Trump
re-election could sound death knell for Nato, allies fear
The US
president’s ambivalence or even hostility towards the alliance will hover over
the 70th anniversary meeting in the UK
Julian
Borger in Washington
Tue 3 Dec
2019 01.43 GMTFirst published on Mon 2 Dec 2019 19.25 GMT
Donald
Trump has repeatedly complained that other countries are not paying enough for
collective defence. His former national security adviser John Bolton recently
warned he could ‘go full isolationist’ in a second term.
Donald
Trump arrived in the UK to meet Nato allies who are fearful that he could pose
a serious threat to the survival of the alliance if he wins re-election next
year.
Days before
Wednesday’s leaders’ meeting just outside London to mark Nato’s 70th
anniversary, the US announced it was cutting its contribution to joint Nato
projects.
Nato
officials say the cut (which reduces the US contribution to equivalence with
Germany’s) was mutually agreed, but it comes against a backdrop of Trump’s
longstanding ambivalence about the value of the alliance, and suggestions that
US security guarantees to allied nations were dependent on their military
spending.
John
Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser until September, heightened fears
among allies about the president’s intentions in a private speech to a hedge
fund last month, in which Bolton (according to a NBC report) warned that Trump
could “go full isolationist” if he wins re-election next November, withdrawing
from Nato and other international alliances.
Trump has
continually complained about the defence spending of European allies who
committed less than the agreed 2% to defence, particularly Germany. And he has
cast doubt on US commitment to its obligations under article 5 of Nato’s
founding document, the Washington Treaty, under which an attack on one ally is
considered an attack on all allies.
Before
leaving Washington on Monday, Trump repeated his complaint about “other
countries that we protect, that weren’t paying”.
“They were
delinquent. So we’ll be talking about that,” he told reporters, though he noted
that allies were now spending $130bn more than before he took office, a
development he took credit for.
Tweeting
from Air Force One on the way to the UK, Trump declared: “In the 3 decades
before my election, NATO spending declined by two-thirds, and only 3 other NATO
members were meeting their financial obligations. Since I took office, the
number of NATO allies fulfilling their obligations more than DOUBLED, and NATO
spending increased by $130B!”
In fact the
number of allies meeting the 2% commitment has tripled to nine since 2016,
though some of that increase was already planned and Russian aggression in
Ukraine is also an important factor.
Air Force
One touched down at London Stansted just before 10pm.
A European
diplomat in Washington pointed out that under the Trump administration, the US
military presence on the alliance’s eastern flank has been stepped up, but
expressed concern that such reinforcements were driven by other administration
officials seeking to compensate for Trump’s personal affinity for Vladimir
Putin and his denigration of his European allies.
“The
greatest fear is what he would do in a second term. He would be more free from
constraints,” the diplomat said, adding that he was under pressure from his
capital to assess what a second Trump term would look like. “It is impossible
to predict,” he said.
Trump last
year publicly called into question whether the US would intervene in defence of
the newest member, Montenegro, under article 5. In an July 2018 interview,
Trump described Montenegrins as “very aggressive people” and expressed concern
they would somehow drag the US into a conflict “and congratulations, you’re in
World War III”.
The New
York Times has reported that Trump has said privately several times that he
would like to withdraw from Nato.
“I think what Bolton says resonates with
people because it is something that has worried people since Trump took office
and there is concern that he would feel less constrained in a second term, and
could actually do something,” said Amanda Sloat, a former senior state
department official now at the Brookings Institution.
“Given that
you have someone who was working very closely with the president over the last
year expressing that concern himself, I think it is bringing back to the fore
the possibility that this is something that could happen in a Trump second
term.”
Susan Rice,
national security adviser in the Obama administration, said that congressional
Republicans would step in to prevent Trump pulling the US out of Nato, but she
expressed concern about the long-term draining effect of Trump’s ambivalence on
Nato cohesion.
“I still do
think that Congress would throw its body in the way of a move to withdraw from
Nato,” Rice told the Guardian. “But, you know, Congress has surprised me in the
recent past, by its inability or unwillingness to challenge Trump. What I think
is more likely is this continued erosion of confidence in our leadership within
Nato, and more efforts that call into question our commitment, and more signals
to the authoritarians within Nato and Russia itself that this whole institution
is vulnerable.
“It’s hard to
envision the United States withdrawing from Nato, but I could see it suffering
a death by a thousand cuts,” Rice said.
Nato’s
secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has credited the $130bn in increased
defence spending by Nato allies to Trump. In a further effort to appease the US
president, Stoltenberg has also brokered a deal by which the US contribution
the Nato common funding for shared projects, was reduced from 22% of the
roughly $2.5bn total to just over 16%, in line with the share paid by Germany,
which has a significantly smaller economy.
Other
countries are supposed to make up for the consequent shortfall, but France is
reportedly refusing to contribute more on grounds that the redistribution
represents pandering to Trump.
“It’s
actually a very small budget within the Nato context,” said Rachel Ellehuus,
deputy director of the Europe programme at the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies.
“So it’s
largely symbolic that the US is cutting its contribution. But the US
administration was very clear that we wanted to have our share of common
funding more in line with what Germany was paying.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário