What Price NATO, G7, The Paris Accords and the President's Brain?

I claim no expertise on American foreign policy. Mind you, I often wonder whether American leaders over the years understand foreign policy. For example, Eisenhower embarked on the Vietnam disaster, firmly believing in the Domino theory and that the world would face Communist hegemony if a stand was not made. JFK followed the lead, LBJ’s presidency was sunk by Vietnam and even Nixon could not bring a satisfactory ending. Under Gerald Ford, the USA made an ignominious exit. More than twenty years of fighting and loss of American lives was for nothing. The Americans had refused to recognise that, following the artificial partition of Vietnam in 1946, the Vietnamese were fighting a civil war.

Since Vietnam, America’s foreign policy errors litter the landscape. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, President Bush (41) put together a coalition and gave Saddam Hussein a bloody lesson but Bush stopped at the Iranian border. It was an honourable move because the United Nations mandate was limited to a removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait but America and its allies lost an opportunity to remove a dictator and help negotiate a new regime. The second Iraq War after 9/11 was fought by USA with a restricted coalition and no plan for a post-war Iraq. The War on Terror is no longer fought or even discussed.

The USA has a history of supporting dictators like Diem, Duvalier and Noriega and totalitarian regimes like Panama, Guatemala, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia, merely because they were opposed to communism. Never mind human rights. It has even supported terrorist groups, re-defined as freedom fighters, like the Contras in Nicaragua, all in the name of anti-communism. The overall track record of the executive branch and the State Department on foreign affairs is spectacularly awful.

Despite the above, much of the time in its history, America has been isolationist. Occasionally, Presidents like Wilson changed tack but even Franklin Roosevelt did not want to engage with other nations, except China, until the late 1930s. Since the end of World War II, America’s role has changed dramatically. As the world’s policeman, it cannot be isolationist. Now we have Mr Trump who seems hell-bent on resuming isolationism. He does not want to accept he lives in a global world. Trading agreements will suffice for him if they comply with America First.

It is bad enough that Mr Trump hinted at the recent G7 meeting that he will formally withdraw America from the Paris Climate Accords. Yesterday, he announced that America would withdraw. Trump’s Executive Orders changing environment protection rules in the name of profit will affect Americans adversely, unless they are making money from oil exploration or coal mining. To withdraw from an international agreement and sit with the only two Accord refusnik nations, Syria and Nicaragua, might fulfil a campaign promise but international reaction will put America in the dock.

There may be help at hand. I had hoped that Senate approval would be required for breaking a treaty as well as making on but this does not seem to be the case. However, I can’t believe the American courts will not get involved and stay any anti-environment executive order pending hearings.

In the campaign, Trump threatened a withdrawal from NATO, which provides a unique link between the two continents, enabling them to consult and cooperate in the field of defence and security, as well as multinational crisis-management operations. The United States is its most important member in an alliance of countries from Europe and North America. However, USA is the largest contributor to NATO funding and this has got Trump’s attention as he focuses the cross hairs of his political firearm on the organization.

NATO was formed in 1949 with 12 members. Since then, membership has increased to 28 nations. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (as it is known) provides: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all….” If nothing else, the Treaty has acted as a brake on Russia and, until the 1990s, the Warsaw Pact countries. Had Ukraine been a member of NATO, it is unlikely that the 2014 Russia invasion of Crimea would have occurred.

I was five years old when the Washington Treaty was signed. Since I became politically aware, I have regarded NATO as an umbrella, protecting us Brits in the event of military action from our enemies. I concluded that our nuclear arsenal, including the expensive Trident programme, was not simply a deterrent to Russia and other nations who would attack us but also as our contribution to NATO, which gives us an influential seat at both NATO’s table and the United Nations.

So, why my concern?  I hope I am wrong but I see America possibly making another huge foreign policy error in its dealings with NATO. Based on campaign promises, President Trump has made it clear he wants NATO allies to pay their fair share of the costs. He has approached the issue on business lines, effectively telling his partners they owe specific amounts and not to expect America to cover the costs. In principle, the American argument seems reasonable. If you want to be a member of a club, you must pay your dues.

However, Trump’s “America First” policy means that paying a fair share of costs outweighs the value of the pact of mutuality in the NATO alliance. America has got it badly wrong. What President Trump and his advisers neither understand nor accept is that international diplomacy is more than mere business. It is nuanced and complex and friendly nations in an alliance will not respond well to brash demands from other nation partners.

NATO funding is two-fold. There is direct funding for military-related operations, maintenance and headquarters activity, based on each country’s gross national income. The 2016 NATO budget amounted to $2.85bn. As America has the largest economy of members, it pays the highest share, approximately 22%. Germany is second, with about 15%. The share of the military budget is negotiated annually, thus Trump has no historical grounds of complaint.

Trump has been throwing his weight about on America’s share of NATO’s indirect funding which is spent on operations where the collective obligation under Article 5 does not apply. Since 2006, each NATO member has had a guideline of spending at least 2% gross domestic product on indirect funding. Following Russian aggression in Ukraine, NATO members pledged to meet the guideline within ten years. Currently, five of the 28 NATO members exceed the guideline. USA leads at 3.6%. Greece, Estonia, Britain and Poland are the other four. The remaining NATO nations have increased their indirect defense spending but not to the 2% level. But the ten year deadline, which is not legally binding, is eight years away.

Trump has made several misleading tweets and statements. On 30^th May, he tweeted: “They (Germany) pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.” Five days earlier, he addressed NATO members: “This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.” Trump’s argument doesn’t hold water. The money he talks about is the sum each country would spend on its own military or on missions that do not include NATO, such as peacekeeping in Africa. I believe Trump knows this full well but it doesn’t suit his case.

According to The Washington Post, defence experts say it is impossible to calculate how much of U.S. military spending is devoted just to NATO but for decades, U.S. presidents have concluded, quite correctly, that the U.S. commitment to the defence of NATO was an essential part of overall U.S. security. Trump is simply wrong on direct funding and is imprecise and out of date on indirect funding. Now he is President, he can order briefings on any subject. One would expect that he’s had more than one briefing on NATO funding, especially before his recent trip to NATO headquarters, but he continues to mislead the American public.

Amid the harangue on NATO, Mr Trump attacked Germany’s economic policy as well as its refusal to be an effective full member of NATO. It is troubling that the Trump administration is showing such a basic misunderstanding of Germany’s economic policy. For example, Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, says Germany wants a weak euro, whereas the German government criticises the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing policy which holds down the euro’s value.

It is Trump’s style to attack anyone who stands up to him. Clearly, he enjoys no personal relationship with Angela Merkel. But is it worth sacrificing NATO’s effectiveness by concentrating on comparatively small amounts of money when the big picture of safety and security in Europe and the United States is at stake? Is it worth withdrawing from the Paris Accords for questionable political point scoring? Will America have to re-learn the lesson that isolation both weakens America at the bargaining table and is a policy of doom in a global world?

Years ago, there was a British television programme, Spitting Image. One of the regular skits depicted Ronald Reagan and the question, Is the President’s Brain Missing? I’m starting to wonder whether the same question should be asked about the current incumbent of the White House. Maybe we should all call out, “wake up and smell the Covfeffe.”