NATO

Trump Tries to Make NATO Spending Demand Stick

But he's diminished the strength of that demand since taking office.

|

|MAXPPP

At the NATO summit in Brussels today, President Trump reiterated a demand that NATO members increase their defense spending to counter threats presented by terrorism, immigration, Russia, and those on NATO's southern borders.

The demand has lost some of its punch since Europe more or less called the President's bluff after Defense Secretary James Mattis first insisted American taxpayers could no longer "carry a disproportionate share of the defense of western values" in February.

Trump told NATO leaders at the unveiling of the Article 5 and Berlin Wall memorials in Brussels "23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they're supposed to be paying for their defense." NATO guidelines require members to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense.

"These grave security concerns," Trump said, "are the same reason that I have been very, very direct with [NATO] Secretary [Jens] Stoltenberg and members of the alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations."

NATO leaders re-iterated a promise at the NATO summit in 2014 in Wales to work over the next decade to meet the 2 percent guideline. At the time just the U.S. and Estonia met the target. Today, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Greece have been added.

Poland and the Baltics countries have incentive to spend more on defense since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 prompted the Wales declaration.

Robert Farley, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky's Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, told Reason, "Some countries have made commitments that seem solid, and in Poland's case that seems to include big ticket items."

"As long as the NATO countries are going to be committed to a common defense, the burdens also need to be equitably shared," William Ruger, vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute, told Reason. "Our wealthy European allies have the resources and population base to step up to the plate. However, this will be a challenge given that the U.S. has not credibly insisted upon real burden sharing in the past and has created a significant free-rider problem."

But how much Trump's rhetoric may have shifted the winds toward increased defense spending remains to be seen. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker responded to Mattis' earlier critique, calling on European leaders to resist Trump's demands, arguing that foreign and humanitarian aid counted as spending toward security.

Since then, Trump has changed his campaign position, saying he believed NATO was "no longer obsolete." Calculated or not, Ruger said, it was a way for Trump "to put more teeth into calls for greater balance in the relationship."

At the same time, Trump proposed massive defense spending increases in his first budget—increases fellow Republicans in Congress say are not enough. Those increases undercut the administration's argument for other NATO members to increase their defense contribution.

So long as the U.S., which spends by far more on defense than any other country in the world, appears to guarantee the security of its allies, there will be little incentive for European politicians to call for increased defense spending.

And there is still the matter of Trump's unpredictability, of which European leaders continue to signal their fear. Some worry Trump's foreign policy moves reinforce the post-war idea that the U.S. is the world's policeman.

Bombing Syrian for alleged violation of international law on chemical weapons and the aggressive response to North Korea's nuclear missile program have done nothing to allay those concerns.

NEXT: Plow Field, Pay Government $35 Million?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Trump wants the rest of NATO to spend 2% of GDP on defense, he should lead by example and fund America’s military at that level.

    1. To be clear, was 3.3% in 2015, http://data.worldbank.org/indi…..XPND.GD.ZS

      1. OK. 1% then.

  2. At a NATO summit in Brussels with top EU leaders, president Trump scolded Germany, and vowed to put an end to the country’s hefty car exports to the U.S., multiple German and now English-language news outlets report.

    German newspaper Der Spiegel cites “a circle of participants” at the summit, who claim Trump had harsh words to say about what he claims is Germany’s trade imbalance with the U.S.

    The president allegedly told the leaders:

    The Germans are bad, very bad… Look at the millions of cars they sell in the US. We will stop this.

    http://jalopnik.com/donald-tru…..1795557376

    What a piece of shit.

  3. The only way to get Europe to tend to their own defense is to pull all U.S forces out. And that won’t happen.

  4. Trump shoves prime minister of Montenegro

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tr…..ontenegro/

    1. Tough titties.

    2. No one upstages the God Emperor.

  5. “European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker responded to Mattis’ earlier critique, calling on European leaders to resist Trump’s demands, arguing that foreign and humanitarian aid counted as spending toward security.”

    Maybe we should assure our allies that if and when they’re invaded by Russia or face some other war, the United States can meet its NATO security commitment by sending them humanitarian aid.

    1. + 1 hospital ships

    2. Haha, like your warmongering country would refuse to join in any global spat. Especially one with the chance to bed some French ladies!

      1. Remember the security assurances everyone gave Ukraine when they turned over their Soviet nukes?

        How did that work out for the Ukraine?

  6. “Some worry Trump’s foreign policy moves reinforce the post-war idea that the U.S. is the world’s policeman. Bombing Syrian for alleged violation of international law on chemical weapons and the aggressive response to North Korea’s nuclear missile program have done nothing to allay those concerns.”

    Let’s allay those concerns by pulling the hell out of NATO.

    1. ^+1
      NATO is a pile of crap left over from the time we knew the French were stupid enough to align with the USSR and offer their population even more free shit.
      Well, the USSR is gone, so quit NATO and let the French spend themselves out of the EU if they so choose. I’m tired of paying for some Parisian waiter’s 4 weeks in Cuba to ‘experience the authenticity!’.

  7. Those increases undercut the administration’s argument for other NATO members to increase their defense contribution.

    In what way?

    If two people open a business together and contractually agree to split all expenses, and one of them comes into a ton of money, is the contract nullified and the rich one required to support the poor one?

    They want the benefits without the expenses.

    If we decided to unilaterally ignore major clauses of the NATO agreement, I am betting they wouldn’t much care for it.

  8. I’d be anxious to see how great Europe handles things if they have to pay for their defense on their own.

  9. Today, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Greece have been added.

    Well, at least two of the checks won’t bounce.

    1. How much is 2%of the Greek GDP? Like $12?

  10. Don’t Italians in New York rake in gazillions in protection moolah? I’d say turnabout is fair play.

  11. So long as the U.S., which spends by far more on defense than any other country in the world, appears to guarantee the security of its allies, there will be little incentive for European politicians to call for increased defense spending.

    This would be a poor inference on their part.

    That we have more does not mean that we commit to using it for their benefit.

    A strange argument by Ed. How persuasive would it be for us to spend less, while telling them to spend more? Should we make ourselves incapable of defending them, so that they have to defend themselves?

    The security guarantee is one of the commitments of NATO members. As are the spending commitments. When NATO members fail to live up to their obligations, we are released from our obligations.

  12. Well I think that this is going to work for sure in the best way possible Snapchat Login

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.