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

Podium Notes: Happy Birthday Illinois

Illinois has had an outsize influence on the world, and on the occasion of the bicentennial it seems worthy of a recap.



| By Rory Stewart, Sebastian Mallaby

Deep Dish: Brexit Heads to Parliament

Now that EU leaders have accepted the Brexit deal, it's up to Parliament to decide what happens next. Rory Stewart and Sebastian Mallaby join Phil Levy to discuss.



| By Simon Curtis

Global Cities in the International System: A New Era of Governance

Nation-states need quickly to realize the potential of global cities, and take steps to empower them to meet the global challenges of the twenty-first century. They should allow them more fiscal autonomy and give them a louder, more influential voice in the deliberations of international organizations.


| By Robert Muggah, Sheila Foster

It's Time for Cities to Flex Their Soft Power

Cities, not nation-states, are the dominant unit of human organization in the twenty-first century. Humanity has shifted from a predominantly rural to urban species in a startlingly short period of time. The world today is stitched together by thousands of small, medium, and large cities—including 31 mega-cities, depending on how you define them—that are dramatically transforming our political, social, and economic relations. Yet, despite the centrality of cities in modern life and to resolving critical global challenges, our international affairs are still dominated by nation-states. This status quo is no longer acceptable.



| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads: The US-China Collision at APEC

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit became a flashpoint in what's now the most significant great power clash since the end of the Cold War. “China and the United States hijacked the APEC spirit,” one diplomat said.


This Week's Reads - A Return to the Interwar Era

French President Emmanuel Macron's speech Sunday sounded more like desperation than hope, afraid that we may have already turned the corner into a world full of nationalism, populism, and competition.