In the meantime, here are three things you should know before next week's summit.
1. NATO Has Been a Tremendously Successful Alliance. NATO is without doubt the most successful defense alliance in history. It was created when a devastated and weak Western Europe was facing a strong Soviet Army. The threat was real: the Soviet Union subverted a democratic government in Czechoslovakia, supported civil war in Greece, and supported emerging Communist political parties in France and Italy. There was another problem as well--how to allow Germany reemerge as a normal nation without endangering the rest of Europe.
Looking back almost 70 years later, NATO can declare mission accomplished. The Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight, and there has been no war among European nations in over 70 years. This is the longest period of peace in European history. This success resulted virtually every former Warsaw Pact country now freed from tyranny seeking to join NATO. They knew that collective security had worked for Western Europe, and they wanted assurance that their new independence would remain intact.
The people of Europe (both East and West) were obviously the beneficiaries of the peace and prosperity created the the stability created by this security alliance, but it also greatly benefited the United States. The huge success of the U.S. economy after World War II is in large measure the result of increasing trade with the increasingly prosperous European economy. In addition the peace meant that U.S. servicemembers did not need to fight and die in European conflicts.
2. NATO Remains Vital to the U.S. National Security Interests Today.
NATO was created to deter a strong and assertive Soviet Union i the wake of World War II. After the Cold War, many thought that NATO would become irrelevant, or at least would need to redefine its mission. Indeed, in the early 1990's NATO began to change its focus from a deterrence mission to one focused on stability in Europe. There was even talk of having Russia join NATO.
Alas, the old mission returns. While Russia is not as powerful as the old Soviet Union, it remains a nuclear power with large military forces. Moreover, in recent years it has been modernizing its military. Even more disturbing, with Putin in power, it has become clear that Russia now has as a strategic aim the goal of "recapturing" the power in Europe that it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. So far, these efforts have been focused on the former Soviet states that are not in the European Union or NATO. Russia has used military power in Georgia. It used military power to seize Crimea from the Ukraine, and is providing military assistance to pro-Russian separatist in Eastern Ukraine.
While it has taken some hostile acts against NATO states--most notably an attack on Estonia's internet access-- so far it has declined to take aggressive action against NATO states. But in light of its rhetoric about regaining what it lost, and its assertion of a right to protect Russian speaking peoples wherever they may live, many national security experts expect that Russia would take aggressive action (first against the Baltic States, but then elsewhere) should NATO be disbanded or the U.S. walk away from a firm commitment to collective defense.
Simply put, if we want a peaceful, stable, and democratic Europe, we need NATO. As I argued in a previous post, any uncertainty about whether we will keep our commitment to defend NATO countries will increase the likelihood of war. History is full of examples that prove the point that deterrence only works if a potential adversary is persuaded that the political will exists to take action in response to aggression. The years before the beginning of World War II show Hitler testing the will of the world to respond to his aggression, and he acted to invade Poland when he calculated that there was no will to come to Poland's defense. In January 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a speech at the National Press Club in which he publicly declared a defensive containment line against the "Communist menace" in Asia. South Korea was outside that line. Soon thereafter, North Korea invaded South Korea. And more recently, it appears that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait when the U.S. sent signals that it would not come to Kuwait's defense. In each case, uncertainty resulted in miscalculation, and miscalculation leads to war.
One further point is also worth making about the value of NATO. NATO is organized as a security alliance, but in effect it has resulted in much more. The daily discussions about the military alliance and military cooperation have almost inevitably resulted in discussions about cooperation on other national security issues as well. The result has been deep and lasting relationships of the member states on issues such as intelligence, terrorism, law enforcement and foreign affairs. While we gripe whenever our European allies disagree with us on foreign policy issues, to a remarkable degree, these nations have acted with one voice on significant issues--sanctions on Iran and North Korea, support for Afghanistan, the fight against ISIS, transportation security, and protection of the Internet. These countries share our values, and their cooperation has been vital
3. Our NATO Allies Are Increasing Their Defense Spending.
As the Russian threat reemerged in recent years, both Republican and Democratic Administrations have told Europe that it was time for them to step up their own defense spending. President Trump has rightly continued this insistence that our NATO allies step up their defense spending. What needs to be recognized, however, is that most NATO countries are in fact stepping up their commitment and progress has been made.
In 2014, the NATO countries have pledged to work toward a goal of spending two percent of GDP on defense by 2024. As you can imagine, a shift in national budgets from other priorities to defense is not something that nations can do overnight. This is why the goal was stated as being met in a decade. Instead, meeting this target will take several years if the defense spending is to really accomplish the goal of buying effective military capability. The key factor therefore is to see if progress is being made. It is. After years of reductions in defense spending in Europe, defense spending is now increasing and at an accelerating rate. this chart shows the annual real change in European and Canadian defense spending :
Second, while only three members of NATO spent 2% or more of GDP on defense in 2104, NATO now expects that eight nations will meet this target in 2018. In 2014, only the U.S., U,K. and Greece met the 2% target. In 2018, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania will meet this target as well. A majority of NATO members have firm plans in place to meet the 2% target by 2014.
Did you notice something about the list of countries meeting the target? Almost all of countries with Russian borders are on the list of countries meeting the 2% goal. These countries have the greatest need for NATO's collective defense. The countries with the most at stake are the ones stepping up most quickly. We ought not reward their efforts by reneging on our Treaty obligation for collective defense.
It is also worth pointing out (as I did here) that these budget numbers don't really capture the value of our Allies' true contribution. Some allies--such as Denmark--have low budget percentages, but quite effective and useful military capabilities that they have contributed to the fight. In addition, while we like to tout the fact that the U.S. spends 3.57% of its GDP on defense, not all of this defense spending is focused on Europe. Indeed, only about a quarter of our defense spending is focused on European defense.
At the end of the day, our NATO allies need to increase their own defense response to the new Russian threat. But too much is at stake to risk weakening this vital and successful alliance.
No comments:
Post a Comment