FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

NATO’s Reluctant 2 Percenters

shutterstock_385614937

According to the 2014 US-NATO declaration of confrontation with Russia, all member countries are supposed to commit 2 percent of their GDP to military expenditure.  But as with most NATO plans and endeavours, this one has failed to meet expectations.

Following dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 there ceased to be any reason for existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.  The Pact had been formed in 1955 in response to inclusion of a rearmed West Germany in the US-NATO military alliance whose main objective was to:

“settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means . . . and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

By the end of 1991 all disputes between the US-European alliance and the Soviet Union had indeed been settled by peaceful means.  There had been a diplomatically-facilitated, non-violent end to the Cold War, and this was the ideal time for NATO members to begin to withdraw their offensively-tasked troops, missiles and aircraft from the hundreds of bases surrounding the borders of the former Soviet Union.  Politically, socially, militarily — and especially economically — the disbandment of NATO made sense.  It was a clumsy grouping that, for all the propaganda, was almost entirely dependent on the US for offensive capability.

But nothing of the sort happened, and the US encouraged expansion of NATO to include countries as close to Russia’s borders as could be managed.  These countries were anxious to be included in the Club, but there continues to be a problem about their reluctance to pay for the doubtful and decidedly expensive privilege of NATO membership.  As pointed out by US presidential candidate Donald Trump on 27 April :  apart from the US “only 4 of 28 other member countries . . . are spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defence” that is required by membership of the US-NATO anti-Russia military alliance.

And why should they spend more? NATO is an expensive circus that achieves nothing.  It A History of the Pakistani Army by Brian Cloughleyfailed in Afghanistan, which is now in chaos, and was humiliated by the catastrophic result of its absurd and totally counter-productive war on Libya in 2011.

Mr Trump’s four countries claiming to allocate 2 percent of their GDP to military spending include Greece, which the New York Times reported  on 3 May 2016 “could default on its debts this summer unless it receives more bailout aid” and whose military budget has 70 percent allocated to pay and pensions;  Estonia, which has a military budget allocation of 449 million euros (505 million dollars, which would pay for five US F-35 fighter aircraft); and Poland, whose “ultra-conservative . . . nationalist government,” as described by the Financial Times of London, is frantically trying to justify its lurch to right wing extremism.

Last of the these four charging horsemen is the United Kingdom, which has fiddled its military expenditure figures to obtain the answer wanted by its transatlantic master. As stated by Britain’s independent and objective House of Commons Library research staff :

“According to figures published by NATO on 22 June 2015, the UK is projected to spend 2.08% of its estimated GDP on defence during 2015/16. However, when reporting this figure to NATO, the UK included several items of expenditure which had not been included in previous years, including provisions for war pensions, assessed contributions to UN peacekeeping missions, pensions for retired civilian MoD personnel, and much of MoD’s £1.4 billion income . . .”

This was a confidence trick. The British government’s officials and their political masters approved a contemptible deception involving a shabby bookkeeping swindle. They were disgraceful, but that’s the way they are.  The bonus barons of Wall Street and the City of London would applaud their ingenuity. (British civil servants were given 23 million pounds (33 million dollars) in bonuses in 2014-2015.)

Mr Trump is quite as unscrupulous as any British politician or bonus-basking civil servant, although perhaps more vulgar than most of them, but he’s struck the right note with his observations about the uselessness of NATO and its mini-spending members.  He promised to “call for a summit with our NATO allies” in which “we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges.”

Then came Mr Trump’s killer blow to the aspirations of the leaders of US-NATO alliance when he said “we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure – grown out of the Cold War – to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism.”

The phrase “outdated mission and structure” has not as yet produced a response from the senior management of NATO in Washington or Brussels, and this is not surprising, because Mr Trump has torn away the façade of fabrication that cloaked the fundamental lack of reason for the group’s existence.  He has shown, as in the Hans Andersen fable, that the Emperor has no clothes.

Mr Trump realises that Russia has no reason whatever to go to war with its neighbours.  He acknowledges that there are problems — caused by the aggressive expansion of NATO’s military bases right up to Russia’s borders — but believes that “an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible.  Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.”  And it would be economically and socially beneficial for Europe and the rest of the world.

But Trump’s opponents, such as the Pentagon’s deputy secretary, Robert O Work,  disagree with his summation.  Mr Work was quoted by the Wall Street Journal on 29 April as declaring that “The Russians have been doing a lot of snap exercises right up against the borders, with a lot of troops. From our perspective, we could argue this is extraordinarily provocative behaviour.”

This is deadly serious stuff — but you’ve got to laugh at fools like Work, who believe (or perhaps pretend to believe), that Russia has no right to conduct military exercises within its sovereign territory, while the United States increases the number of US combat troops in countries as close to Russia’s borders as it can manage and carries out deliberately provocative, coat-trailing air-sea spying missions along these borders.

Meanwhile the vast majority of European members of NATO are bearing in mind that the original objective of NATO was “to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,”  which is an excellent reason for all of them refusing to spend 2 percent of their GDP on supporting Washington’s confrontational antics with Russia, which wants only to increase trade, cooperation, tourism and general social contact with its European neighbours.

The warmongers in Washington and Brussels shudder when they hear Trump declare that “we want to bring peace to the world. Too much destruction out there, too many destructive weapons,” because they don’t want peace.  But Europe’s reluctant NATO members seem to agree with The Donald.

A version of this article appeared in Strategic Culture Foundation on May 9. 

More articles by:

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.

Weekend Edition
June 22, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Karl Grossman
Star Wars Redux: Trump’s Space Force
Andrew Levine
Strange Bedfellows
Jeffrey St. Clair
Intolerable Opinions in an Intolerant Time
Paul Street
None of Us are Free, One of Us is Chained
Edward Curtin
Slow Suicide and the Abandonment of the World
Celina Stien-della Croce
The ‘Soft Coup’ and the Attack on the Brazilian People 
James Bovard
Pro-War Media Deserve Slamming, Not Sainthood
Louisa Willcox
My Friend Margot Kidder: Sharing a Love of Dogs, the Wild, and Speaking Truth to Power
David Rosen
Trump’s War on Sex
Mir Alikhan
Trump, North Korea, and the Death of IR Theory
Christopher Jones
Neoliberalism, Pipelines, and Canadian Political Economy
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Why is Tariq Ramadan Imprisoned?
Robert Fantina
MAGA, Trump Style
Linn Washington Jr.
Justice System Abuses Mothers with No Apologies
Martha Rosenberg
Questions About a Popular Antibiotic Class
Ida Audeh
A Watershed Moment in Palestinian History: Interview with Jamal Juma’
Edward Hunt
The Afghan War is Killing More People Than Ever
Geoff Dutton
Electrocuting Oral Tradition
Don Fitz
When Cuban Polyclinics Were Born
Ramzy Baroud
End the Wars to Halt the Refugee Crisis
Ralph Nader
The Unsurpassed Power trip by an Insuperable Control Freak
Lara Merling
The Pain of Puerto Ricans is a Profit Source for Creditors
James Jordan
Struggle and Defiance at Colombia’s Feast of Pestilence
Tamara Pearson
Indifference to a Hellish World
Kathy Kelly
Hungering for Nuclear Disarmament
Jessicah Pierre
Celebrating the End of Slavery, With One Big Asterisk
Rohullah Naderi
The Ever-Shrinking Space for Hazara Ethnic Group
Binoy Kampmark
Leaving the UN Human Rights Council
Nomi Prins 
How Trump’s Trade Wars Could Lead to a Great Depression
Robert Fisk
Can Former Lebanese MP Mustafa Alloush Turn Even the Coldest of Middle Eastern Sceptics into an Optimist?
Franklin Lamb
Could “Tough Love” Salvage Lebanon?
George Ochenski
Why Wild Horse Island is Still Wild
Ann Garrison
Nikki Haley: Damn the UNHRC and the Rest of You Too
Jonah Raskin
What’s Hippie Food? A Culinary Quest for the Real Deal
Raouf Halaby
Give It Up, Ya Mahmoud
Brian Wakamo
We Subsidize the Wrong Kind of Agriculture
Patrick Higgins
Children in Cages Create Glimmers of the Moral Reserve
Patrick Bobilin
What Does Optimism Look Like Now?
Don Qaswa
A Reduction of Economic Warfare and Bombing Might Help 
Robin Carver
Why We Still Need Pride Parades
Jill Richardson
Immigrant Kids are Suffering From Trauma That Will Last for Years
Thomas Mountain
USA’s “Soft” Coup in Ethiopia?
Jim Hightower
Big Oil’s Man in Foreign Policy
Louis Proyect
Civilization and Its Absence
David Yearsley
Midsummer Music Even the Nazis Couldn’t Stamp Out
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail