By Dalibor Rohac
Sunday, April 07,
2019
The most poignant aspect of the celebrations of NATO’s
70th anniversary last week was the tension between the business-as-usual
character of the meeting among the alliance’s foreign ministers in Washington
and the continuing absurdity of Donald Trump’s presidential reality show —
including his earlier suggestion that America’s allies be charged full costs
“plus 50 percent” for the presence of U.S. military bases in their countries.
This contrast, together with what are largely
conventional policies of a largely conventional Republican administration —
including the strengthening of sanctions on Russia, a boost of U.S. presence on
NATO’s eastern flank, and a more muscular posture toward China — create the
impression that the idiosyncratically Trumpist challenge to the transatlantic
alliance will fade away once Donald Trump leaves office.
That is an illusion. Trump may be crude and
unsophisticated, but his presidency is raising questions about the alliance
that have to be answered. Seventy years into its existence, NATO needs to adapt
— or become irrelevant. Historically, after all, alliances between countries
have rarely been long-lasting. In contrast, NATO has managed to outlive the
Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union by almost three decades. Whether that anomaly
can continue hinges on the extent to which the alliance can still generate
value for its members in a new global environment.
Trump’s antics often mirror real problems — especially
Europe’s “free riding”. Notwithstanding decades of American cajoling and the
EU’s self-professed desire to become strategically independent, few European
governments are willing to invest real resources into their militaries.
Germany, for example, recently revised its spending plans downwards, walking
back its already timid commitment to increase defense spending to 1.5 percent
of GDP by 2025.
Germany’s current reluctance to step up its game is at
least as irresponsible as Trump’s Twitter outbursts. Yet it is worth
remembering that a part of the alliance’s initial rationale was “to keep the
Germans down” or, more broadly, to limit the destructive power competition
between European nation-states. In that sense, the feebleness of European
militaries is a feature, not a bug, of the alliance’s design — and it has to be
said that it has served Europe rather well.
If Germany just brought its defense spending above 2
percent of GDP, it would easily outspend Russia and become one of the largest
military powers in the world. What would Germany’s neighbors in Europe say,
especially those countries that are concerned that Berlin is already wielding
too much power within the EU? The Mediterranean periphery blames Germany,
rightly or wrongly, for imposing unpopular austerity policies on its hapless
economies. Leaders of Visegrád countries, most prominently Viktor Orbán of Hungary,
have soured on Berlin after Chancellor Angela Merkel extended her “welcome” to
Syrian asylum seekers in September 2015. How would Germany’s militarization
shape the country’s relations with the Czech Republic, which expelled two and a
half million ethnic Germans from the Sudetenland after World War II? With
Poland?
Of course, none of this is an excuse for Germany’s
current complacency. But how exactly
Europeans step up their game is just as important as the question of whether
European defense budgets will grow, and by how much. The best way to encourage
Europeans to do more, without inviting back the destructive militarism of the
past, is for the United States to support the deepening of the EU’s defense
cooperation, which already enjoys popular support across the EU’s member
states. Unfortunately, the administration has done the opposite — displaying
its hostility to the European project on every occasion imaginable.
Given that European countries, including those currently
governed by populist governments, are committed to the EU, euroskepticism as an
official U.S. policy risks widening the already existing gap between Europe and
the United States. Yet for NATO to remain viable, that gap needs to narrow.
On some issues, this may be difficult. The United States
sees a resurgent Iran as the most significant source of regional instability in
the Middle East. Europeans, determined to salvage the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action, have seemed more willing to spend political capital to circumvent
U.S. secondary sanctions than to stop Iran’s ballistic-missile program and
respond to its support for Assad’s atrocities in Syria.
On other subjects, synergies are more natural. Similarly
to the Cold War, the presence of common enemies fosters unity. In Washington,
it is taken for granted that China already is America’s most important global
rival. Europeans may be slow, but they too are waking up to the risks that
Chinese investment might entail.
On the issue of Russia, which poses an immediate threat
to the security of Eastern Europe, Europe itself seems divided. Some want to
have it both ways — keep Vladimir Putin’s belligerence in check but also
continue to do business with Russia as if the annexation of Crimea and war
against Ukraine had never happened.
The alliance has no alternative but to find a common
strategic outlook, in which the European continent plays an important but no
longer an exclusive part, simply because the world’s center of gravity has
moved away from Europe. What is equally important is NATO’s insistence on
shared values. Why should U.S, taxpayers and its men and women in uniform
underwrite the security of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s autocratic regime in Turkey,
for example? At what point does Fidesz’s authoritarianism in Hungary become
incompatible with the country’s place within the democratic, civilized West?
Membership in the alliance cannot be a one-way ratchet.
It has to become a conditional privilege, with all the members playing an
active role — and facing a common system of graduated sanctions, culminating in
expulsion for rogue regimes. Otherwise, the frequent appeals to shared values
will continue to ring hollow to voters on both sides of the Atlantic.
NATO is certainly not “obsolete.” As my AEI colleague
Gary Schmitt argued, the alliance has been extraordinarily successful in
“encouraging states and peoples to put aside traditional rivalries in the name
of greater regional cooperation” while only minimally burdening the United
States. It is, in short, the most successful alliance in the history of
humankind. But its best days lie ahead of us only if the bloc succeeds in
finding compelling responses to its threefold challenge of shared defense
costs, shared strategic outlook, and shared values. I, for one, hope that
Trump’s brusque manners will help catalyze that process, instead of eroding the
alliance’s credibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment