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 Iain Whitaker

How the Council is Responding to the Shutdown

For an organization devoted to advancing the connections between Chicago and the world, the arrival of pandemic coronavirus has been as jarring as it is surreal. But the Chicago Council is adjusting to a new way of working.



| By George Friedman, Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: The 2020s and the Rebuilding of America

Geopolitical forecaster George Friedman joins Deep Dish to examine the institutional and socioeconomic cycles of upheaval that have rebuilt and reinvented American life in the past and explains why he’s still optimistic about the future.



| By Charlotte Howard , Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Will the Biggest Oil Deal in History Work

Charlotte Howard, The Economist’s New York bureau chief and energy and commodities editor, joins Deep Dish to explain the economic and political implications of the new OPEC+ agreement and how it could affect the future of oil.


| By Steven Erlanger, Brian Hanson

Deep Dish Special Edition: COVID-19 Lessons from Europe

The New York Times’ Steven Erlanger, reporting from Brussels, joins Deep Dish to examine how European nations are learning from the COVID-19 devastation in Italy and Spain — and what the pandemic might mean for European solidarity in the long-term.


| By Kim Lane Sheppele , Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: The Demise of Democracy in Hungary

Princeton University’s Kim Scheppele joins Deep Dish to explain why the failure of one democracy should matter to every democracy and examine whether Hungary could have ripple effects on other political systems in Europe and beyond.





| By Karin Larson

A Future for the European Union After the Pandemic?

With borders now closed and countries like Italy in an increasingly restrictive nation-wide lockdown under the threat of the novel coronavirus, Europe is facing a crisis likely unparalleled since the end of World War II. This compounds an already disruptive year, following the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and increasingly calls into question the continued relevance of the political and economic bloc.