to # 39; a helping hand Why this does not happen?
Today's cover of post-correspondents from around the world
Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stays at day on foreign news
[ad_2]
Source link
