When the Cold War ended, there was a big issue for the USA that got very little attention. That issue was the fate of NATO. With the demise of the Soviet Union, there was a serious question about the need for a European alliance with the USA. Against whom were the countries defending themselves? What was the benefit for the USA and for Europe?
At first, there was a rather common response by the NATO countries. They all cut military spending but kept the alliance. Under Bill Clinton, the USA got what was called the "peace dividend" which was a massive cut in military spending that was used in part for domestic items and in part to reduce the deficit. The formal alliance went on, but it atrophied. Then came September 11th of 2001. America was attacked by terrorists and it called upon NATO to help under the treaty. Some NATO members sent troops to Afghanistan. Some also sent troops to Iraq. For the most part, however, the NATO countries gave lip service to the common defense but kept cutting spending. Of the larger nations, only the UK met its obligations under the NATO treaty. The USA fought the war on terror on its own with only a symbolic alliance helping us.
Then Russia started to become a threat again. In 2008, Putin's Russia invaded Georgia. While that nation is not a member of NATO, the move made clear that Russia could no longer be ignored. Later we saw the Russians invade Ukraine. The Europeans wanted a common defense under NATO. Of course, these same Europeans for the most part didn't want to pay for or participate in the "common defense". Military expenditures continued to fall. They figured that the USA would defend them.
The reaction of the USA as all this happened has been interesting. Under Clinton, America ignored the problem. In fact, we participated in the general drift towards curtailing the military. After 9-11, the Bush administration did little to bolster NATO because we wanted to be sure that we got whatever support possible in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush stayed silent on the real problems of NATO. Then came the Obama years. As with most things involving foreign affairs, Obama handled NATO from an ideological standpoint. NATO was part of the "international community", so whatever NATO did was "good". Obama never complained in any meaningful way as America took on more and more of the burden of the NATO defense. Now under Trump, everything has changed. America now wants and expects that the Europeans will honor and meet their treaty obligations. In a way, it's sort of like illegal immigration. The immigration laws said one thing, but Obama was fine with people doing something else. The NATO treaty also says one thing and Obama was fine with the other NATO nations doing something different. Trump wants the treaty enforced.
The amazing thing to me is that the Democrats and their media allies make such a big deal about the President of the United States asking our allies to honor their treaty obligations. Each NATO nation committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense. That's hardly a big burden. Most of the NATO countries take in something like 35% of GDP in taxes. That means that on average the NATO nations have to spend about 6% of their budget on defense.
At today's meeting in Europe, the President again called on the NATO nations to meet their treaty obligations. He pointed out that America would not keep defending Europe if Europe would not do what it had promised to do for defense. Surely, that makes sense to the average American. Why do we have to defend Germany if the Germans won't commit to doing that themselves? Must we go to war if Denmark gets invaded if the Danes won't even spend 2% on their own defense? So many on the left love to announce that the USA is not the policeman of the world, but when President Trump says basically the same thing, the left criticizes him for doing so.
The key here is that unlike under Obama when the USA never challenged our allies to do what they had promised to do, Trump's America considers the NATO treaty to be binding on all NATO members. That's good for the USA. It's also good for NATO. We should applaud it.
At first, there was a rather common response by the NATO countries. They all cut military spending but kept the alliance. Under Bill Clinton, the USA got what was called the "peace dividend" which was a massive cut in military spending that was used in part for domestic items and in part to reduce the deficit. The formal alliance went on, but it atrophied. Then came September 11th of 2001. America was attacked by terrorists and it called upon NATO to help under the treaty. Some NATO members sent troops to Afghanistan. Some also sent troops to Iraq. For the most part, however, the NATO countries gave lip service to the common defense but kept cutting spending. Of the larger nations, only the UK met its obligations under the NATO treaty. The USA fought the war on terror on its own with only a symbolic alliance helping us.
Then Russia started to become a threat again. In 2008, Putin's Russia invaded Georgia. While that nation is not a member of NATO, the move made clear that Russia could no longer be ignored. Later we saw the Russians invade Ukraine. The Europeans wanted a common defense under NATO. Of course, these same Europeans for the most part didn't want to pay for or participate in the "common defense". Military expenditures continued to fall. They figured that the USA would defend them.
The reaction of the USA as all this happened has been interesting. Under Clinton, America ignored the problem. In fact, we participated in the general drift towards curtailing the military. After 9-11, the Bush administration did little to bolster NATO because we wanted to be sure that we got whatever support possible in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush stayed silent on the real problems of NATO. Then came the Obama years. As with most things involving foreign affairs, Obama handled NATO from an ideological standpoint. NATO was part of the "international community", so whatever NATO did was "good". Obama never complained in any meaningful way as America took on more and more of the burden of the NATO defense. Now under Trump, everything has changed. America now wants and expects that the Europeans will honor and meet their treaty obligations. In a way, it's sort of like illegal immigration. The immigration laws said one thing, but Obama was fine with people doing something else. The NATO treaty also says one thing and Obama was fine with the other NATO nations doing something different. Trump wants the treaty enforced.
The amazing thing to me is that the Democrats and their media allies make such a big deal about the President of the United States asking our allies to honor their treaty obligations. Each NATO nation committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense. That's hardly a big burden. Most of the NATO countries take in something like 35% of GDP in taxes. That means that on average the NATO nations have to spend about 6% of their budget on defense.
At today's meeting in Europe, the President again called on the NATO nations to meet their treaty obligations. He pointed out that America would not keep defending Europe if Europe would not do what it had promised to do for defense. Surely, that makes sense to the average American. Why do we have to defend Germany if the Germans won't commit to doing that themselves? Must we go to war if Denmark gets invaded if the Danes won't even spend 2% on their own defense? So many on the left love to announce that the USA is not the policeman of the world, but when President Trump says basically the same thing, the left criticizes him for doing so.
The key here is that unlike under Obama when the USA never challenged our allies to do what they had promised to do, Trump's America considers the NATO treaty to be binding on all NATO members. That's good for the USA. It's also good for NATO. We should applaud it.
No comments:
Post a Comment