FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

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.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
August 16, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Uncle Sam was Born Lethal
Jennifer Matsui
La Danse Mossad: Robert Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein
Rob Urie
Neoliberalism and Environmental Calamity
Stuart A. Newman
The Biotech-Industrial Complex Gets Ready to Define What is Human
Nick Alexandrov
Prevention Through Deterrence: The Strategy Shared by the El Paso Shooter and the U.S. Border Patrol
Jeffrey St. Clair
The First Dambuster: a Coyote Tale
Eric Draitser
“Bernie is Trump” (and other Corporate Media Bullsh*t)
Nick Pemberton
Is White Supremacism a Mental Illness?
Jim Kavanagh
Dead Man’s Hand: The Impeachment Gambit
Andrew Levine
Have They No Decency?
David Yearsley
Kind of Blue at 60
Ramzy Baroud
Manifestos of Hate: What White Terrorists Have in Common
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The War on Nature
Martha Rosenberg
Catch and Hang Live Chickens for Slaughter: $11 an Hour Possible!
Yoav Litvin
Israel Fears a Visit by Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib
Neve Gordon
It’s No Wonder the Military likes Violent Video Games, They Can Help Train Civilians to Become Warriors
Susan Miller
That Debacle at the Border is Genocide
Ralph Nader
With the Boeing 737 MAX Grounded, Top Boeing Bosses Must Testify Before Congress Now
Victor Grossman
Warnings, Ancient and Modern
Meena Miriam Yust - Arshad Khan
The Microplastic Threat
Kavitha Muralidharan
‘Today We Seek Those Fish in Discovery Channel’
Louis Proyect
The Vanity Cinema of Quentin Tarantino
Bob Scofield
Tit For Tat: Baltimore Takes Another Hit, This Time From Uruguay
Nozomi Hayase
The Prosecution of Julian Assange Affects Us All
Ron Jacobs
People’s Music for the Soul
John Feffer
Is America Crazy?
Jonathan Power
Russia and China are Growing Closer Again
John W. Whitehead
Who Inflicts the Most Gun Violence in America? The U.S. Government and Its Police Forces
Justin Vest
ICE: You’re Not Welcome in the South
Jill Richardson
Race is a Social Construct, But It Still Matters
Dean Baker
The NYT Gets the Story on Automation and Inequality Completely Wrong
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Retains Political Control After New US Coercive Measures
Gary Leupp
MSNBC and the Next Election: Racism is the Issue (and Don’t Talk about Socialism)
R. G. Davis
Paul Krassner: Investigative Satirist
Negin Owliaei
Red State Rip Off: Cutting Worker Pay by $1.5 Billion
Christopher Brauchli
The Side of Trump We Rarely See
Curtis Johnson
The Unbroken Line: From Slavery to the El Paso Shooting
Jesse Jackson
End Endless War and Bring Peace to Korea
Adolf Alzuphar
Diary: What About a New City Center?
Tracey L. Rogers
Candidates Need a Moral Vision
Nicky Reid
I Was a Red Flag Kid
John Kendall Hawkins
The Sixties Victory Lap in an Empty Arena
Stephen Cooper
Tony Chin’s Unstoppable, Historic Career in Music
Charles R. Larson
Review: Bruno Latour’s Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime
Elizabeth Keyes
Haiku Fighting
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail