So the secretary of defense says NATO faces "a dim if not dismal future" if the Europeans don't pony up for more defense spending.
"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress--and in the American body politic writ large--to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense."
Typical Trump administration bull-in-the-china-shop diplomacy that--
Wait. That was Barack Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, in 2011.
So let's try another one: There is another Washington insider using his bully pulpit to force NATO to increase spending. He says the United States should cut the number of troops in Europe in half. Until NATO members begin paying more for their own defense--
Wait. That was Mike Mansfield, Senate majority leader, in 1971.
The fact is, complaints about NATO, the spending on it by Europeans, and America's role, are durable, if not perennial. So durable that the old joke in newsrooms was to keep a "Whither NATO?" headline in type in case of a slow news day.
So what's the difference this time?
Answer: This time the United States has a president who might well, indelicately and rudely, do what he says. And force the Europeans to live up to their own promises.
NATO members are supposed to spend at least 2 percent of their budgets on defense. Only a handful do, including the United States, which spends more on defense than the other NATO members combined. A lot of that American (tax) money goes to keep the wolf at the eastern European door, mind you, so presidents since, oh, Truman, have cordially wished for a little help. There's a guy in office now whose specialty is most certainly not cordial regard.
This week, Donald Trump is in London, at a NATO summit, and it's likely he'll repeat his demand that NATO countries take some of the pressure--financially--off the United States. Until President Trump started making these demands, American newspapers had been. They've gone strangely silent now that this particular president has taken up their arguments.
But the public prints still cover the news. And news analysis. This from The Washington Post's pre-summit article:
"The agenda has been tailored to Trump's interests. There's a largely symbolic concession from Germany to save U.S. cash by spending more to pay to keep NATO's lights on--which diplomats hope Trump will seize as a victory out of proportion with its size. There's also a report that looks at China's role as a challenge for the alliance. And defense spending figures have been calculated to emphasize Trump's influence in getting allies to share the burden.
"Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at a Friday news conference that the 28 non-U.S. members of NATO have invested $130 billion in their defense since 2016--an unusual way of presenting spending increases that started after Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea.
"NATO diplomats say privately that the 2016 peg is for Trump's benefit. They acknowledge that Trump's spend-more-or-else approach has indeed scared up more defense expenditures."
So, as The Post puts it, NATO bosses were trying to set things right with the United States president, financially, before he came through and started leaning against the china cabinets.
Which is fine with most taxpaying Americans. And should be for anybody who'd like a stable alliance in Europe.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, recently said NATO was brain dead. It's not the right metaphor. NATO has been sick, however, for several years. It might take a defib machine like Donald Trump to get it roused again.
Speaking of the French president, he gave an interview before the London meetings began, echoing his interview with The Economist a few weeks ago. This time he didn't say NATO was brain dead. But he had questions anyway:
"NATO is an organization of collective defense. Against what, against who is it defending itself? Who is our common enemy? What are our common topics? This question deserves clarifications."
Certainly does! So let his European friends clarify:
After the Russians annexed Crimea in 2014, even tight-fisted members of NATO got nervous. In the last few years, the other countries in the alliance have increased spending on military operations by $130 million, according to dispatches.
What is NATO defending against?
M. Macron's allies could tell him.
Editorial on 12/04/2019