Last week, defense secretary James Mattis visited the NATO headquarters in Brussels to calm United States allies. President Trump's campaign rhetoric elicited fear in NATO allies, as Trump stated the alliance was obsolete and that the US should not continue to support its upkeep. Mattis took a different approach as compared to the president, stating that NATO is a "fundamental bedrock for the United States and the trans-Atlantic community." However, he did warn that if changes were not made, then the commitment of the United States would "moderate." While this has always been a threat from the United States, President Trump's threat is taken with much more heed.
In 2014, after the Russian invasion of Crimea, a NATO summit was held in fear of Russian aggression. There, it was agreed upon that NATO members will spend 2% of the GDP on defense by 2024. Jen's Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary-general, is behind this push, and agrees with President Trump's push for NATO defense spending to increase. And it has- military spending has increased by 3.8% (about $10 billion); however, only Britain, Poland, Estonia, and Greece have met their 2% threshold. That leaves powerhouses like France and Germany lagging behind. Further, Spain and Italy will struggle to meet the 2% defense spending threshold if they want to continue meeting the European Union budget rules.
What I find interesting is the fact that these European countries who would be the most affected by Russian aggression do not seem to seek further protection. Instead, their focus has been on social programs and infrastructure, despite the threat of Russia at their door. While it is understandable that the United States does have a large stake in the claim against Russian aggression as the world's hegemonic power, it is understandable why President Trump is taking such a hard stance on the issue of NATO defense spending. What is troublesome is that if NATO member countries decide that President Trump's threats are empty, what will he do? The collapse of NATO is detrimental to the balance of power in the world, as well as the United State's stake in Europe. Yet, if President Trump threatens but does not deliver on such threats, he still loses his hardline reputation.
"Donald Trump and NATO: Pay Up." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 18 February 2017.
1 comment:
It seems that Trump has made a lot of statements to prove himself as anti-establishment without regard to the consequence of these statements. NATO in universally considered to be important however there some problems that it faces which Trump doesn't seem to actually address in his critics. Hopefully, he doesn't make a rash decision about national security.
Post a Comment