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

One More Question with Fareed Zakaria

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria joined a Council audience on September 8 to discuss America's international leadership. Before the event, we asked him what question he wished the audience would ask.


Moore’s Mobs: Technology and the New Populism

As a source of both social and economic disruption, and as a platform of the elevation of popular grievances, the role of technology in fueling the new populism cannot be discounted.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

America’s Election and the World

After a summer of transformational change, the Council on Global Affairs is thrilled to kick off its fall season of insightful programming with a focus on real, impactful conversations on the all-important issue of America’s role in the world, writes Council President Ivo H. Daalder.



Global Cities and the Olympics

Hosting the Olympics is a shameful endeavor, says Council Research Associate Brandon Richardson. New infrastructure does not make up for complicity in human rights abuses.


| By Richard C. Longworth

Globalization’s Political Earthquake

Distinguished Fellow Richard Longworth argues that the Democratic and Republican parties are due for an epochal political transformation as globalization lays bare the divide between each party's "haves" and "have-nots."




Rio’s Global Moment

Despite all the challenges, hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics is an extraordinary moment for Rio de Janeiro, argues Juliana Kerr. The city has accomplished more in the years preparing to host the Olympics than it ever could have without being awarded this international honor, and the investments are crucial to its future as a global city.


| By Sara McElmurry

Rural Illinois’ Reason for Reform

Keenes, the nation's top producer of pumpkins, was the top Illinois city requesting H-2As—visas for temporary agricultural workers—in 2014, demonstrating the extent to which immigration is a lifeline across the rural Midwest.


What Will the 2016 Election Mean for Iran?

What would a presidential victory by Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton mean for the future of the Iran deal? Career ambassadors Thomas Pickering and James F. Jeffrey weigh in.




What Does the Iran Deal Mean for Nuclear Nonproliferation?

Today marks the the one-year anniversary of the Iran nuclear deal signing. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has complied with its initial obligations of reducing its stockpile of low-enriched uranium and undertaking revisions of its nuclear facilities. But what has the deal meant for nuclear nonproliferation? Career ambassadors James F. Jeffrey and Thomas Pickering weigh in.