Does NATO Need to be Restructured?

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

After British Prime Minister Theresa May met newly-elected American President Donald Trump Jan. 27, she said she felt assured that both countries retain an “unshakable commitment” to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

But is it really that certain? After all, during the recent presidential campaign, Trump had suggested that the military alliance is “obsolete” and that the United States might not come to the aid of countries that don’t meet targets for their own defence spending.

In response to a question about potential Russian aggression towards the Baltic states, Trump told the New York Times in an interview last July that if Moscow attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”

He accused European allies of bring free riders and taking advantage of what he called an era of American largess.

NATO was founded in 1949 as a way for American troops to protect a war-shattered Europe from aggression by Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. It was also designed to prevent a potentially resurgent Germany from engaging in future assaults against its neighbours.

As one cynic suggested, it was designed to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Today Europe is quite capable of shaping and paying for its own security, but NATO’s structure remains unchanged. The United States still pays nearly three-quarters of its budget. The European members, on the other hand, have always been leery about heavy conventional defence expenditures.

According to NATO statistics, the U.S. spent an estimated $664 billion on defence in 2016, more than double the amount all the other 27 NATO countries spent between them, even though their combined gross domestic product (GDP) tops that of the U.S.

Only five of NATO’s 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and Great Britain -- meet the alliance’s target of spending at least two per cent of GDP on defence. Washington spends the highest proportion of its GDP on defense, at 3.61 per cent.

Canada spends less than one per cent annually and would need to spend an extra $20 billion per year to make the two per cent target.

Why has Washington gone along with this for half a century? It’s because the U.S. did not want to surrender control over the continent’s security, fearing that Europeans might otherwise seek conciliation with Russia.

Russia may be seen as a destabilizing force in Europe or as simply defending its border regions. Either way, it is more of a challenge for Europeans than North Americans.

The international order is now in a state of flux. Starting with China and Russia, many countries resent America’s leadership role.

 For that matter, many Americans have also tired of it and are questioning the nature and extent of their nation’s involvement in the world. They wonder why they need to play such an outsize role on the world stage.

Trump has tapped into this feeling. “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land,” he has proclaimed.

A neo-isolationist, in his inaugural address the new president contended that the U.S. has for too long “subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military.”

Trump promised to put “America first.” So he is not averse to making deals with Russia should that benefit the country.

In a joint interview with the Times of London and the German publication Bild shortly before taking office, he suggested a bargain that would ease sanctions on Russia in exchange for nuclear arms cuts and cooperation in the fight against the Islamic State.

Trump also restated his doubts about NATO, “because it was designed many, many years ago.” From Moscow’s point of view, a reduction of NATO’s military presence near Russia’s borders would be welcomed. Stay tuned.