+ A
A -
New York Times
FOR many years now, successive US administrations have made no secret of their frustration with how little most NATO allies spend on their militaries, leaving the United States with a disproportionately large share of the bill for the joint defence. Jim Mattis, the new secretary of defence, recently expressed much the same frustration in remarks delivered in Brussels. It's a message the other 27 members of the alliance should pay careful attention to. But Mattis went further, warning that unless the allies paid up, the United States might reduce its commitment. This part of his speech in which he echoed his boss, President Donald Trump sent the wrong message at the wrong time.
These are fraught times for the Western alliance, which even after the Cold War remains a critical unifying bond among the democracies of North America and Europe, and whose members have worked together to confront terrorism in Afghanistan and promote stability in several Middle Eastern countries. Trump has called NATO"obsolete" for not confronting terrorism and has also suggested that the United States might not come to the support of NATO members that have not met their financial obligations. And now his defence secretary seems to be saying the same thing.
This is disheartening. Putting conditions on US support for an ally under attack is an abject departure from the core commitment of all NATO allies to come to the assistance of any member facing armed aggression. It is egregious at a time when the alliance is again facing an assertive and aggressive Russia, and especially worrisome given the questions over Trump's possible links to Moscow. And it is surprising coming from Mattis, a former Marine Corps general who held high military commands in the United States and in NATO and who has a far clearer notion than his boss of the importance and role of NATO. Mattis had argued forcefully in his confirmation hearings and in Brussels that the alliance is essential to US security and that Washington has not changed its attitude toward Russia.
Of course unity also means sharing the burden. Some time ago the allies agreed that this means each member should spend at least 2 percent of its gross domestic product on the military. The United States currently spends 3.61 percent, or $664 billion last year, although that figure includes US commitments in Asia and elsewhere. The only NATO members that meet the 2 percent benchmark are Britain, Poland, Estonia and Greece. Germany, by contrast, spends 1.1 percent; France 1.7 percent; and others even less. The laggards could at least meet their minimum obligations, and others could do more.
But unity also means a shared sense of purpose aimed at a common defence. Washington needs to do a lot more to convince NATO allies, especially those on Russia's periphery, that the United States has their back. Perhaps by the time Trump visits NATO in May he will have it right, and the alliance will once again present a unified front to President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Islamist radicals.
