NATO: Worth the Fuss

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an alliance of nations built on the idea the Soviet Union needed to be contained militarily. There was genuine concern among Western European countries (Germany, France, England) that the Soviets posed a threat to a weekend Europe after World War II. NATO tied together these concerns, along with the United States and Canada, in a defensive pact to deter Russian aggression.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 a lot of people question the overall goal of the pact. Is it still essential now that the Soviet Union is gone? What is the strategic objective for the alliance? NATO is just as important today because Russian is just as determined to gobble up weak nation states. It has some problems though and lack of European commitment to spending is chief among them. President Trump was right to point it out, but he is wrong to disparage the idea of a unified front.

 NATO countries agreed to 2% of GDP spending requirement from each of its 29 member countries. So far only Greece and Estonia have ponied up. President Trump was in Brussels last week for a summit on the future of the organization. Most of what is getting attention is his dressing down of Angela Merkel for her country’s lack of spending and indebtedness to Russian energy companies. Trump criticizes NATO members as often as he can, either in Tweet form or in speeches. His complaint reflects commonly held views that alliance members are shirking their payments at the expense of domestic goals. NATO acts as a type of military welfare for European members that don’t want to pay for a standing army. It’s easy to avoid payments when the bulk of the money is being spent by the U.S. But by focusing on the spending only, we miss the secondary benefits of having so many sovereign nations on our side. 

After 911 the coalition supported the invasion of Afghanistan and later the invasion of Iraq. It might seem like a small offering but considering NATO members support others who’ve been attacked, it was a big ask. Iraq in particular cost Tony Blair a lot of support at home. It wasn’t a traditional war either in which country A needs help from an invading country B. It was more preemptive, remove Saddam before he attacks. Also, when the US needs votes at the United Nations it’s often the NATO countries that vote with us. If the United States insists on taking votes at the U.N. and NATO for military incursions (Iraq, Libya) it will need partners along the way.

How many military bases could we keep in Italy without an agreement? Germany? Spain? Chances are, not too many. There may be a time when we aren’t able to house bases inside other countries. When that happens cooperation between nations is even more important for any conflict or peacekeeping mission, not to mention more expensive. Even the reluctant Turks have a U.S. Air Force base.

   

Despite the problems among members, the threat posed by Russian incursion into Eastern Europe is more real now than it was in the 1990’s. President Putin annexed (a nice way of saying “stole”) Crimea from Ukraine and went to war in Georgia a few years before that. It’s dangerous to oppose Putin if you live in the former Soviet bloc. Since the Soviet Union fell apart under Gorbachev in the late 80’s, a lot of diplomats assumed Russian was finished. Communism proved unable to hold together the disparate countries that fell under their control. It wasn’t in a position to expand; it lost former territories like the Baltic states and Georgia and Armenia. But Putin regained a lot of power that was lost in the chaotic 90’s. Mostly through energy contacts, he is exerting control over much of the former soviet bloc countries.

The roots of cooperation between Western Europe and the United States started after the war. A battle weary continent might have fallen under Stalin if not for that cooperation. After World War II the allies essentially made a bet, rebuild Western Europe and hold off Soviet expansion. By shoring up businesses in West Germany and reinforcing democratic norms, the influence of Communism would be restricted to Eastern Europe and the West under Capitalism. In this way, they kept a potential problem (Soviet aggression) contained and prevented another massive European war. This is like two fighting brothers drawing a line down the center of their shared bedroom and labeling their stuff. Over there is your side, here is my side. It helps to prevent major conflicts but practically guarantees the minor ones that characterized the Cold War.

 Communism feeds on desperate people who have neither rule of law nor freedom of movement. It’s an absolutist form of government that rewards brutality, crushes opposition and restricts religion. And it’s much easier to install in poor countries than wealthy ones. In other words the allied gamble was for prosperity. It worked. People know it the Marshall Plan because that was the where the big spending on infrastructure and aid happened. But NATO was an outgrowth of the same spirit of cooperation among democratic allies after the war. The U.S. was in the best position to offer aid as a bulwark against the chaos of Communism.

The best option today is to scale back the mission of NATO resembling something closer to the founding principle, by laying down markers to prevent too much Russian meddling. The Trump administration approved the sale of some weapons to the Ukrainian government at the end of last year. Sending weapons (although a small amount) is a signal to Putin that NATO opposes his incursion into that country. It's a good start at least.

President Trump should make sure U.S. ambassadors hold the line on spending. It is part of the original agreement after all. I’m sure the European leaders hate Trump’s brutally honest assessment. He needs to direct some of that bluntness toward the Kremlin. This Atlantic treaty should survive despite the problems we have with the lack of commitment from some of the members. The alternative is a strong Russia and a diminished role for the U.S. It may come to that, but it doesn’t have to.