So, looks like Trump’s latest policy translated from his campaign rhetoric concerning NATO is…well, being developed is probably too generous…a trial balloon has been floated I suppose. Here is a BBC article on it:
I’ve also felt for quite a while that the fact that most NATO members aren’t making their target GDP goals of 2% was a serious issue and something we should (we as in NATO as a whole) hold members too unless they can demonstrate why they can’t do so because of economic issues or something like that. That said, I don’t think that the way Trump et al are addressing this is…optimal. Certainly, I don’t think you start off with threats, and that seems to be what Trump is doing…he seems to love playing hardball but he doesn’t seem to understand how it’s different from business (real estate business) and politics.
So, for debate…what do you think about holding NATO members to their 2% GDP for defense agreements? What effect will this have assuming the US bungles this as well? Or do you think Trump is doing the right thing here? What should/will the US do if not all the NATO members (or even any of them) pony up the money for defense to the 2% of GDP limit?
While Trump’s threat isn’t ideal, the NATO European partners have long needed a strong kick in this regard. “Moderating our commitment” is likely to backfire, but what other strings could have been pulled that would have carried enough clout?
I think NATO validates and supports the US domestic military-industrial complex and the whole political class feeds off the vested interests: yeah, yeah, we have to be ready for a war in Asia and in Europe …
I also think this is a possible negotiating tactic but also the perceived fulfillment of an election promise that won’t get very far.
Lastly, I think to take any of this shit at face value is to be somewhat naive, and I presume few on here will.
[QUOTE=up_the_junction]
Lastly, I think to take any of this shit at face value is to be somewhat naive, and I presume few on here will.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly what people thought about the attempted Muslim ban during the campaign…
You do realize that a lot of NATO members buy stuff from European arms agencies, right? As for being ready for war…well, that’s sort of the point of a military alliance. I don’t think NATO necessarily needs to be ready for war in Asia, but Europe? Yeah, I’d say they probably ought to at least consider that.
Maybe. He did back down on the China as currency manipulator and going to impose a 35% tariff on their goods thingy. I’m unsure if he will do the same wrt Mexico (who knows??). As for this…again, no idea. The guy is a political deaf mute who gets his news and information from radio talk shows and places like Infowars and Breitbart as well as cable news shows, and he thinks he can basically run the US the same way he does his business, using leverage and coercion to get what he wants. He’s already run up against reality with several things he’s tried to do, and this might be another. But that he will try? I disagree that he won’t and we can just write it off as another election promise. My delusions that Trump would just be another politician and not bother following up on election promises went out the air lock when he did his ridiculous Muslim banning thingy, so I take what he says he will do fairly seriously these days.
Well, I have to tell you, if Trump wants to sell the US contribution to NATO as some altruistic act of generosity, he’s going to have them falling down in the aisles in Europe.
They will, of course, lap it up in large parts of the USA: the shining beacon on the hill.
I don’t think Trump is trying to sell anyone that the US is being altruistic. Or if he is, who cares? The question at hand is: “So, for debate…what do you think about holding NATO members to their 2% GDP for defense agreements? What effect will this have assuming the US bungles this as well? Or do you think Trump is doing the right thing here? What should/will the US do if not all the NATO members (or even any of them) pony up the money for defense to the 2% of GDP limit?”
BTW, this isn’t just a Trump thing. Both Clinton and Sanders also brought this up during the election. Trump is probably the only one stupid enough to follow through in his seemingly heavy handed way, but this has been a sore point for a while now, especially as countries in Europe continue to drop below their 2% of GDP targets. Like the article says, of the 27 members only 5 meet that target. Even leaving aside the US for a bit, it’s not really fair that some of the richest countries in NATO don’t bother to meet it. You can make a case that some of the countries are having economic issues such that it would be difficult for them to meet them in the short term, but countries like Germany (who dipped below 1% of GDP for a bit and is only just above that, last I checked) and France (who, to be fair, was one of the ones who was over it for quite a while, but who has dipped below recently). Canada is also one who is far below the target (like Germany, hovering around 1% of GDP).
Does anyone know how the 2% of GDP was settled on?
Anyway, the article quotes Gen Matt is as saying “An annual increase that we’re asking them to commit to would at least demonstrate good faith”. Well, 14 of the 28 members did increase spending by 2% or more and 3 others with just slight increases of under 1%. Unfortunately, all the big boys (U.S. U.K. France and Germany) went in the opposite way with a 1-3% decrease. Numbers are from 2014-15.
The problem with an ultimatum on this issue is that domestic politics is going to totally trump NATO concerns. With Europe’s slow slog out of the recession and a refugee crisis, its pretty hard to sell a military increase.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Does any know how the 2% of GDP was settled on?
[/QUOTE]
IIRC, they are like pirate rules…basically, just guidelines that are strongly advised, but, AFAIK, aren’t mandatory to continued membership.
The UK, btw, is one of the 5 countries that is spending above the 2% mark according to your cite. It’s confirmed here, at least as far as April of last year.
Sorry, those numbers in the second paragraph was the change in their spending. I know UK is above the 2% GDP mark. Along with Greece who really shouldn’t be doing that.
I think Trump making kissy faces with Putin will do far more to encourage European defense spending than any tantrums about spending levels. That is, Europeans will spend however much on defense they think they need and there’s nothing much we can do about it either way.
They should be spending more on defense. But if Russia leveraging its energy policies against them, interfering in their politics, cybering their industries, and invading their neighbors doesn’t get them to focus on mutual defense, President Pout’s whining certainly won’t.
If there’s one thing I strongly agree with Trump about (or at least what seems to be Trump’s position), it’s NATO. It’s absurd that the US should be carrying so much of the load for an alliance that primarily benefits Europe.
I suspect that there are two reasons why this came about.
[ol]
[li]The US leaders and many citizens, like the idea of the US being the leader of the world, and in practice this translates into the US paying big bucks for the right to lead.[/li][li]When Communists dominated Eastern Europe, the Russians and their allies represented a threat to the world, since Communist world domination was part of their core dogma.[/li][/ol]
As to the first, I think it’s too much to pay. And as to the second, the world has changed. Communism does not currently threaten to take over the world. And while Russia/Putin are certainly dangerous, the prime danger that they pose is to Europe, not to the US. So there’s no reason for the US to be paying big bucks for this. If the Europeans don’t like it, then they need to play nice with Putin, not ask the US to fend him off.
That’s not really much of a change. The USSR was always more of a threat to Europe than the US. Their only threat to the US was a nuclear exchange which never required Europe’s help with, at least not since the days before ICBMs and nuclear armed subs.
It was always more of an immediate threat to Europe than to the US. But under the communists, Soviet domination of Europe was a much greater threat to the US than it would be today.
The NATO budget is $2 billion to run the organization and the US pays about 22% of that (the most of any nation). But, obviously, that is not the military aspect and in the grand scheme of things $440 million is not horrible for the US to shoulder. Sure other countries could pay more but the US would not save all that much.
On the flip side the US military is about 72% of all of NATO’s militaries. That sure seems a lot and it is but, of course, nowhere near all of that is dedicated to NATO’s defense.
I don’t think that is true. Are you saying if the current Russian Kleptocracy invaded and took Europe it would be easier for America to deal with compared to Russian Communism?
Diverting the discussion to be about Trump’s positions on various other things is a mistake, IMO. Maybe he’s consistent and maybe he’s not. But it should be possible to discuss the NATO issue on its own without burying it under an avalanche of Trumpiana.
Absolutely. Because communist ideology required world domination, and enabled it.
