January 25, 2019 | By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Read: Will Trump Withdraw from NATO?

 

On a recent trip to Europe, people kept coming back to me with one question: Will the United States really withdraw from NATO this year? As a former US Ambassador to NATO, the question was as shocking to me as it was to those who asked it.

The questions followed a news report that during 2018 President Trump had repeatedly told aides he wanted to withdraw from NATO. These advisers had been able to dissuade him from acting on his desires. But now they are gone.

John Kelly left the White House in December. Jim Mattis resigned, citing in part his failure to convince the president of his “core belief” that “our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships.” Since then the top officials responsible for NATO and Europe in the Defense and State Departments announced they were departing as well.

The rumors and resignations were deeply disquieting to America’s European allies, all of whom believed that strong ties across the Atlantic were absolutely vital to their security, prosperity, and freedom. Thus, the question: Will Trump really pull the US out of NATO?

My honest answer was that I didn’t know. Trump’s instinct would be to act on his desire to withdraw. He has long castigated NATO as “obsolete.” As long as thirty years ago, he’d called on allies to pay the United States “hundreds of billions of dollars” for defending them. As president, he failed for months to endorse Article 5, the fundamental NATO commitment to come to an ally’s defense if attacked. And he had gone twice to Brussels, not to celebrate the strength of the Alliance, but to disparage allies for not doing enough.

All of this suggested not only that the news report was accurate, but that 2019 might well be the year Trump would make good on the threat, made at last year’s NATO Summit, for the US to “go its own way.”

But while there is reason to worry, there are also reasons to believe the threat will remain just that. The American public is very supportive of NATO, with three-quarters of the public saying that the US commitment to NATO should remain the same or be increased. And more than 50 percent of Americans would support the use of US troops to defend NATO allies like the Baltic states if they were attacked.

That public sentiment is matched on Capitol Hill. Earlier this week, the House voted 357-22 to express support for NATO and to prevent the use of any funds by the president to withdraw from NATO. A similar bipartisan bill is awaiting a Senate vote and, if passed by a similarly veto-proof margin, that would make it difficult for Trump actually to withdraw from NATO.

As important, the US military commitment to NATO not only remains strong, but continues to grow. The well-funded European Deterrence Initiative provides for a rotating presence of a US combat brigade in Eastern Europe, a continuing presence of US troops in Poland and the Baltic States, as well as a growing Marine presence in northern Norway, near the Russian border. US navy ships and combat aircraft are patrolling the seas and skies over Europe and the Atlantic. All this underscores an unwavering US military commitment to the most important alliance in history.

To be sure, that commitment could be solidified if Europe itself were to spend more on its defense—a frequent demand not only of Trump but of all his predecessors, going back to Harry Truman. In 2014, all NATO allies committed to spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense by 2024. They should do so as soon as possible—not just because US leaders ask them, but because their own peace and freedom requires it.

For 70 years, NATO has kept the peace in Europe and across the Atlantic. It unites 900 million people in 29 democratic countries, who together account for nearly half of global GDP and a third of global trade. That’s a historic achievement, one that compared to the alternative of war and destruction requires only a small, continuing investment. Now is the time to build on that grand accomplishment, not to throw it away.

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.

Archive

| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads – The Value of NATO

"The bottom line is that NATO today remains an essential tool in advancing both American and transatlantic interests” writes Council President Ivo Daalder. “The challenge moving forward is to ensure that the trust that underpins the alliance is not unraveled by mixed messages and uncertainty coming out of Washington." This Weeks’ Reads explores the current state of the transatlantic Alliance and some of the internal and external challenges it confronts. 


| By Brian Hanson, Salomón Chertorivski

City Diplomacy from Mexico City to Chicago

Mayors have to take care of their populations, and sometimes that means going to other countries. A delegation of Mexican mayors from Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Juarez came to Chicago to conduct city-to-city diplomacy during an "emergency time" in US-Mexico relations. Salomón Chertorivski, secretary of economic development of Mexico City, sat down with the Council's Brian Hanson to discuss what they hoped to achieve.



| By Brian Hanson, Cécile Shea

Deep Dish: US Intervention And Our Divided National Soul

Syria, Libya, and Iraq are the latest in a series of contentious US interventions. Forced to choose between leaving other countries alone or trying to run the world—Americans choose both, says author and journalist Stephen Kinzer. On this week's Deep Dish, Kinzer and career diplomat Cécile Shea discuss intervention done well, done poorly, and how the intervention debate has endured since the Spanish-American war. Subscribe now. 


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week’s Reads – Why Process Matters

The resignation of Michael Flynn as national security advisor "reveals an important truth, which all Presidents learn sooner or later, namely that when it comes to policy, process matters," says Council President Ivo Daalder. This Weeks Reads take a look at the major security issues facing the United States and provide some insights into the Trump administration’s approach to managing them.


| By Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Don't Go to Russia on Your Knees

A flare-up of violence in eastern Ukraine following a call between presidents Putin and Trump has many wondering what’s next in the highly combustible situation. On this week's Deep Dish podcast, former US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst joins Russia expert Samuel Charap to analyze Putin’s goals and the likely outcome of a shift in Eurasian geopolitics.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads – Culture and Conflict

In the early 1990's, famous political scientist Samuel Huntington posited a thesis that the major source of conflict in the post-Cold War world would not occur over ideological or economic fault lines, but cultural ones. Indeed, today we are beset with crises in the West and around the world—but to what degree is culture the cause? This Weeks Reads from Council President Ivo Daalder explores the ways in which culture is influencing our new era of global politics.


| By Kristin Ljungkvist

The Global City as Global Security Leader

The walled city once symbolized security. In these globalized times, leaders may build airports rather than walls, yet cities – not nations – once again increasingly stand on the front line of security. 


One More Question with Richard Haass

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, says the world is entering an era of disarray. We asked him how he saw the role of think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week’s Reads - China Rising?

The coming months are likely to be a volatile and unpredictable time for US-China relations and for each country’s position within the global world order. This Week’s Reads shed light on the issues and dynamics at play in China’s potential rise.


| By Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Trump Immigration Ban – Making America Safe or ISIS Great?

President Trump’s executive order suspending new refugee admissions and blocking travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries has sparked protests across the United States and shocked the world. Ian Tuttle says Trump’s order is mostly right on substance but wrong on rollout, while Robert Pape says Trump is making ISIS great again. Listen to this episode of Deep Dish to hear two leading voices describe what’s at stake.


| By Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Trump's Power in True Trade Wars

International trade was a centerpiece of President Trump’s campaign. This week's Deep Dish podcast discusses what powers Trump has to change trade policy and what it would look like if he or another nation initiated a true trade war. 


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads – Populism in Power

On both sides of the Atlantic, we have entered a new and uncertain era – one of nationalism and populism in power. This Week's Reads examine major speeches by President Trump and UK Prime Minister May and provide some perspectives on the shifting roles of United States and Britain in global politics. 


One More Question with Sarah Kendzior

Globe and Mail columnist Sarah Kendzior joined an expert panel at the Council on January 19 to discuss media and democracy in a post-truth era. We asked her for the best and worst case scenarios on how the media landscape may evolve—watch her response.